Current Events > Noted intellectual heavyweight Jordan Peterson argues with a bot on Twitter

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Solid Snake07 02/15/18 4:28:33 PM #51:	Sorry, I'm an adult and don't understand what I'm looking at --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:896151257] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>Sorry, I'm an adult and don't understand what I'm looking at</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/15/18 5:25:46 PM #52:	Giant_Aspirin posted... yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me. Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896154744] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Giant_Aspirin posted...</cite> <quote>yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me.</quote> Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/15/18 5:27:26 PM #53:	COVxy posted... No, i remember you providing the only two studies he cited for his 'stand up straight and you'll be flooded with serotonin' rule, one of which is a debunked effect, You keep saying that and yet you were never able to find a source that disproved his source. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896154850] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote> No, i remember you providing the only two studies he cited for his 'stand up straight and you'll be flooded with serotonin' rule, one of which is a debunked effect, </quote> You keep saying that and yet you were never able to find a source that disproved his source.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 02/15/18 7:10:05 PM #54:	Mal_Fet posted... You keep saying that and yet you were never able to find a source that disproved his source. Except I did, but you like to be intellectually dishonest. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:896160272] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>You keep saying that and yet you were never able to find a source that disproved his source.</quote> Except I did, but you like to be intellectually dishonest.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/15/18 10:41:29 PM #55:	COVxy posted... Mal_Fet posted... You keep saying that and yet you were never able to find a source that disproved his source. Except I did, but you like to be intellectually dishonest. Your source disproved an entirely difference study that was conducted 10 years before Peterson's was. You didn't disprove his study. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896171507] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>You keep saying that and yet you were never able to find a source that disproved his source.</quote> Except I did, but you like to be intellectually dishonest.</quote> Your source disproved an entirely difference study that was conducted 10 years before Peterson's was. You didn't disprove his study.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sylverlolol 02/15/18 10:51:15 PM #56:	Only took 5 posts to reel someone in lmao --- This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. <cite>sylverlolol posted [p:896172024] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>Only took 5 posts to reel someone in lmao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 02/15/18 11:03:36 PM #57:	Mal_Fet posted... Your source disproved an entirely difference study that was conducted 10 years before Peterson's was. You didn't disprove his study. If Study A says "We use x,y,z to prove w" and Study B says "x,y,z don't prove w", there doesn't have to be a separate refutation of Study C that says "We use x,y,z to prove w". --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:896172670] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Your source disproved an entirely difference study that was conducted 10 years before Peterson's was. You didn't disprove his study.</quote> If Study A says "We use x,y,z to prove w" and Study B says "x,y,z don't prove w", there doesn't have to be a separate refutation of Study C that says "We use x,y,z to prove w".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krojen 02/15/18 11:14:51 PM #58:	Dammit guys I thought he was arguing with a bot or something. I got click baited with fake news smh got my hopes up over nothing. --- http://i.imgur.com/hI4hAMb.jpg <cite>Krojen posted [p:896173241] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>Dammit guys I thought he was arguing with a bot or something. I got click baited with fake news smh got my hopes up over nothing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Howl 02/16/18 12:09:51 AM #59:	Krojen posted... Dammit guys I thought he was arguing with a bot or something. I got click baited with fake news smh got my hopes up over nothing. Even if he was arguing with a bot, that for doesn't really mean amything. Some AI bots are so advanced that an AI chatbot passed the Turing Test nearly 4 years ago. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088 It wouldn't be difficult or a testament to anyone's intelligence at all today if they were to actually mistake a bot as a person online and engage in argument with them. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.3 <cite>Howl posted [p:896175895] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Krojen posted...</cite> <quote>Dammit guys I thought he was arguing with a bot or something. I got click baited with fake news smh got my hopes up over nothing.</quote> Even if he was arguing with a bot, that for doesn't really mean amything. Some AI bots are so advanced that an AI chatbot passed the Turing Test nearly 4 years ago. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088 It wouldn't be difficult or a testament to anyone's intelligence at all today if they were to actually mistake a bot as a person online and engage in argument with them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 02/16/18 12:15:51 AM #60:	Howl posted... Krojen posted... Dammit guys I thought he was arguing with a bot or something. I got click baited with fake news smh got my hopes up over nothing. Even if he was arguing with a bot, that for doesn't really mean amything. Some AI bots are so advanced that an AI chatbot passed the Turing Test nearly 4 years ago. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088 It wouldn't be difficult or a testament to anyone's intelligence at all today if they were to actually mistake a bot as a person online and engage in argument with them. Dude, even at the time the claim that this passed the Turing Test was laughed at, because the bot pretended to be a young foreigner who spoke poor English. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:896176168] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Howl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Krojen posted...</cite> <quote>Dammit guys I thought he was arguing with a bot or something. I got click baited with fake news smh got my hopes up over nothing.</quote> Even if he was arguing with a bot, that for doesn't really mean amything. Some AI bots are so advanced that an AI chatbot passed the Turing Test nearly 4 years ago. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088 It wouldn't be difficult or a testament to anyone's intelligence at all today if they were to actually mistake a bot as a person online and engage in argument with them.</quote> Dude, even at the time the claim that this passed the Turing Test was laughed at, because the bot pretended to be a young foreigner who spoke poor English.