I don't remember why, but clicking "Show ignored content" in this thread, shows it was the right decision.
That's why I put him on ignore so long ago, almost any time I bother to check one of his posts, it's the same old "self hate" trip he's always pushing.
He sure is triggered AF that people are slighting his demi-god though, it's a bit funny.
WOW! Have you any idea what you just did to me. Here I have spent countless hours carefully laying out the truth to you about how you hate yourself so as to make it possible to have the conviction to face that reality fearlessly and heal those ancient woulds and you tell me that all that effort was for nought because you had me on ignore. "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child." All that time I spent trying to tell you would don't want to hear what I have to say and you ignored me. Say it isn't so. Ostrich with head in sand still have ass exposed, Confucius says.That's why I put him on ignore so long ago, almost any time I bother to check one of his posts, it's the same old "self hate" trip he's always pushing.
He sure is triggered AF that people are slighting his demi-god though, it's a bit funny.
The bully and his group:I don't remember why, but clicking "Show ignored content" in this thread, shows it was the right decision.
I decided to watch the debate in which what I saw was two individuals presenting differing points of view with dignity and clarity. The way they differed is old hat and immaterial to me as they both hold as central tenets the notion that human life can be better. I personally would feel just fine facing forward in an elevator in which born of them stood facing back. I might even consider facing to the side as I was surprised once by an elevator that could open on two ends depending on the floor.Yes, this is the core of JPs argumentation. He did this with Matt Dillahunty when Matt was talking about well-being and the presupposition that life is preferable to death for the living from the standpoint of well-being. It was just silly. There's also a good illustration of his style at the beginning of that Some More News video mentioned above where he strawman's the shit out of the climate change argument. It's possible that he has valuable things to say in some area that he legitimately knows something about, but given his ready willingness to just abandon all pretense of ingenuousness and good faith I doubt it.
In the section of the debate I was referring to I saw Jordan repeatedly interrupting Matt to disagree with a part of what he said, where after he had to repeatedly back of to let Matt actually finish what he was saying to make his point. It was not dignified, it was insulting. Continually interrupting to disagree with partial sentences is a rhetorical tactic Jordan uses to prevent people from presenting their arguments. And the first sentence of your second paragraph you once again project your imagined bullshit on me. Perhaps when you listen to Peterson you hear what you want to hear because it makes you feel intelligent. That cool with you?I decided to watch the debate in which what I saw was two individuals presenting differing points of view with dignity and clarity. The way they differed is old hat and immaterial to me as they both hold as central tenets the notion that human life can be better. I personally would feel just fine facing forward in an elevator in which born of them stood facing back. I might even consider facing to the side as I was surprised once by an elevator that could open on two ends depending on the floor.
Perhaps when I listen to Peterson talking with other people I actually think about what is being said rather that looking for why one or the other is wrong like a radical leftist, I mean a programmed bigot would. Neither of them seem to have grasped that the origin of evil lies in the acquisition of guilt as as a consequence of verbal putdowns as children via having directly having relived and seen that all of it was lies and the subsequent altered reality provided my erecting a self flattering ego as a shield to hide behind.
I just saw he's been with the Daily Wire since 2022. I wonder how much he had to do with Candace Owens leaving. A google search shows some animosity between the 2. Not that I care about either.SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP
Here is Peterson reduced to his intrinsic value that is zilch
Do you hear me talking about what an asshole Matt was, etc. Did I imply he was dishonest with himself with Peterson or the audience. It was profoundly obvious to me the man had a deeply thought out and meticulously analyzed philosophical point of view. Listening for me was a pleasure, thought provoking and intellectually stimulating. I can't understand the rush to defend him against against some terrible injustice Peterson did in silencing him. He struck me as profoundly self confident as able to take care of himself. The wonderful character of that debate, in my opinion, was that after much clarification of where each was coming from to the other they got to the nub of their differences and at that point Peterson became emotionally animated. Peterson was challenging Matt passionately at that point and Matt pushed back. It struck me that Peterson suddenly saw he went overboard and backed off immediately. Your view of what happened was not what I saw and I let you know that and I provided reasons as to why I that might be. You didn't care for my theories.In the section of the debate I was referring to I saw Jordan repeatedly interrupting Matt to disagree with a part of what he said, where after he had to repeatedly back of to let Matt actually finish what he was saying to make his point. It was not dignified, it was insulting. Continually interrupting to disagree with partial sentences is a rhetorical tactic Jordan uses to prevent people from presenting their arguments. And the first sentence of your second paragraph you once again project your imagined bullshit on me. Perhaps when you listen to Peterson you hear what you want to hear because it makes you feel intelligent. That cool with you?
