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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Well duh, the law was passed less than a year ago, it'd take a while for a person to even get to the point that they could find themselves facing jail time. And you do know that even Peterson acknowledges that that would only arise if someone refused to pay a fine or some other court order, so the crime would actually be contempt of court right?

It seems like you're looking for jail sentences in the actual Bill C 16, that's not how it works. Bill C16 opens up the possibility for this to happen, since "gender identity" and "gender expression" were purposely not defined in the bill. The argument has always been that Bill C 16 leaves open the possibility of compelled speech due to its shoddy writing. I thought you knew this.
---

But really dude, even if we just assume that Peterson was wrong about this, so what? Why does that make you hate him so much?
---

You still haven't got a single example of anyone being punished for not following the law and the experts say it can't be used that way.

"I might be right, just give it more time!" is hardly an argument.

"But even if he is wrong, so what?"
---

No one has said that it can't be used that way, because it can. The debate is over whether it will or not.

But you do acknowledge that a law has been passed right? So what's your explanation for no one being punished by it? Is it just a pointless law that doesn't actually do anything to anyone? Lol see how silly it is to claim that if something doesn't immediately happen, then it is impossible to happen?

But yeah, even if he's wrong, so what? I really don't understand your passionate hatred for the man.
---

Honestly, I mainly hate his cultists. He's just a grifter that wouldn't mean anything without his following.
---

Why do you hate people who listen to him?
---

nicklebro posted...

Why do you hate people who listen to him?

because they dismiss any evidence that their leader might not be all he makes himself out to be
---

Nobody asked you.
---

no need to be rude now
---

@ASithLord7

What's wrong with Jordan Peterson in your view, Rebel?
---

nicklebro posted...

Again, I have yet to see any proof that what he's saying isn't accurate. And I'm not even saying that you're wrong about that, I'm just asking you to tell me what he's saying that is wrong.

Once you acknowledge that his citations are irrelevant to what he's talking about, you're left with statements that don't really have truth values.

Are you saying that you want me to show "God must exist because we need a creator" is false? The first part doesn't follow from the second, but I'm not able to prove God doesn't exist.

I gave you a disproof for "Moral systems have to share attributes with axiomatic systems" already.

If he's wrong about the psychology of "why to clean your room", it might still be the case that it is "right" to clean your room, but there's just no real content there.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't give his arguments and positions weight by saying that he's an academic/intellectual, and then say that it doesn't matter if those arguments are valid because he's still right.
---

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

Again, I have yet to see any proof that what he's saying isn't accurate. And I'm not even saying that you're wrong about that, I'm just asking you to tell me what he's saying that is wrong.

Once you acknowledge that his citations are irrelevant to what he's talking about, you're left with statements that don't really have truth values.

Are you saying that you want me to show "God must exist because we need a creator" is false? The first part doesn't follow from the second, but I'm not able to prove God doesn't exist.

I gave you a disproof for "Moral systems have to share attributes with axiomatic systems" already.

If he's wrong about the psychology of "why to clean your room", it might still be the case that it is "right" to clean your room, but there's just no real content there.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't give his arguments and positions weight by saying that he's an academic/intellectual, and then say that it doesn't matter if those arguments are valid because he's still right.

I didn't know he said "God must exist because we need a creator", if those were indeed his words, then that's definitely something I disagree with him on. But something tells me you're either making that up or misunderstanding something he said, because he's talked at length about belief in god, what it means to believe, what a god actually is. You seem to be painting him into a corner of being your run of the mill Christian, if you were to actually research the subject you'd see that that couldn't be further from the case. Its why I said you're misunderstanding his previous statement where he invoked Godel, and that's why I still disagree with you on that topic.

But aside from the religious aspect for a second, you're kinda jumping around in this post and took a massive leap when you just threw out "If he's wrong about the psychology of "why to clean your room"" which is a perfect example of the issue I continue to run into with Peterson detractors. For some reason a lot of people seem to think that if they can prove anything Peterson's said to be false or even just technically inaccurate, that that's all you need to justify completely trashing his philosophy and even question his understanding of psychology as a whole. This is what happens when you try to assess someone's work when you have an agenda. You grasp for the first debatable line you can find and then cling to it, building up its importance, claiming that it is the cornerstone of the entire argument and no further discussion is necessary. Its why you see people here doing some deep research on lobsters after Peterson mentioned them, they just get tunnel vision and don't realize that they're nitpicking a line that's tangential at best.

And I really don't understand the end of your post, I haven't claimed anything about Peterson or said any of the things you posted, all I've done is ask for someone to show me what convinced them that Peterson was a fraud or a phony and not worth listening to. I mean the dude has been a professor at Harvard and University of Toronto, so its one thing to claim that the guy just doesn't resonate with you or say anything that interests you, but the Peterson haters here obviously have to push everything to the extreme and make these absurd accusations, and I really am just trying to understand what it is that makes people not like him. From my own observations, a lot of it seems to be misinformation. I've seen him accused of being a transphobe, blaming women for sexual harassment, being part of the alt right, lol hell I've even see someone claim that he argued men should be allowed to beat women. None of that is even close to true.
---

nicklebro posted...

All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum.

Still laughing at this lol
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

nicklebro posted...

All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum.

Still laughing at this lol

"Trudeau? Macron? the Democratic Party in the US? yeah, they're all left"
---

I don't see any actual relevant liberal parties in the US that aren't on the left. Can you point me towards any? Cuz I'm referring to parties that actually exist, not just parties that exist solely as ideas.

Weird how you guys have to keep deflecting since no one has been able to actually respond to my challenge. Lol what am I talking about? Of course it isn't weird, this is what happens in literally every single topic like this.
---

nicklebro posted...

I don't see any actual relevant liberal parties in the US that aren't on the left. Can you point me towards any? Cuz I'm referring to parties that actually exist, not just parties that exist solely as ideas.

the Democratic Party is not on the left, and if you think they are, then you are objectively incorrect
---

https://mobile.twitter.com/jbporcleric
---

nicklebro posted...

I don't see any actual relevant liberal parties in the US that aren't on the left. Can you point me towards any? Cuz I'm referring to parties that actually exist, not just parties that exist solely as ideas.

Weird how you guys have to keep deflecting since no one has been able to actually respond to my challenge. Lol what am I talking about? Of course it isn't weird, this is what happens in literally every single topic like this.

Antifar posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/jbporcleric

Two funny posts :)
---

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

I don't see any actual relevant liberal parties in the US that aren't on the left. Can you point me towards any? Cuz I'm referring to parties that actually exist, not just parties that exist solely as ideas.

the Democratic Party is not on the left, and if you think they are, then you are objectively incorrect

lol oh ok.

NinjaBreakfast posted...

nicklebro posted...

I don't see any actual relevant liberal parties in the US that aren't on the left. Can you point me towards any? Cuz I'm referring to parties that actually exist, not just parties that exist solely as ideas.

Weird how you guys have to keep deflecting since no one has been able to actually respond to my challenge. Lol what am I talking about? Of course it isn't weird, this is what happens in literally every single topic like this.

Antifar posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/jbporcleric

Two funny posts :)

Weird how right after getting called out for deflecting, this is the best you can come up with.

Idk how many times I've asked just to be shown what you saw that swayed your opinion on Jordan Peterson. Why can't anyone just do that? If you just don't like the guy, then just say that. Don't act as if your disdain for him is rooted in anything rational, it just makes you look silly when you get called out on it, like you have been ITT.
---