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CanuckCowboy 02/16/18 12:19:29 AM #61:	StucklnMyPants posted... and the left's intellectual ability. "SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T FIGURE THIS OUT SO I ASSUME THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS OPPOSING POLITICAL VIEWS TO ME" --- "I got a rollatruc, look." <cite>CanuckCowboy posted [p:896176325] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>StucklnMyPants posted...</cite> <quote> and the left's intellectual ability.</quote> "SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T FIGURE THIS OUT SO I ASSUME THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS OPPOSING POLITICAL VIEWS TO ME"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StucklnMyPants 02/16/18 1:07:41 AM #62:	CanuckCowboy posted... StucklnMyPants posted... and the left's intellectual ability. "SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T FIGURE THIS OUT SO I ASSUME THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS OPPOSING POLITICAL VIEWS TO ME" Kind of funny you automatically assume I'm on the right. Seeing the situation for what it is doesn't mean ascribing oneself to a certain side. One would have to be delusional to not see this concerted effort from the left to attack and discredit him at nearly every turn. Plus, it's not a matter of figuring it out, as much as it is a matter of purposeful deceit (the guy that made the tweet and mediums going with it) and willful ignorance (the people that continue to believe it). --- Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. <cite>StucklnMyPants posted [p:896178191] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>CanuckCowboy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StucklnMyPants posted...</cite> <quote> and the left's intellectual ability.</quote> "SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T FIGURE THIS OUT SO I ASSUME THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS OPPOSING POLITICAL VIEWS TO ME"</quote> Kind of funny you automatically assume I'm on the right. Seeing the situation for what it is doesn't mean ascribing oneself to a certain side. One would have to be delusional to not see this concerted effort from the left to attack and discredit him at nearly every turn. Plus, it's not a matter of figuring it out, as much as it is a matter of purposeful deceit (the guy that made the tweet and mediums going with it) and willful ignorance (the people that continue to believe it).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
iClockwork 02/16/18 1:10:42 AM #63:	The same man who said that women wearing makeup to work is causing irreversible harm in the workplace. --- Sometimes people come along and they want to change things. I am one of those people and I will assist in furthering our country for the better. - Xsquader <cite>iClockwork posted [p:896178305] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>The same man who said that women wearing makeup to work is causing irreversible harm in the workplace.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bevan306 02/16/18 1:12:57 AM #64:	that guy is fucking dumb --- http://rateyourmusic.com/~bevan http://i.imgur.com/5Ta28.jpg <cite>bevan306 posted [p:896178383] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>that guy is fucking dumb</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#65	Post #65 was unavailable or deleted.
Zeeak4444 02/16/18 1:15:20 AM #66:	-Gavirulax- posted... StucklnMyPants posted... CanuckCowboy posted... StucklnMyPants posted... and the left's intellectual ability. "SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T FIGURE THIS OUT SO I ASSUME THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS OPPOSING POLITICAL VIEWS TO ME" Kind of funny you automatically assume I'm on the right. Seeing the situation for what it is doesn't mean ascribing oneself to a certain side. One would have to be delusional to not see this concerted effort from the left to attack and discredit him at nearly every turn. Plus, it's not a matter of figuring it out, as much as it is a matter of purposeful deceit (the guy that made the tweet and mediums going with it) and willful ignorance (the people that continue to believe it). Oh absolutely, there is a pretty obvious effort by some leftists to shut down and downplay almost everything involving him. Doesn't take much away from actual criticism (which unfortunately is lumped in with it), but it does exist. It's like Milo or Shapiro, the second he says one thing certain people don't like, everything he will ever say then becomes "problematic". This is one of the many reasons I'll pretty much always listen to all sides, regardless of who downplays or is offended by it - it's a pity more people don't seek something outside their echo chamber. I haven't listened to this guy but I've listened to a lot of Milo and Shapiro out of fairness and they both are dumb as rocks. Sharpiro has charisma and can make irrelevant analogies and that's about it. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:896178457] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>-Gavirulax- posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StucklnMyPants posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CanuckCowboy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StucklnMyPants posted...</cite> <quote> and the left's intellectual ability.</quote> "SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T FIGURE THIS OUT SO I ASSUME THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS OPPOSING POLITICAL VIEWS TO ME"</quote> Kind of funny you automatically assume I'm on the right. Seeing the situation for what it is doesn't mean ascribing oneself to a certain side. One would have to be delusional to not see this concerted effort from the left to attack and discredit him at nearly every turn. Plus, it's not a matter of figuring it out, as much as it is a matter of purposeful deceit (the guy that made the tweet and mediums going with it) and willful ignorance (the people that continue to believe it).</quote> Oh absolutely, there is a pretty obvious effort by some leftists to shut down and downplay almost everything involving him. Doesn't take much away from actual criticism (which unfortunately is lumped in with it), but it does exist. It's like Milo or Shapiro, the second he says one thing certain people don't like, everything he will ever say then becomes "problematic". This is one of the many reasons I'll pretty much always listen to all sides, regardless of who downplays or is offended by it - it's a pity more people don't seek something outside their echo chamber.</quote> I haven't listened to this guy but I've listened to a lot of Milo and Shapiro out of fairness and they both are dumb as rocks. Sharpiro has charisma and can make irrelevant analogies and that's about it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/16/18 3:34:07 AM #67:	@Anteaterking posted... Mal_Fet posted... Your source disproved an entirely difference study that was conducted 10 years before Peterson's was. You didn't disprove his study. If Study A says "We use x,y,z to prove w" and Study B says "x,y,z don't prove w", there doesn't have to be a separate refutation of Study C that says "We use x,y,z to prove w". Are you serious Study B showed that they couldn't recreate the results of Study A using their methodology. Study C used an entirely different methodology. So no, a study that says "x,y,z don't prove w" does not disprove a study that says "j,k,l prove w" Do you understand this yet? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896182528] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Your source disproved an entirely difference study that was conducted 10 years before Peterson's was. You didn't disprove his study.</quote> If Study A says "We use x,y,z to prove w" and Study B says "x,y,z don't prove w", there doesn't have to be a separate refutation of Study C that says "We use x,y,z to prove w".</quote> Are you serious Study B showed that they couldn't recreate the results of Study A using their methodology. Study C used an entirely different methodology. So no, a study that says "x,y,z don't prove w" does not disprove a study that says "j,k,l prove w" Do you understand this yet?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 02/16/18 4:52:29 AM #68:	Mal_Fet posted... Giant_Aspirin posted... yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me. Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this. Any debate regarding the religious right. Any debate regarding the necular family. The majority of debates regarding scientific progression. Shall we continue? Edit: and since it's a current event, the history regarding gun control. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:896184169] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Giant_Aspirin posted...</cite> <quote>yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me.</quote> Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this.</quote> Any debate regarding the religious right. Any debate regarding the necular family. The majority of debates regarding scientific progression. Shall we continue? Edit: and since it's a current event, the history regarding gun control.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/16/18 4:54:41 AM #69:	Zeeak4444 posted... Mal_Fet posted... Giant_Aspirin posted... yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me. Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this. Any debate regarding the religious right. Any debate regarding the necular family. The majority of debates regarding scientific progression. Shall we continue? Are you going to show actual examples like I did, or am I supposed to take your word for it that a bunch of climate change deniers once stormed the stage at a climate conference? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896184205] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Giant_Aspirin posted...</cite> <quote>yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me.</quote> Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this.</quote> Any debate regarding the religious right. Any debate regarding the necular family. The majority of debates regarding scientific progression. Shall we continue?</quote> Are you going to show actual examples like I did, or am I supposed to take your word for it that a bunch of climate change deniers once stormed the stage at a climate conference?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 02/16/18 4:56:42 AM #70:	Mal_Fet posted... Zeeak4444 posted... Mal_Fet posted... Giant_Aspirin posted... yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me. Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this. Any debate regarding the religious right. Any debate regarding the necular family. The majority of debates regarding scientific progression. Shall we continue? Are you going to show actual examples like I did, or am I supposed to take your word for it that a bunch of climate change deniers once stormed the stage at a climate conference? Was this supposed to be witty or something? I'll assume you posted before the edit and just missed the gun control portion. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:896184244] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Giant_Aspirin posted...</cite> <quote>yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me.</quote> Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this.</quote> Any debate regarding the religious right. Any debate regarding the necular family. The majority of debates regarding scientific progression. Shall we continue?</quote> Are you going to show actual examples like I did, or am I supposed to take your word for it that a bunch of climate change deniers once stormed the stage at a climate conference?</quote> Was this supposed to be witty or something? I'll assume you posted before the edit and just missed the gun control portion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/16/18 5:02:20 AM #71:	Zeeak4444 posted... Was this supposed to be witty or something? No I was genuinely asking why you wouldn't just post specific examples when any debate regarding those things gets shut down by right wingers. It's rather suspicious, bro. It's almost like you're just making shit up and praying I will believe it. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896184359] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Was this supposed to be witty or something?</quote> No I was genuinely asking why you wouldn't just post specific examples when any debate regarding those things gets shut down by right wingers. It's rather suspicious, bro. It's almost like you're just making shit up and praying I will believe it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 02/16/18 5:09:46 AM #72:	Mal_Fet posted... Zeeak4444 posted... Was this supposed to be witty or something? No I was genuinely asking why you wouldn't just post specific examples when any debate regarding those things gets shut down by right wingers. It's rather suspicious, bro. It's almost like you're just making shit up and praying I will believe it. Since you continue to ignore gun control (this being the third mention now) I'll change it up. Sexual revolution. If you need some time to read up on that before we begin go ahead. I'm not gonna break it down for you here but you can use any of the issues there you find to refute it. If you can somehow manage to spin that one I'll bring another. This should be fun and you seem to want a challenge. Let's see it. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:896184500] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Was this supposed to be witty or something?</quote> No I was genuinely asking why you wouldn't just post specific examples when any debate regarding those things gets shut down by right wingers. It's rather suspicious, bro. It's almost like you're just making shit up and praying I will believe it.</quote> Since you continue to ignore gun control (this being the third mention now) I'll change it up. Sexual revolution. If you need some time to read up on that before we begin go ahead. I'm not gonna break it down for you here but you can use any of the issues there you find to refute it. If you can somehow manage to spin that one I'll bring another. This should be fun and you seem to want a challenge. Let's see it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/16/18 5:12:07 AM #73:	Zeeak4444 posted... Since you continue to ignore gun control (this being the third mention now) I'll change it up. Ok, show us an example of right wingers trying to shut down a speech/debate on gun control since you wont for any of those others. Zeeak4444 posted... Sexual revolution. If you need some time to read up on that before we begin go ahead. I'm not gonna break it down for you here but you can use any of the issues there you find to refute it. You literally need to go back half a century to find a single example of right-wingers shutting down a speaker? How embarrassing... --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896184541] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Since you continue to ignore gun control (this being the third mention now) I'll change it up.