On the Tyranny of the Majority in posting on a Left-leaning forum:

[woolfe9998]

well .. i don't really like to defend JP because, as i've said, he's terribad at getting his point across, or even interacting with his interlocutor, but i can say that the science is on point.

His "science?" He literally told Joe Rogan that "climate change types" think that climate change is "based on everything." But "climate models are not based on everything, therefore climate models are bad." I didn't see Joe Rogan as debating him at all or having any vested interest. Rogan is not a liberal. He was facing a friendly inquisitor.

Since he makes a completely incoherent straw man argument in relation to climate change, I'd say he is the one who puts politics above science. He knows basically nothing about the topic. It's way outside his area of expertise, which is psychology. The only reason for him to weigh in on that subject and make such a ludicrous argument is that he has aligned himself with the political right in this modern culture war we are experiencing and hence has decided to be a contrarion to every position taken by the political left. In any event, whatever his motive, it has nothing to do with science.

 

[DigDog]

His "science?" He literally told Joe Rogan that "climate change types" think that climate change is "based on everything." But "climate models are not based on everything, therefore climate models are bad." I didn't see Joe Rogan as debating him at all or having any vested interest. Rogan is not a liberal. He was facing a friendly inquisitor.

Since he makes a completely incoherent straw man argument in relation to climate change, I'd say he is the one who puts politics above science. He knows basically nothing about the topic. It's way outside his area of expertise, which is psychology. The only reason for him to weigh in on that subject and make such a ludicrous argument is that he has aligned himself with the political right in this modern culture war we are experiencing and hence has decided to be a contrarion to every position taken by the political left. In any event, whatever his motive, it has nothing to do with science.

don't know, never seen the video, never heard him talk about climate change. i refer to the other 99% of his content ALTHOUGH i suspect that Peterson is capable of understanding climate change and this is likely a case of misunderstanding.
Just to be clear .. Ben Shapiro is a moron who believes in angels, but most of his anti-trans statements are solid.

 

[Pontius Dilate]

DigDog...

• ... believes the Some More News video is about a guy who can't understand a word of what Peterson says.
• ... doesn't like to defend JP, but can say that his science is on point.
• ... doesn't know about this particular subject.
• ... hasn't watched the video.
• ... has never heard JP talk about climate change.
• ... suspects that Peterson is capable of understanding climate change.
• ... suspects the video he hasn't watched is likely a case of misunderstanding.
• ... believes most of Ben Shapiro's anti-trans statements are solid.

I've got another video for you, DigDog.

 

[DigDog]

DigDog...

• ... believes the Some More News video is about a guy who can't understand a word of what Peterson says.
• ... doesn't like to defend JP, but can say that his science is on point.
• ... doesn't know about this particular subject.
• ... hasn't watched the video.
• ... has never heard JP talk about climate change.
• ... suspects that Peterson is capable of understanding climate change.
• ... suspects the video he hasn't watched is likely a case of misunderstanding.
• ... believes most of Ben Shapiro's anti-trans statements are solid.

I've got another video for you, DigDog.

guys guys

this is a you problem. We don't need Youtube videos to decide what is and what isn't the truth.

 

[mikeymikec]

look, this isn't going anywhere and i'm not gonna get entangled into this discussion.
You can easily read his educational history online, from various sources of your own choosing.

Look, if you want to fanboy over Jordan Peterson and think he's the most super-duper intelligent human being and anyone who believes otherwise must be some kind of an idiot, that's your business. But this is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss JP (which will inevitably include arguments critical of him) then don't discuss him. The middle ground of trying to convince other people that JP's opinions are worth a shit while avoiding having to discuss said opinions just makes you look like a gullible moron AND an intolerant fanatic.

I have no idea whether JP once upon a time stayed in his lane and only talked about topics that he had some expertise in, but I'll assume that was the case for this point: I once looked up to Richard Dawkins until he spent his recent-ish years espousing some really strange, fucked-up and douchebag views on various topics. If someone outs themself as an idiot repeatedly, it's OK to let your feelings for them go. It's also perfectly reasonable to be happy to defend some views of a person but limit your defence to those views.

