Jordan Peterson interview on C4

nkl12xtw5goz70

Brian? wrote: »

I also thing it's pretty funny call anything a "western Christian ethos" and meaning it positively. For about a thousand years or so, western Christians did horrific things in the name of Christianity.

Ah, one longs for the barbaric sacrificial violence kind, compassionate society portrayed in Homer's Iliad and numerous other works of pre-Christian antiquity. Too bad Christianity had to come along and destroy that idyllic, peaceful world.

El_Duderino 09

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Ah, yes, the barbaric sacrificial violence kind, compassionate society portrayed in Homer's Iliad and numerous other works of pre-Christian antiquity. Too bad Christianity had to come along and destroy that idyllic, peaceful world.

So does Christianity get credit for all the good things people in the West do? What's the claim?

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Ah, one longs for the barbaric sacrificial violence kind, compassionate society portrayed in Homer's Iliad and numerous other works of pre-Christian antiquity. Too bad Christianity had to come along and destroy that idyllic, peaceful world.

Is that an attempt at rebutting the point I made? You believe I'm wrong about Christianity?

Brian?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So does Christianity get credit for all the good things people in the West do? What's the claim?

I'm really looking forward to answer here.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sounds like I was right..

Aren't you clever? That's sarcasm FYI, some people struggled with it earlier.

No actual attempt to engage with the point I made. Just an attempt at a "clever" one liner.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Aren't you clever? That's sarcasm FYI, some people struggled with it earlier.

No actual attempt to engage with the point I made. Just an attempt at a "clever" one liner.

I had a reply typed out, but I realized we probably wouldn't agree..

Are you sure it's sarcasm this time?.. you're not just trying to roll back on a point once the logical conclusion of your position is apparent?..

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

I'm really looking forward to answer here.

Wouldn't that answer be coming from you? Since you're the one who pointed out the negativity of the church. You started the argument... no?

s7ryf3925pivug

Brian? wrote: »

Jordan Peterson has done a great job of selling that idea, but it's completely untrue. Compassion and collaboration is hard wired into human DNA for millions of years. Collaboration is what allowed us to be the dominant species on the planet well before anyone invented the idea of monotheism, never mind the Christian flavour.

I also thing it's pretty funny call anything a "western Christian ethos" and meaning it positively. For about a thousand years or so, western Christians did horrific things in the name of Christianity.

That's not true. Westerners still do horrific things in the name of Christianity. Look at all the paedos in this country and elsewhere.

s7ryf3925pivug

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Ah, one longs for the barbaric sacrificial violence kind, compassionate society portrayed in Homer's Iliad and numerous other works of pre-Christian antiquity. Too bad Christianity had to come along and destroy that idyllic, peaceful world.

The Illiad is a classical work of fiction, not a historical document.

Royce Stocky Stage

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

That's not true. Westerners still do horrific things in the name of Christianity. Look at all the paedos in this country and elsewhere.

The paedos didn't do what they did "in the name of Christianity" though. The Church, like many institutions (such as the police, or military) attracts all kinds of weirdo's. The paedos did what they did for their own reasons.

I'm not (generally) going to defend the RC. I don't like religion. I find it a disgraceful human creation. however, can we stay somewhat balanced on the topic?

sbsquarepants

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

She sells "counselling" sessions in the diet so people who pay her money to hear about it through the blog, one to one sessions etc. What's not to see?

He promotes it for her, she sells it. They both give all the disclaimers to cover them legally. They have made a diet book, just not in book form. I don't know what you don't see. It's pretty clear to me.

I'm not arguing against any of that.

My point is quite is a quite simple one. So what?

The girl is entitled to do whatever the hell she wants for a living, within reason. There are certain things she can't do legally and she's not doing those things. It's a complete non story.

Every second book is just someone telling their personal story of overcoming x by doing y. What of it?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

The paedos didn't do what they did "in the name of Christianity" though. The Church, like many institutions (such as the police, or military) attracts all kinds of weirdo's. The paedos did what they did for their own reasons.

I'm not (generally) going to defend the RC. I don't like religion. I find it a disgraceful human creation. however, can we stay somewhat balanced on the topic?

The suggestion seems to be that when people do something good it is "in the name of Christianity". I doubt most people would actually defend that position when push comes to shove. But their man JP said it so they feel compelled to defend it to some extent when someone calls it untrue.

El_Duderino 09

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not arguing against any of that.

My point is quite is a quite simple one. So what?

The girl is entitled to do whatever the hell she wants for a living, within reason. There are certain things she can't do legally and she's not doing those things. It's a complete non story.

Every second book is just someone telling their personal story of overcoming x by doing y. What of it?

Of course. It's a simple con trick with all the legal disclaimers to make sure it falls on the right side of the law.

But it must be a bit disappointing for JP fans to see their man involved in such an obvious con.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wouldn't that answer be coming from you? Since you're the one who pointed out the negativity of the church. You started the argument... no?

Ha? I was responding to a point made by someone that the left only disliked Peterson because most of our beliefs are born from Western Christianity. So, no I didn't "start the argument".