</quote> Ok, show us an example of right wingers trying to shut down a speech/debate on gun control since you wont for any of those others. <cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Sexual revolution. If you need some time to read up on that before we begin go ahead. I'm not gonna break it down for you here but you can use any of the issues there you find to refute it. </quote> You literally need to go back half a century to find a single example of right-wingers shutting down a speaker? How embarrassing...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 02/16/18 5:16:36 AM #74:	@Mal_Fet posted... Zeeak4444 posted... Since you continue to ignore gun control (this being the third mention now) I'll change it up. Ok, show us an example of right wingers trying to shut down a speech/debate on gun control since you wont for any of those others. Zeeak4444 posted... Sexual revolution. If you need some time to read up on that before we begin go ahead. I'm not gonna break it down for you here but you can use any of the issues there you find to refute it. You literally need to go back half a century to find a single example of right-wingers shutting down a speaker? How embarrassing... Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. Zeeak4444 posted... Mal_Fet posted... Giant_Aspirin posted... yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me. Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this. Any debate regarding the religious right. Any debate regarding the necular family. The majority of debates regarding scientific progression. Shall we continue? Edit: and since it's a current event, the history regarding gun control. Here's the original quote. You're just deciding out of nowhere to completely change the conversation. Do you realize how stupid that makes you look? How did you fuck up this badly tracking a simple conversation that's maybe 10 posts long at the most between us... pathetic. Edit: if you need it broken down for you I'll make it real easy. Dismissing ideas doesn't mean you have to storm a stage and physically protest them. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:896184627] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Since you continue to ignore gun control (this being the third mention now) I'll change it up.</quote> Ok, show us an example of right wingers trying to shut down a speech/debate on gun control since you wont for any of those others. <cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Sexual revolution. If you need some time to read up on that before we begin go ahead. I'm not gonna break it down for you here but you can use any of the issues there you find to refute it. </quote> You literally need to go back half a century to find a single example of right-wingers shutting down a speaker? How embarrassing...</quote> Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. <cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Giant_Aspirin posted...</cite> <quote>yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me.</quote> Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this.</quote> Any debate regarding the religious right. Any debate regarding the necular family. The majority of debates regarding scientific progression. Shall we continue? Edit: and since it's a current event, the history regarding gun control.</quote> Here's the original quote. You're just deciding out of nowhere to completely change the conversation. Do you realize how stupid that makes you look? How did you fuck up this badly tracking a simple conversation that's maybe 10 posts long at the most between us... pathetic. Edit: if you need it broken down for you I'll make it real easy. Dismissing ideas doesn't mean you have to storm a stage and physically protest them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/16/18 5:19:54 AM #75:	Zeeak4444 posted... Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. Mal_Fet posted... Tell you what: for every zero cases you find of a right-wing group attempting to shut down a leftist speaker, I will find you infinite cases of a leftist group trying to shut down a right-wing speaker. Ready, go: --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896184694] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. </quote> <cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Tell you what: for every zero cases you find of a right-wing group attempting to shut down a leftist speaker, I will find you infinite cases of a leftist group trying to shut down a right-wing speaker. Ready, go:</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 02/16/18 5:21:20 AM #76:	Mal_Fet posted... Zeeak4444 posted... Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. Mal_Fet posted... Tell you what: for every zero cases you find of a right-wing group attempting to shut down a leftist speaker, I will find you infinite cases of a leftist group trying to shut down a right-wing speaker. Ready, go: It's a good thing I never responded to that post in any way, shape, or form. I did respond to a post from you saying conservatives have never dismissed ideas without giving fair consideration. I guess you realize how stupid of a statement that was now. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:896184721] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. </quote> <cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Tell you what: for every zero cases you find of a right-wing group attempting to shut down a leftist speaker, I will find you infinite cases of a leftist group trying to shut down a right-wing speaker. Ready, go:</quote></quote> It's a good thing I never responded to that post in any way, shape, or form. I did respond to a post from you saying conservatives have never dismissed ideas without giving fair consideration. I guess you realize how stupid of a statement that was now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/16/18 5:21:59 AM #77:	Zeeak4444 posted... Mal_Fet posted... Zeeak4444 posted... Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. Mal_Fet posted... Tell you what: for every zero cases you find of a right-wing group attempting to shut down a leftist speaker, I will find you infinite cases of a leftist group trying to shut down a right-wing speaker. Ready, go: It's a good thing I never responded to that post in any way, shape, or form. Not my fault you butted in on argument without knowing what it was about. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896184733] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. </quote> <cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Tell you what: for every zero cases you find of a right-wing group attempting to shut down a leftist speaker, I will find you infinite cases of a leftist group trying to shut down a right-wing speaker. Ready, go:</quote></quote> It's a good thing I never responded to that post in any way, shape, or form.</quote> Not my fault you butted in on argument without knowing what it was about.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 02/16/18 5:24:13 AM #78:	Mal_Fet posted... Zeeak4444 posted... Mal_Fet posted... Zeeak4444 posted... Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. Mal_Fet posted... Tell you what: for every zero cases you find of a right-wing group attempting to shut down a leftist speaker, I will find you infinite cases of a leftist group trying to shut down a right-wing speaker. Ready, go: It's a good thing I never responded to that post in any way, shape, or form. Not my fault you butted in on argument without knowing what it was about. No, I responded to a single post where you said conservatives never dissmissed ideas without giving them considerate thought. Not my fault you can't track simple conversations you insert yourself into. If you didn't want to talk about the post I quoted you shouldn't have responded to my post quoting it. This is like third grade level shit here Mal. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:896184781] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Dude. Where the fuck did the idea of someone physically trying to shut down a speaker come from. </quote> <cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Tell you what: for every zero cases you find of a right-wing group attempting to shut down a leftist speaker, I will find you infinite cases of a leftist group trying to shut down a right-wing speaker. Ready, go:</quote></quote> It's a good thing I never responded to that post in any way, shape, or form.</quote> Not my fault you butted in on argument without knowing what it was about.</quote> No, I responded to a single post where you said conservatives never dissmissed ideas without giving them considerate thought. Not my fault you can't track simple conversations you insert yourself into. If you didn't want to talk about the post I quoted you shouldn't have responded to my post quoting it. This is like third grade level shit here Mal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/16/18 5:29:38 AM #79:	Zeeak4444 posted... No, I responded to a single post where you said conservatives never dissmissed ideas without giving them considerate thought. He was referring to my post about leftists shutting down speakers. You got fooled by his attempt to soften what crazed leftist protesters are doing. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896184879] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>No, I responded to a single post where you said conservatives never dissmissed ideas without giving them considerate thought. </quote> He was referring to my post about leftists shutting down speakers. You got fooled by his attempt to soften what crazed leftist protesters are doing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 02/16/18 5:31:26 AM #80:	Mal_Fet posted... Zeeak4444 posted... No, I responded to a single post where you said conservatives never dissmissed ideas without giving them considerate thought. He was referring to my post about leftists shutting down speakers. You got fooled by his attempt to soften what crazed leftist protesters are doing. I responded to your own words. I didn't adjust your post in any way. You have no one to blame for this but yourself. Don't get mad at me because "you didn't mean what you posted" or whatever excuse you wanna go with. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:896184918] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>No, I responded to a single post where you said conservatives never dissmissed ideas without giving them considerate thought. </quote> He was referring to my post about leftists shutting down speakers. You got fooled by his attempt to soften what crazed leftist protesters are doing.</quote> I responded to your own words. I didn't adjust your post in any way. You have no one to blame for this but yourself. Don't get mad at me because "you didn't mean what you posted" or whatever excuse you wanna go with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/16/18 5:40:57 AM #81:	Zeeak4444 posted... I responded to your own words. No, it was Aspirin who described physically shutting down speakers as "dismissing ideas" You got fooled because you weren't paying attention. Carry on now. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896185100] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>I responded to your own words.</quote> No, it was Aspirin who described physically shutting down speakers as "dismissing ideas" You got fooled because you weren't paying attention. Carry on now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 02/16/18 5:47:57 AM #82:	Mal_Fet posted... Zeeak4444 posted... I responded to your own words. No, it was Aspirin who described physically shutting down speakers as "dismissing ideas" You got fooled because you weren't paying attention. Carry on now. It's sad you're this bad at saving face. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:896185246] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>I responded to your own words.</quote> No, it was Aspirin who described physically shutting down speakers as "dismissing ideas" You got fooled because you weren't paying attention. Carry on now.</quote> It's sad you're this bad at saving face.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/16/18 5:57:46 AM #83:	Mal_Fet posted... You got fooled because you weren't paying attention. Carry on now. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896185431] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>You got fooled because you weren't paying attention. Carry on now.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 02/16/18 7:43:43 AM #84:	Mal_Fet posted... Are you serious Study B showed that they couldn't recreate the results of Study A using their methodology. Study C used an entirely different methodology. So no, a study that says "x,y,z don't prove w" does not disprove a study that says "j,k,l prove w" Do you understand this yet? ITP: scientific studies don't relate or generalize, they are just one off experiments generating specific results to their exact parameters, the only time an idea is refuted is with a direct refutation of each independent paper. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:896187854] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Are you serious Study B showed that they couldn't recreate the results of Study A using their methodology. Study C used an entirely different methodology. So no, a study that says "x,y,z don't prove w" does not disprove a study that says "j,k,l prove w" Do you understand this yet?</quote> ITP: scientific studies don't relate or generalize, they are just one off experiments generating specific results to their exact parameters, the only time an idea is refuted is with a direct refutation of each independent paper.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 02/16/18 10:30:10 AM #85:	I love the conversations that happen in JP topics :) <cite>Romes187 posted [p:896193775] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>I love the conversations that happen in JP topics :)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 02/16/18 11:16:54 AM #86:	Mal_Fet posted... Are you serious Study B showed that they couldn't recreate the results of Study A using their methodology. Study C used an entirely different methodology. So no, a study that says "x,y,z don't prove w" does not disprove a study that says "j,k,l prove w" Do you understand this yet? I don't even know what studies you're talking about. I'm just addressing your implication that Study C coming later means that it wasn't disproved by Study B. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:896196125] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Are you serious Study B showed that they couldn't recreate the results of Study A using their methodology. Study C used an entirely different methodology. So no, a study that says "x,y,z don't prove w" does not disprove a study that says "j,k,l prove w" Do you understand this yet?