Re your latest post: Stop deflecting, this has nothing to do with location. Someone else has already taken the time to formulate and substantiate the argument against taking JP seriously, that's all there is to it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Definition of climate

1: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditionsHis physician advised moving to a warmer climate.
2a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitationa healthful climatea warm, humid climate
b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoorsa climate-controlled office
3: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : ATMOSPHERE a climate of fear, a climate of suspicion, the cultural climate of the 1960s

The climate, then, is what is chosen to measure and what can be chosen is anything including everything.

Now if you make a living ridiculing others for points they make in a dialog with others on the internet you will look for easy marks. You yourself are not at that point being public ally picked apart. Your job is to do a hatchet job to feed the filthy contempt of political partisans, in this case liberals for, here, mainly Peterson the lobster man.

I mean, come on, climate is everything? How absurd can you be and especially if you discount what climate actually is. Let’s never consider that the study of climate can include every condition under the sun but we all, in our stupid need to shame the bad people, know what we really mean. We mean a small minded number of things.

What we need to do then is watch these learned character assassins in an interview with others explain their own world views, provided they have any world view at all rather than making a buck and getting ego flattering attention, and then anybody with an ounce of wit can tear them apart with equal facility.

There is quit a difference, I would say in explaining a deeply reasoned intellectual structure erected in the mind of the creator over countless years of struggle and some asshole who has time to view a spontaneous explanation of it in an interview and pick it apart. But all manner of imbeciles won't notice the difference because like monkeys they have been trained to grind their organ.

Because Peterson focuses on the hideous side of the brain defect of the left his entire world view must be discarded. No charity or application of diligence in reading allowed.

As I see it Peterson fears the unhinged moral disregard for traditional values that exists on the left, and the historical disasters associated where that manifests in policy leads him to want to put the breaks on anything the left proposed. In my opinion, also, he has got, as a consequence, climate change all wrong.

Since climate can mean anything yes but if we take it to mean that human activity is creating conditions known to cause a greenhouse effect then the scientific data that proves that a greenhouse effect is possible and that human activity is causing that to happen, then the answer if to act to stop further effects and to seek ways to mitigate the changes already in effect.

There is always a danger when we say the end is near, but if the end is near and we deny it, that is a problem too. Let us hope that a sane scientific community will find a balance in solving the issue, but so far, in my opinion, real action is long overdue.

 

[Moonbeam]

Re your latest post: Stop deflecting, this has nothing to do with location. Someone else has already taken the time to formulate and substantiate the argument against taking JP seriously, that's all there is to it.

And that's it in the nutshell. Someone else but not you. And if that someone else is a fool, you will never know or, if wise, the same. You will only know the the extent of your own personal capacity. So far for you it's let someone else do your thinking. A common issue shared by many including me but does it have to be a 100% commitment? You own the person you advise, it seems to me, some personal effort.

 

[WelshBloke]

I've missed a bit of recent forum history and I'm too lazy to read the thread but on that note...

ROFL at this being a "Left-leaning forum"

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I still don’t get what this thread is about.

 

[mikeymikec]

And that's it in the nutshell. Someone else but not you. And if that someone else is a fool, you will never know or, if wise, the same. You will only know the the extent of your own personal capacity. So far for you it's let someone else do your thinking. A common issue shared by many including me but does it have to be a 100% commitment? You own the person you advise, it seems to me, some personal effort.

You have no basis for that statement.

The 'some more news' clip is not presenting a complicated argument, from what I've seen so far he doesn't even attempt to tackle the technical specifics of the topic of climate change because it's not necessary in order to tear strips out of what JP was saying. JP literally opened on that topic with an idiotic straw man. That's the quality of argument we're talking about here which the author is taking issue with.