Why? In my opinion that opinion if accurate attributed would be clearly wrong in my opinion, but why can't a person be wrong in one area, even wildly wrong and not maybe have something wise to say in another area. As I see it, Trump fits a clinical scientific definition of a psychopath. Could it be that you actually have to be medically pronounced to be one for the title to be affirmed? If Peterson were to make that claim to me I would first off want to know his reasoning.Anyone claiming that loses credibility IMMEDIATELY. Like whatever comes out of his mouth after that is just BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Oh my God you just used the term radical left diddums to you.
I thought you had mistyped this but you really mean it, don't you? I think JP said a number of moronic things but you want me to play devil's advocate with multiple moronic positions.Please mount a defense of everything Peterson said to which you disagree. Take his side in a way the indicates you understand where he was coming from. Start stating the positives of arguing as an ex-atheist.
That's why I put him on ignore so long ago, almost any time I bother to check one of his posts, it's the same old "self hate" trip he's always pushing.
He sure is triggered AF that people are slighting his demi-god though, it's a bit funny.
Why do you keep sucking Peterson off?The points Peterson makes here, over which you and the guy in the video ridicule Peterson for making, are perfectly obvious, true, and simple, the only issue being that you and the video producer are too full of yourselves to see that. Because of your fundamental ignorance and the nasty reactions the threat to your egos caused by exposure to anybody who actually has something real to say, the only reaction you and he are capable of is to laugh like hyenas. And the guy in the video is making a living doing that, like Fox news attracts the eyeballs of a different class of entitled fools making money from ads. With regard to the requirement to be in possession of an uncommitted and open mind when tackling questions that go to the heart of the search for philosophical meaning, know it all minds like your own are left in the dust. It's hilarious to watch. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect. Pay close attention to the warning contained in the definition as I would bet you think you are being called stupid.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. It was first described by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. Some researchers also include the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.
Perhaps you would now like to engage me in a pissing contest as to who is more humble. You won't stand a chance. I know far far better than you how worthless we feel.
Yes JP got famous by claiming that law compels speech, but it doesn't compel speech. It was just his lack of critical thinking and the tendency of the defective conservative brain to always make themselves the victim.And you don't see that as a problem? Look, I can fully understand closing the door on people coming to your door selling some religion or other. We have limited time and attention and discriminate as to where we want to put our resources. You know from past experiences what was rewarding to you and what was a waste of time and bases on that you have formed judgments based on a consistency of stereotypes. You could say you have a bullshit meter. Well so do I. What you have done here and in my opinion, according to my bullshit meter is concluded on a brief exposure to Peterson judgments about him you had prior to listening to him. So you didn't hear what he was saying but were listening to your past experience. This is also what bigots do. When a white racist looks at a person of color, they are not looking at that person as an individual to to all the shit ass beliefs of the bigots who told them what to believe. And every white racist bigot is of the opinion that what they believe about people of people of color is the absolute truth.
So, while you are free to think as you wish, the certainty with which you state what are just opinions are worthless to me. Why would I want to buy into someone expressing opinions as if they were fact while making no effort whatsoever to back them up with example. You look to me to be both intellectually lazy and egotistically opinionated.
Please mount a defense of everything Peterson said to which you disagree. Take his side in a way the indicates you understand where he was coming from. Start stating the positives of arguing as an ex-atheist.
More indications that your stereotyping were triggered.
So he does not mind laws that prevent hate speech but will object to forced speech being ordered to use what he believes are not proper gender terms. Surely you would not mind being forced to say I am right.
Oh my God you just used the term radical left diddums to you.
Is that so. And why would I give a shit. I notice that whenever an argument requires a modicum of brain power to engage in many start screaming pseudo-intellectual bull shit. Every time I see somebody use the term pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Diddums to that.
Yes yes, I am also open to persuasive argument and naturally I'm a world authority on what one should look like, I have 429 precise rules you will have to meet before you can qualify and being able to engage in one.
Try watching a few clips where is is reported that Peterson takes down this and that number of liberals, all as much bull shit as the ones that portray him as triggered or being handed his ass.
Yes JP got famous by claiming that law compels speech, but it doesn't compel speech. It was just his lack of critical thinking and the tendency of the defective conservative brain to always make themselves the victim.
"I don't want to call that person xi and you can't make me!" You are right we can't make you but you can always use their name in place of their preferred pronouns. What you CANNOT do is continue calling them "he" when they have repeatedly asked you not to. You'd think this would be self evident, Jordan.