</quote> I don't even know what studies you're talking about. I'm just addressing your implication that Study C coming later means that it wasn't disproved by Study B.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giant_Aspirin 02/16/18 11:20:06 AM #87:	Mal_Fet posted... Giant_Aspirin posted... yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me. Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this. even if i did, what would that accomplish other than fueling the ever pointless and bullshit partisan divide that's getting worse and worse? besides, you'd find some reason to oppose the evidence i presented because it goes against your narrative. making blanket statements about the opposition serves no constructive purpose and is just a substitute for actual critical thinking for the intellectually lazy. edit: i question the value in even posting this because it fuels the bullshit i dont like, but here you go, Mal. your side is not perfect http://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-on-college-campuses-2017-9 back to my original point: we all get defensive when our beliefs are not challenged. for you to assert that Conservatives are universally somehow immune to this basic human function is laughable and i know you're smarter than that. sometimes you can make some interesting points and sometimes you spout absolutely bullshit partisan stuff like this and i just dont even --- Playing: Dark Souls III (PC), Hollow Knight (PC) *(~);} - Get out the pans, don't just stand there dreamin' - {;(~)* <cite>Giant_Aspirin posted [p:896196287] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Giant_Aspirin posted...</cite> <quote>yeah Mal, I concede. only Liberals are closed minded while Conservatives are the bastions of free thought and never dismiss ideas without giving them fair consideration. you got me.</quote> Sarcasm won't change that you can't find a single instance of right-wingers doing this.</quote> even if i did, what would that accomplish other than fueling the ever pointless and bullshit partisan divide that's getting worse and worse? besides, you'd find some reason to oppose the evidence i presented because it goes against your narrative. making blanket statements about the opposition serves no constructive purpose and is just a substitute for actual critical thinking for the intellectually lazy. edit: i question the value in even posting this because it fuels the bullshit i dont like, but here you go, Mal. your side is not perfect http://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-on-college-campuses-2017-9 back to my original point: we all get defensive when our beliefs are not challenged. for you to assert that Conservatives are universally somehow immune to this basic human function is laughable and i know you're smarter than that. sometimes you can make some interesting points and sometimes you spout absolutely bullshit partisan stuff like this and i just dont even</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 1:50:30 PM #88:	Romes187 posted... I love the conversations that happen in JP topics :) Me too. When I see the absolute best arguments Peterson haters can muster are laughably pathetic it reaffirms my belief that he is an intellectual worth listening to that has a lot to offer the world. Plus, for so long the only people telling me what's wrong with liberals and the left have been conservatives, and they're obviously not a very reliable source since they usually say everything is wrong lol. But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896204729] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote>I love the conversations that happen in JP topics :)</quote> Me too. When I see the absolute best arguments Peterson haters can muster are laughably pathetic it reaffirms my belief that he is an intellectual worth listening to that has a lot to offer the world. Plus, for so long the only people telling me what's wrong with liberals and the left have been conservatives, and they're obviously not a very reliable source since they usually say everything is wrong lol. But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 02/16/18 3:39:27 PM #89:	nicklebro posted... Romes187 posted... I love the conversations that happen in JP topics :) Me too. When I see the absolute best arguments Peterson haters can muster are laughably pathetic it reaffirms my belief that he is an intellectual worth listening to that has a lot to offer the world. Plus, for so long the only people telling me what's wrong with liberals and the left have been conservatives, and they're obviously not a very reliable source since they usually say everything is wrong lol. But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful. Yeah but the left will claim that he's not a liberal. He walks the line imo (order and chaos yada yada stuff) and he makes good points when he talks about how too much to the right makes things rigid and stale, and too much to the left makes things chaotic and lacks any cohesiveness best to try and stay in the middle <cite>Romes187 posted [p:896211007] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote>I love the conversations that happen in JP topics :)</quote> Me too. When I see the absolute best arguments Peterson haters can muster are laughably pathetic it reaffirms my belief that he is an intellectual worth listening to that has a lot to offer the world. Plus, for so long the only people telling me what's wrong with liberals and the left have been conservatives, and they're obviously not a very reliable source since they usually say everything is wrong lol. But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.</quote> Yeah but the left will claim that he's not a liberal. He walks the line imo (order and chaos yada yada stuff) and he makes good points when he talks about how too much to the right makes things rigid and stale, and too much to the left makes things chaotic and lacks any cohesiveness best to try and stay in the middle</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 02/16/18 3:43:22 PM #90:	nicklebro posted... But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful. He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:896211233] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote> But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.</quote> He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/16/18 3:44:06 PM #91:	the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science. --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:896211279] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/16/18 3:45:03 PM #92:	Anteaterking posted... He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to. on top of that, american conservatives and american liberals can both trace their ideological roots to classical liberalism, so by this same token peterson has as much in common with modern conservatives as modern liberals --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:896211325] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.