As a direct counterpoint to the quote in bold: On another topic JP declared that pride is basically a bad thing, which I personally found pretty laughable for a psychologist to come out with as a generalisation as I'm pretty sure that no competent psychologist would agree with that statement; there are conditions (such as self-esteem issues) that would benefit from some level of pride in one's achievements.

Re your previous post - I think if you're going to label the 'some more news' clip as some kind of dishonest hatchet-job / character assassination, then maybe you should take the time to substantiate your argument. The YouTube clip cites its sources, have fun.

 

[Moonbeam]

You have no basis for that statement.

I certainly have some basis for that statement as I said it was true also of me. Are you saying I have no basis for knowing areas where I have character flaws? The main point however, was that you are basing your positive opinions on the critic of Peterson based on what he says Peterson says. None of that was original with you. You didn't study Peterson and develop your own critique.

The 'some more news' clip is not presenting a complicated argument, from what I've seen so far he doesn't even attempt to tackle the technical specifics of the topic of climate change because it's not necessary in order to tear strips out of what JP was saying. JP literally opened on that topic with an idiotic straw man. That's the quality of argument we're talking about here which the author is taking issue with.

What you call an idiotic straw man, as I said above, is an idiotic misrepresentation of what Peterson meant. Climate is everything, put the argument is not meant to be taken literally.

As a direct counterpoint to the quote in bold: On another topic JP declared that pride is basically a bad thing, which I personally found pretty laughable for a psychologist to come out with as a generalisation as I'm pretty sure that no competent psychologist would agree with that statement; there are conditions (such as self-esteem issues) that would benefit from some level of pride in one's achievements.

Good grief. Any native English speaker should be able to feel the difference between pride and self respect. That should be self evident, but who knows in your case?

Re your previous post - I think if you're going to label the 'some more news' clip as some kind of dishonest hatchet-job / character assassination, then maybe you should take the time to substantiate your argument. The YouTube clip cites its sources, have fun.

The only argument I made was that the video was a mean spirited rhetorical hatchet job meant to persuade on an emotional level by a nobody against a person who claims to get thousands of thank you letters from people who say he has helped them improve their lives and that I don't agree with his fears about what the left will do trying to staunch global warming is way overblown and, or counterproductive. You can go seriously wrong diagnosing the cause of climate change depending on the factors you choose to examine, just as Peterson says, but I don't think that is what is happening. The factors being chosen are pertinent and best level scientific consensus conforming, in my opinion.

 

[mikeymikec]

I certainly have some basis for that statement as I said it was true also of me. Are you saying I have no basis for knowing areas where I have character flaws? The main point however, was that you are basing your positive opinions on the critic of Peterson based on what he says Peterson says. None of that was original with you. You didn't study Peterson and develop your own critique.

You accused me of "letting someone else do my thinking", I even put that text in bold for you. JP was already ranking pretty low in my regard, being the kind of person who'd post videos about "what's wrong with feminism" and culminating in "Up yours, woke moralists! We'll see who cancels who!", all this 'some more news' guy was doing for me was confirming what I knew already: JP is an idiot. If I felt that he deserved any more of my time than I've wasted on him already, then I'd spend time substantiating my own argument. The SMN guy posted a three-hour clip and probably spent at least another three to plan and research. There is no good reason to repeat it.

What you call an idiotic straw man, as I said above, is an idiotic misrepresentation of what Peterson meant. Climate is everything, put the argument is not meant to be taken literally.

So substantiate your argument. The SMN guy cited his sources, and as far as I'm concerned his first assertion is completely accurate, having checked the source.

Good grief. Any native English speaker should be able to feel the difference between pride and self respect. That should be self evident, but who knows in your case?

I did not say they were the same thing. I honestly wonder why on earth you bothered to respond with this.

The only argument I made was that the video was a mean spirited rhetorical hatchet job

And you're going to substantiate your argument when exactly?