I didn't rush to defend Matt, where did you get that from? I brought up the debate as an example of Jordan's rhetorical approach. The fact that Matt is able to handle himself with someone who repeatedly interrupts him mid-thought and strawman's his arguments before he's even had a chance to finish a sentence is a credit to Matt. But that doesn't make Jordan's rhetoric sound.Do you hear me talking about what an asshole Matt was, etc. Did I imply he was dishonest with himself with Peterson or the audience. It was profoundly obvious to me the man had a deeply thought out and meticulously analyzed philosophical point of view. Listening for me was a pleasure, thought provoking and intellectually stimulating. I can't understand the rush to defend him against against some terrible injustice Peterson did in silencing him. He struck me as profoundly self confident as able to take care of himself. The wonderful character of that debate, in my opinion, was that after much clarification of where each was coming from to the other they got to the nub of their differences and at that point Peterson became emotionally animated. Peterson was challenging Matt passionately at that point and Matt pushed back. It struck me that Peterson suddenly saw he went overboard and backed off immediately. Your view of what happened was not what I saw and I let you know that and I provided reasons as to why I that might be. You didn't care for my theories.
My intention is to tell you exactly what I see without regard to how you react. If you don't like what I say and feel insulted by it, you are free to reject it. You are free to attack me with the notion I hear what I hear because it makes me feel intelligent. My opinion is that I may be able to listen to points of view that are challenging because I paid an enormous sum for my education and feel that I got what I paid for, a commensurate level.
My intention is not to put you down and would complement you on your forthright willingness to tell me what you think, but won't because you might see it as manipulative. I am what I am like Popeye.
You won't be able to understand his reasoning because he has resorted to saying gibberish in his post-Russia interviews. There cannot be any valid reasoning for supporting a very well-known liar.If Peterson were to make that claim to me I would first off want to know his reasoning.
I am all for eat the chicken and spit out the bones but JP is more like carp that's been sitting in the sun for a few days.lol I knew Moonbeam would come rushing to JPs defense
Indeed I did and intentionally. I don’t consciously intend treat people to the kind of language I used on you in that post but I wanted you to feel what it is like to be on the receiving end of it. My intention was to treat you with the same kind of verbal nastiness with which you addressed me. I tried to show you my version of what I think is your style.@Moonbeam
I had one requirement, and you did not manage to fulfil it. Instead, while accusing me of being an imbecile, triggered and having a worthless opinion, you've hyperbolically ranted at length as well as acting like a child here:
Maybe you should stop projecting your triggered-ness and take a step back.
Allegedly moronic things. There you go assuming your personal opinion as factual.I thought you had mistyped this but you really mean it, don't you? I think JP said a number of moronic things but you want me to play devil's advocate with multiple moronic positions.
All your interpretation of a reality I do not share and filled with mind numbing certainty.Let's take the "ex-atheist" comment as an example. If someone who evidently considers themself to be a respectable intellectual trots out a line like this, I want to hear some justification for it, because atheism as a belief is far more aligned with the universe as it has been scientifically quantified so far than theism, which is a belief that relies on the absence of evidence and therefore doesn't last very long in rational debate.
Would it be fair to say that a person raised in a religious faith and ceases to believe in the god of that faith for lack of proof that god exists is an Atheist? And if subsequently the person in studying neuroscience, psychological states, mystical experiences, myth, totalitarianism etc and experiences a growing suspicion that something in his or her thinking is amiss, undertakes to find out what it is and begins to see that what he or she thought god was isn’t known by the scientific method used by modern western people but by a far more sophisticated science and far more psychological science that gives birth to a religious experience and a richer more inwardly fulfilling life that his personal attitude as an Atheist precluded him or her from having, and as a consequence of this growth in understanding ceases to believe that there is a proof of god of another kind, could that person then say he used to be an Atheist?His first video is 13 minutes long, and he trotted that line out as if it required no explanation and simply moved on, which IMO is not a position deserving of any respect, nor is there anything to defend because he's provided no basis to defend it. If he had declared that he's an ex-atheist because he buttered some toast that morning and he beheld a depiction of Jesus on the toast that spoke to him, that would have been at least some basis!
Because you believe that you know what constitute a sound basis and have not examined and seen both the arrogance and the falseness of that assumed belief, yes you are a believer, you will remain in an invisible cage. In fact what is dearer than life to you is that cage because you put yourself there not to imprison yourself but to meet the world out.If I wanted to declare my ex-atheism and desired for my opinion to be a respectable one, I would have spent at least 13 minutes justifying that one opinion. Less than 50 seconds after throwing "I'm not an atheist" into the mix, he's going on about how "modern people are deeply materialistic", then he talks like he knows how people 400-500 years ago thought. Again, no basis.