</quote> on top of that, american conservatives and american liberals can both trace their ideological roots to classical liberalism, so by this same token peterson has as much in common with modern conservatives as modern liberals</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 02/16/18 3:52:55 PM #93:	Balrog0 posted... the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science. And I hate to always use this example, because it's something I'm only familiar with because it's under my discipline, but he repeatedly cites the most "mystical" of math theorems (e.g. Godel's incompleteness) in a completely incorrect way in an attempt to make his ontological arguments sound more robust. Combining this with the lobster thing just gives me the impression that he's wielding non-specific science in lieu of making a formal argument. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:896211775] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.</quote> And I hate to always use this example, because it's something I'm only familiar with because it's under my discipline, but he repeatedly cites the most "mystical" of math theorems (e.g. Godel's incompleteness) in a completely incorrect way in an attempt to make his ontological arguments sound more robust. Combining this with the lobster thing just gives me the impression that he's wielding non-specific science in lieu of making a formal argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 02/16/18 5:38:35 PM #94:	Balrog0 posted... the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science. hmm it always goes back to the lobster thing with everyone. Let's say that he's completely wrong about that and he shouldn't even mention it. Ok...how about all of his other content? How about all of his cited work https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en Or how about his book maps of meaning, which goes into detail why he believes much of what he believes....something that none of his detractors ever seem to have read The problem with peterson is he'll make truth statements (we can get into a whole conversation about truth...for those who listened to the sam harris podcast) and people will deduce his premise Example: He'll say "Inequality is not the result of capitalism..it's the result of a pareto distribution which is seen in every single creative endeavor where competence determines outcome. Every single society has had the same distribution" Someone will respond "Well I guess that means you don't give a shit about poor people since "Thats just the way it is"" and his response is always something along the lines of "no this IS an actual problem...but we need to know what the fucking problem is caused by to fix it" its annoying but yolo <cite>Romes187 posted [p:896217574] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.</quote> hmm it always goes back to the lobster thing with everyone. Let's say that he's completely wrong about that and he shouldn't even mention it. Ok...how about all of his other content? How about all of his cited work https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en Or how about his book maps of meaning, which goes into detail why he believes much of what he believes....something that none of his detractors ever seem to have read The problem with peterson is he'll make truth statements (we can get into a whole conversation about truth...for those who listened to the sam harris podcast) and people will deduce his premise Example: He'll say "Inequality is not the result of capitalism..it's the result of a pareto distribution which is seen in every single creative endeavor where competence determines outcome. Every single society has had the same distribution" Someone will respond "Well I guess that means you don't give a shit about poor people since "Thats just the way it is"" and his response is always something along the lines of "no this IS an actual problem...but we need to know what the fucking problem is caused by to fix it" its annoying but yolo</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 02/16/18 5:39:05 PM #95:	Anteaterking posted... And I hate to always use this example, because it's something I'm only familiar with because it's under my discipline, but he repeatedly cites the most "mystical" of math theorems (e.g. Godel's incompleteness) in a completely incorrect way in an attempt to make his ontological arguments sound more robust. Combining this with the lobster thing just gives me the impression that he's wielding non-specific science in lieu of making a formal argument. Are you talking about his tweet from 2013? yeah he's wrong on that he should never be listened to again <cite>Romes187 posted [p:896217597] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>And I hate to always use this example, because it's something I'm only familiar with because it's under my discipline, but he repeatedly cites the most "mystical" of math theorems (e.g. Godel's incompleteness) in a completely incorrect way in an attempt to make his ontological arguments sound more robust. Combining this with the lobster thing just gives me the impression that he's wielding non-specific science in lieu of making a formal argument. </quote> Are you talking about his tweet from 2013? yeah he's wrong on that he should never be listened to again</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 5:45:59 PM #96:	Anteaterking posted... nicklebro posted... But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful. He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to. I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896217969] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote> But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.</quote> He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.</quote> I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 5:49:22 PM #97:	Anteaterking posted... Balrog0 posted... the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science. And I hate to always use this example, because it's something I'm only familiar with because it's under my discipline, but he repeatedly cites the most "mystical" of math theorems (e.g. Godel's incompleteness) in a completely incorrect way in an attempt to make his ontological arguments sound more robust. Combining this with the lobster thing just gives me the impression that he's wielding non-specific science in lieu of making a formal argument. I don't get what you guys are saying he's getting wrong. I thought he brought up lobsters just to show how long social hierarchies have been around and how far back in our evolution we've been utilizing them. Is that not true? And really if this is something that turns you off of his message it seems like you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, seeing as how even if he was actually dead wrong about that it wouldn't affect his point at all. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896218146] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.</quote> And I hate to always use this example, because it's something I'm only familiar with because it's under my discipline, but he repeatedly cites the most "mystical" of math theorems (e.g. Godel's incompleteness) in a completely incorrect way in an attempt to make his ontological arguments sound more robust. Combining this with the lobster thing just gives me the impression that he's wielding non-specific science in lieu of making a formal argument.