 

[Pontius Dilate]

This is the transcription of the JRE interview clip that is included in the beginning of the SMN piece:

Joe Rogan: "It's hard to sort out. The climate change one is a weird one, so-"

Jordan Peterson: "That's 'cuz there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word. And that's what bothers me about the climate change types, it's like ... this is something that bothers me about it technically. It's like, 'The climate is about everything.' Okay ... but your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables; so that means you've reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything? And that's not just a criticism, that's like ... if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything."

It's a silly reductionist argument. JP is putting words in climate scientists mouths to erect a strawman that he knocks down. It's not about JP really believing that climate and everything are the same word in a literal sense. He pretends that's how climate scientists define climate and then uses that to argue you can't measure and model everything therefore you can't rely on the results that the scientists come up with. It's an empty, specious, all-or-nothing argument.

People are welcome to assume that the SMN video is a mean-spirited rhetorical hatchet job, thought they probably ought to watch at least some of it and/or other SMN videos to support that conclusion. Just like people ought to do more than watch this particular SMN video to come to any conclusion about Jordan Peterson, which of course I have. But if we're not allowed to criticize or come to conclusions about anyone unless we're able to interrogate their arguments in a real-time discussion/conversation/debate, well we should just shut the forum down. I'm not ever likely to have an opportunity to talk to Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or the vast majority of other public figures who use their platforms to talk about social and political and scientific subjects of interest, and neither is anyone else here. I will continue to criticize and come to conclusions about them based on what they say and do, as will everyone else here.

 

[Tsinni Dave]

The Some More News video posted is a mean-spirited rhetorical hitjob? Have you seen footage from any fucking Trump rally or speech in the last six years? The American "Right" has little more than mean-spirited rhetoric and outright lies to try and cover for the fact they have no platform or policy. Please explain what the GOP party platform was for the 2020 election or for the upcoming 2022 midterms...
Hint-They never released one. Tell us (preferably in less than 1000 words) what the American right factually stands for and what to expect from an administration that has no plans they feel are worthy of sharing with the voters. Defend something tangible rather than your feels ffs
.
Defend Stephen Miller and his wondrous immigration stance. Defend the ban on immigration from Muslim majority countries. Defend Bill Barr lying about evidence of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report. Defend the endless bullshit from the press secretaries during the brief time they actually had press briefings before just giving up and stopping having them. Defend the COVID response and those great briefings Donald gave about Ivermectin and bleach. Defend the anti-abortion ruling. Defend the deregulation of the E.P.A. and the push for christianity in schools. Defend Donald taking all those documents and risking the National Security apparatus. You have a gold mine of these easily defensible things without resorting to your feelings of being repressed by the horrible, vicious left.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Interesting how now letting JP provide the context suddenly they're angry that if you make sure to not take JP out of context he just further exposes what a bloviating ignoramus he actually is. Gee I wonder why people didn't bother to provide context before, because their point stood whether you focused on the specifically stupid statement (supposedly taken out of context) or the full context of it. Either which way, JP spouts nonsense and shows he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Furthermore, it showed how JP is attempting to fabricate accolades to try and apply an appeal to authority fallacious argument, where he tries to dismiss all attempts at discussing any climate science. In which case, well moonie and all the other JP loving people better STFU since you can't discuss any of this, after all, according to JP, well you weren't put on an international climate panel (neither was he, but he's sure desperate to claim he was to try and pretend that somehow gives him expertise to spout off about climate science), so if you've got a problem with it, then too fucking bad.

 

[Moonbeam]

You accused me of "letting someone else do my thinking", I even put that text in bold for you. JP was already ranking pretty low in my regard, being the kind of person who'd post videos about "what's wrong with feminism" and culminating in "Up yours, woke moralists! We'll see who cancels who!", all this 'some more news' guy was doing for me was confirming what I knew already: JP is an idiot. If I felt that he deserved any more of my time than I've wasted on him already, then I'd spend time substantiating my own argument. The SMN guy posted a three-hour clip and probably spent at least another three to plan and research. There is no good reason to repeat it.

Did you watch those videos or someone reviewing them? If the former, what was his argument in each? What did he say, if anything that made sense? I know you are thinking for yourself so this should be easy.

So substantiate your argument. The SMN guy cited his sources, and as far as I'm concerned his first assertion is completely accurate, having checked the source.

I thought I used the definition of climate to substantiate the point I was making. If you have in mind a different argument that I made that I made let me know what you think it was.

I did not say they were the same thing. I honestly wonder why on earth you bothered to respond with this.

You stated: "On another topic JP declared that pride is basically a bad thing, which I personally found pretty laughable for a psychologist to come out with as a generalisation as I'm pretty sure that no competent psychologist would agree with that statement; there are conditions (such as self-esteem issues) that would benefit from some level of pride in one's achievements." The reason that I bothered, therefore, is that in my opinion you are using pride of some sort which I believe is a personal defect for the secondary benefits that are a natural byproduct of real self respect. There is a very important psychological difference between them for anybody interested in self knowledge to distinguish. Pride of of the ego. Self respect is the byproduct of being real and happens naturally. One can't seek it and have it be real.

I am suggesting you consider this idea as having personal growth potential. I am trying to show you something I think is of value, not win some stupid argument.

And you're going to substantiate your argument when exactly?

You quoted my argument as being: "The only argument I made was that the video was a mean spirited rhetorical hatchet job"

but what I said was: " The only argument I made was that the video was a mean spirited rhetorical hatchet job meant to persuade on an emotional level by a nobody against a person who claims to get thousands of thank you letters from people who say he has helped them improve their lives and that I don't agree with his fears about what the left will do trying to staunch global warming is way overblown and, or counterproductive. You can go seriously wrong diagnosing the cause of climate change depending on the factors you choose to examine, just as Peterson says, but I don't think that is what is happening. The factors being chosen are pertinent and best level scientific consensus conforming, in my opinion."

In short I was rephrasing my opinion. Within that opinion are the feelings on which that opinion rests. A basic nobody who for the sake of his stated hatred of politics spent quite a personal effort to make someone who appears to have a great deal of gratitude for efforts he has made to help people, look small and worthless. Furthermore he pretends to a charity of opinion to Peterson which he then turns to magnify the degree of his ridicule. I consider people like that to be human garbage, especially when they make a profit from that effort.

But every lion is followed by jackals, anybody who acquires a positive reputation by self haters must be brought to his knees. Have you noticed? Not something you can substantiate to the blind. These are things you discover by seeing them in yourself.
===============
33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. 34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. 35 And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” 36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine 37 and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” 38 There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”


39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

 

[Pohemi]

don't know, never seen the video, never heard him talk about climate change. i refer to the other 99% of his content ALTHOUGH i suspect that Peterson is capable of understanding climate change and this is likely a case of misunderstanding.

Nice Greenman you pulled here.

I won't even bother diving into the idiocy from Moonpie, since it'll just go in a never-ending circle.

 

[mikeymikec]

Did you watch those videos or someone reviewing them? If the former, what was his argument in each? What did he say, if anything that made sense? I know you are thinking for yourself so this should be easy.

Ok, that's another deflection. I'm not going to bother wasting any further time on this point.

I thought I used the definition of climate to substantiate the point I was making. If you have in mind a different argument that I made that I made let me know what you think it was.

The only argument I made was that the video was a mean spirited rhetorical hatchet job

What you call an idiotic straw man, as I said above, is an idiotic misrepresentation of what Peterson meant. Climate is everything, put the argument is not meant to be taken literally.

Which has nothing to do with the definition of climate change. This is the point that you refuse to substantiate.

You stated: "On another topic JP declared that pride is basically a bad thing, which I personally found pretty laughable for a psychologist to come out with as a generalisation as I'm pretty sure that no competent psychologist would agree with that statement; there are conditions (such as self-esteem issues) that would benefit from some level of pride in one's achievements." The reason that I bothered, therefore, is that in my opinion you are using pride of some sort which I believe is a personal defect for the secondary benefits that are a natural byproduct of real self respect. There is a very important psychological difference between them for anybody interested in self knowledge to distinguish. Pride of of the ego. Self respect is the byproduct of being real and happens naturally. One can't seek it and have it be real.