</quote> I don't get what you guys are saying he's getting wrong. I thought he brought up lobsters just to show how long social hierarchies have been around and how far back in our evolution we've been utilizing them. Is that not true? And really if this is something that turns you off of his message it seems like you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, seeing as how even if he was actually dead wrong about that it wouldn't affect his point at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 02/16/18 6:33:13 PM #98:	Romes187 posted... Are you talking about his tweet from 2013? yeah he's wrong on that he should never be listened to again It came up again after that. I'm not saying "People shouldn't listen to him". People can choose to listen to whomever they wish. nicklebro posted... And really if this is something that turns you off of his message it seems like you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, seeing as how even if he was actually dead wrong about that it wouldn't affect his point at all. You call it nitpicking, but it's more that there are people who are experts in the areas that Peterson isn't that say he's talking out of his ass on their area. But Peterson (or probably more accurately his followers) has made himself out to be coming from an academic viewpoint, and once you take the academic away from him, you're letting just...some guy tell you to stand up straight and clean your room. Still a smart guy, but still one who isn't talking from authority. Like I absolutely would listen to things he has to say about e.g. alcoholism as he's had highly cited research in good journals on the topic. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:896220494] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote>Are you talking about his tweet from 2013? yeah he's wrong on that he should never be listened to again</quote> It came up again after that. I'm not saying "People shouldn't listen to him". People can choose to listen to whomever they wish. <cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>And really if this is something that turns you off of his message it seems like you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, seeing as how even if he was actually dead wrong about that it wouldn't affect his point at all.</quote> You call it nitpicking, but it's more that there are people who are experts in the areas that Peterson isn't that say he's talking out of his ass on their area. But Peterson (or probably more accurately his followers) has made himself out to be coming from an academic viewpoint, and once you take the academic away from him, you're letting just...some guy tell you to stand up straight and clean your room. Still a smart guy, but still one who isn't talking from authority. Like I absolutely would listen to things he has to say about e.g. alcoholism as he's had highly cited research in good journals on the topic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 02/16/18 6:52:56 PM #99:	Anteaterking posted... You call it nitpicking, but it's more that there are people who are experts in the areas that Peterson isn't that say he's talking out of his ass on their area. But Peterson (or probably more accurately his followers) has made himself out to be coming from an academic viewpoint, and once you take the academic away from him, you're letting just...some guy tell you to stand up straight and clean your room. Still a smart guy, but still one who isn't talking from authority. Hmm...what about him being a professor of psychology and having a clinical practice...that doesn't give him authority to talk about the psychological effects of cleaning your room? Which experts in which areas say he's talking out of his ass btw just so I can check it out. I know evolutionary biologists like bret weinstein continually reaffirm what he is saying (most specific example being the vice interview where he discussed the sexual advantage of wearing high heels and make up) but you may not take too much stock in his opinion...not sure. and on things like biology, he cites his arguments pretty well in the newest book, and extremely well in maps of meaning. def. recommend reading that if you can chug through a 900 pager...worth it imo <cite>Romes187 posted [p:896221555] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>You call it nitpicking, but it's more that there are people who are experts in the areas that Peterson isn't that say he's talking out of his ass on their area. But Peterson (or probably more accurately his followers) has made himself out to be coming from an academic viewpoint, and once you take the academic away from him, you're letting just...some guy tell you to stand up straight and clean your room. Still a smart guy, but still one who isn't talking from authority.</quote> Hmm...what about him being a professor of psychology and having a clinical practice...that doesn't give him authority to talk about the psychological effects of cleaning your room? Which experts in which areas say he's talking out of his ass btw just so I can check it out. I know evolutionary biologists like bret weinstein continually reaffirm what he is saying (most specific example being the vice interview where he discussed the sexual advantage of wearing high heels and make up) but you may not take too much stock in his opinion...not sure. and on things like biology, he cites his arguments pretty well in the newest book, and extremely well in maps of meaning. def. recommend reading that if you can chug through a 900 pager...worth it imo</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 6:57:14 PM #100:	Anteaterking posted... You call it nitpicking, but it's more that there are people who are experts in the areas that Peterson isn't that say he's talking out of his ass on their area. But Peterson (or probably more accurately his followers) has made himself out to be coming from an academic viewpoint, and once you take the academic away from him, you're letting just...some guy tell you to stand up straight and clean your room. Still a smart guy, but still one who isn't talking from authority. Like I absolutely would listen to things he has to say about e.g. alcoholism as he's had highly cited research in good journals on the topic. I have yet to see anyone actually do that tho. I've seen people nitpick irrelevant details but never have I seen any of his actual points be refuted. I mean I just asked you exactly what he got wrong and you didn't answer me, which is pretty much par for the course. Can you go back and actually explain what he's saying that is inaccurate? --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896221789] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote> You call it nitpicking, but it's more that there are people who are experts in the areas that Peterson isn't that say he's talking out of his ass on their area. But Peterson (or probably more accurately his followers) has made himself out to be coming from an academic viewpoint, and once you take the academic away from him, you're letting just...some guy tell you to stand up straight and clean your room. Still a smart guy, but still one who isn't talking from authority. Like I absolutely would listen to things he has to say about e.g. alcoholism as he's had highly cited research in good journals on the topic.</quote> I have yet to see anyone actually do that tho. I've seen people nitpick irrelevant details but never have I seen any of his actual points be refuted. I mean I just asked you exactly what he got wrong and you didn't answer me, which is pretty much par for the course. Can you go back and actually explain what he's saying that is inaccurate?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > Noted intellectual heavyweight Jordan Peterson argues with a bot on Twitter (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Noted intellectual heavyweight Jordan Peterson argues with a bot on Twitter