I am suggesting you consider this idea as having personal growth potential. I am trying to show you something I think is of value, not win some stupid argument.

More deflection.

When one argument doesn't work for you, you attempt to deflect my counterpoint then shift the goalposts.

In short I was rephrasing my opinion.

Yes I know, and I'm asking you to substantiate your opinion. So far you have refused to. I'm done arguing with you.

 

[Pontius Dilate]

I thought I used the definition of climate to substantiate the point I was making. If you have in mind a different argument that I made that I made let me know what you think it was.

You quoted the dictionary definitions of climate and then claimed: "The climate, then, is what is chosen to measure and what can be chosen is anything including everything." Which is just as fallacious and unsupported as what JP said.

A basic nobody who for the sake of his stated hatred of politics spent quite a personal effort to make someone who appears to have a great deal of gratitude for efforts he has made to help people, look small and worthless. Furthermore he pretends to a charity of opinion to Peterson which he then turns to magnify the degree of his ridicule. I consider people like that to be human garbage, especially when they make a profit from that effort.

A basic nobody, eh? Hundreds of thousands of YouTube subscribers and Twitter followers, but he's a basic nobody. What does that make you? And if being a somebody versus a nobody is an important metric for you, why should anyone give any credit to your opinions?

But every lion is followed by jackals, anybody who acquires a positive reputation by self haters must be brought to his knees. Have you noticed? Not something you can substantiate to the blind. These are things you discover by seeing them in yourself.

The world is not remotely as simple as this. But what if Jordan Peterson is a jackal?

 

[cytg111]

If you cant spot the jackal, nothing we say or type here will make a difference. So its moot. Peterson obviously has egotistical designs running his frontal lobes, somewhere along the line it became about the winning instead of truth. You either spot this or you dont.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is the transcription of the JRE interview clip that is included in the beginning of the SMN piece:

Joe Rogan: "It's hard to sort out. The climate change one is a weird one, so-"

Jordan Peterson: "That's 'cuz there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word. And that's what bothers me about the climate change types, it's like ... this is something that bothers me about it technically. It's like, 'The climate is about everything.' Okay ... but your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables; so that means you've reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything? And that's not just a criticism, that's like ... if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything."

It's a silly reductionist argument. JP is putting words in climate scientists mouths to erect a strawman that he knocks down. It's not about JP really believing that climate and everything are the same word in a literal sense. He pretends that's how climate scientists define climate and then uses that to argue you can't measure and model everything therefore you can't rely on the results that the scientists come up with. It's an empty, specious, all-or-nothing argument.

People are welcome to assume that the SMN video is a mean-spirited rhetorical hatchet job, thought they probably ought to watch at least some of it and/or other SMN videos to support that conclusion. Just like people ought to do more than watch this particular SMN video to come to any conclusion about Jordan Peterson, which of course I have. But if we're not allowed to criticize or come to conclusions about anyone unless we're able to interrogate their arguments in a real-time discussion/conversation/debate, well we should just shut the forum down. I'm not ever likely to have an opportunity to talk to Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or the vast majority of other public figures who use their platforms to talk about social and political and scientific subjects of interest, and neither is anyone else here. I will continue to criticize and come to conclusions about them based on what they say and do, as will everyone else here.

Ok, that's another deflection. I'm not going to bother wasting any further time on this point.







Which has nothing to do with the definition of climate change. This is the point that you refuse to substantiate.



More deflection.

When one argument doesn't work for you, you attempt to deflect my counterpoint then shift the goalposts.



Yes I know, and I'm asking you to substantiate your opinion. So far you have refused to. I'm done arguing with you.

Nice Greenman you pulled here.

I won't even bother diving into the idiocy from Moonpie, since it'll just go in a never-ending circle.

Yup, with a circumference the size of the paper bag of your prison. You actually imagine that your assumptions about the nature of reality are the real world. Your prison consists of a lack of realization that your world is something that you create. I have done what I can to give you that information because you are in prison. How do you substantiate to the blind that blindness is a kind of prison?

 

[Moonbeam]

If you cant spot the jackal, nothing we say or type here will make a difference. So its moot. Peterson obviously has egotistical designs running his frontal lobes, somewhere along the line it became about the winning instead of truth. You either spot this or you dont.

You can also project it or recognize it via self observation.. I think Peterson knows more about the dangers of ego than you do. Just my opinion. Truth is what makes for the sacred. My opinion, again.

 

[Pohemi]

You actually imagine that your assumptions about the nature of reality are the real world. Your prison consists of a lack of realization that your world is something that you create. I have done what I can to give you that information because you are in prison. How do you substantiate to the blind that blindness is a kind of prison?

When I say that the sky is blue, it's because I'm blind and in a prison. Uh huh.

You can also project it or recognize it via self observation.. I think Peterson knows more about the dangers of ego than you do. Just my opinion. Truth is what makes for the sacred. My opinion, again.

You are defending one of the most egotistical people I've seen/read in the past several decades. To say that he isn't an egomaniac is simply blind.

You project your own blindness on everyone else with the assumption that you are the only one that sees. That is your prison.

 

[Moonbeam]

You quoted the dictionary definitions of climate and then claimed: "The climate, then, is what is chosen to measure and what can be chosen is anything including everything." Which is just as fallacious and unsupported as what JP said.

It's right in the definition:

: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions His physician advised moving to a warmer climate.
2a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation a healthful climate a warm, humid climate
b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors a climate-controlled office
3: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : ATMOSPHERE a climate of fear, a climate of suspicion, the cultural climate of the 1960s

1.Specified condition = the conditions specified. According to whom?
2. Condition of the weather = the conditions chosen to examine. According to whom? Prevailing set = those somebody has to specify. Who will do that?
3. Prevailing set somebody decides are characteristic of a group. Who makes that evaluation?

Depending on whom climate can be anything. It is totally supported by definition. Peterson is distrustful of who is making the the decisions as to what to measure and of the choices themselves. Personally I am not but I understand his point. It is quite possible to go wrong by cherry picking what you want to look at. You, for example, don't want to see that the definition of climate is as Peterson says it is, everything because it can be anything just by choosing what you want to look at.

A basic nobody, eh? Hundreds of thousands of YouTube subscribers and Twitter followers, but he's a basic nobody. What does that make you? And if being a somebody versus a nobody is an important metric for you, why should anyone give any credit to your opinions?

He is a nobody compared to Jordan Peterson. He has some nice cats though. I am a nobody. I know nothing. That's why I see that what you think you see is what I used to also think I saw.

The thing about Peterson is that he cares that people suffer and is emotionally overwhelmed by the fact that he receives thanks from people. That is hard on people who feel they are nobodies and find out differently. But he was ridiculed by the sad person who has not experienced that kind of crushing humility and has not known the shame being loved by others out of gratitude.

The world is not remotely as simple as this. But what if Jordan Peterson is a jackal?

My statement was about envy not that my observations of it in myself constitute some all encompassing world view. I gave you my observation on one way in which envy manifests, in my opinion. Blowing that off as some oversimplification about the nature of the world more generally is silly.

 

[Moonbeam]

When I say that the sky is blue, it's because I'm blind and in a prison. Uh huh.

You are defending one of the most egotistical people I've seen/read in the past several decades. To say that he isn't an egomaniac is simply blind.

You project your own blindness on everyone else with the assumption that you are the only one that sees. That is your prison.

My goodness. You are mad because I am the only one who sees. That fits right in with what I said about envy. Don't you realize that now I am going to try to get even for trying to knocking me off my perch. You won't have any luck seeing as how I am an enormous and enormously talented, not to mention massively armored, Alpha King Lobster. My name is Inigo Montoya Lobsmonstro and you tried to kill my ego. Prepare to die.