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I had a reply typed out, but I realized we probably wouldn't agree..

Of course we wouldn't, that's why it's a debate. You only want to interact with people who you agree with?

Are you sure it's sarcasm this time?.. you're not just trying to roll back on a point once the logical conclusion of your position is apparent?..

Is there a point to that?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The suggestion seems to be that when people do something good it is "in the name of Christianity". I doubt most people would actually defend that position when push comes to shove. But their man JP said it so they feel compelled to defend it to some extent when someone calls it untrue.

Except that some people did do great and wonderful things in the name of Christianity. It's an institution that's been around for a long time, with a very wide reach. Some of its members, either due to the teachings of the church (compassion, sympathy, love, etc), or their own personalities, did wonderful things for other people... in the name of Christianity.

The flip side are the holy wars, inquisitions, murder etc all of which were also done in the name of the church.

However, I think we've moved away from what JP referred to which was the backbone of christian religion in the formation of Western European Societies, and therefore, the effects it had on the rest of the world. Just as Islam has had impact on the development of Muslim nations, or Judaism on the Jewish people. The religion "guided" the society towards certain points, which projected that society past other societies lacking in similar direction/focus.

Go forth and spread the word of God, was a pretty strong suggestion on the faithful to spread the religion to others, which helped to push European empires into the lives of peoples who hadn't explored beyond their own horizons.

Brian?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The suggestion seems to be that when people do something good it is "in the name of Christianity". I doubt most people would actually defend that position when push comes to shove. But their man JP said it so they feel compelled to defend it to some extent when someone calls it untrue.

It's more sinister than that. It's the idea that only Christianity is the font of all goodness. Therefore everything else is inferior. I actually don't think Peterson pushes that much, but that's what his followers love.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

It's more sinister than that. It's the idea that only Christianity is the font of all goodness. Therefore everything else is inferior. I actually don't think Peterson pushes that much, but that's what his followers love.

Strangely enough, all the followers of JP I know, who natter on about him are athiests, or agnostic. I've never heard anyone harping on about the good of the Church, in connection with him. Interesting. Anything in particular I should be listening to?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that some people did do great and wonderful things in the name of Christianity. It's an institution that's been around for a long time, with a very wide reach. Some of its members, either due to the teachings of the church (compassion, sympathy, love, etc), or their own personalities, did wonderful things for other people... in the name of Christianity.

The flip side are the holy wars, inquisitions, murder etc all of which were also done in the name of the church.

However, I think we've moved away from what JP referred to which was the backbone of christian religion in the formation of Western European Societies, and therefore, the effects it had on the rest of the world. Just as Islam has had impact on the development of Muslim nations, or Judaism on the Jewish people. The religion "guided" the society towards certain points, which projected that society past other societies lacking in similar direction/focus.

Go forth and spread the word of God, was a pretty strong suggestion on the faithful to spread the religion to others, which helped to push European empires into the lives of peoples who hadn't explored beyond their own horizons.

Sure. A Christian tells his mostly Christian conservative audience that their religion is great and it should get credit for lots of the good things in modern life. Sure of course they were going to lap it up.

But ultimately Christianity is one of the big and persistent political movements in the west. So of course it would haven impact on the society in which it exists like the way Fianna Fail has an impact on Irish society over the last century. Whether those influences are good or bad is a separate mater.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Strangely enough, all the followers of JP I know, who natter on about him are athiests, or agnostic. I've never heard anyone harping on about the good of the Church, in connection with him. Interesting. Anything in particular I should be listening to?

Sure. And if you were in America, where his primary market is, then his fans would be mostly conservative Christians hence his conservative massage and the pro Christianity message. He's not trying to challenge his fan's views. He's just serving them what they already think and giving them a clever sounding argument in favour of what they already think.

sbsquarepants

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course. It's a simple con trick with all the legal disclaimers to make sure it falls on the right side of the law.

But it must be a bit disappointing for JP fans to see their man involved in such an obvious con.

I wouldn't call myself a fan per se, although i do generally like what i have seen of the man. I've seen very little of his daughter, but I'm just not seeing the con, obvious and all as you think it is.

It's just her story, neither of them seem to be claiming it as anything else as far as i can tell. You seem to be suggesting that her actually saying "i am not offering this as advice, it is merely my story" is just her tricking people into thinking it's some miracle fountain of youth and vitality.

She's making money from it, but so what. People make money off their stories every day of the week, i just don't see the problem?

El_Duderino 09

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I wouldn't call myself a fan per se, although i do generally like what i have seen of the man. I've seen very little of his daughter, but I'm just not seeing the con, obvious and all as you think it is.

It's just her story, neither of them seem to be claiming it as anything else as far as i can tell. You seem to be suggesting that her actually saying "i am not offering this as advice, it is merely my story" is just her tricking people into thinking it's some miracle fountain of youth and vitality.

She's making money from it, but so what. People make money off their stories every day of the week, i just don't see the problem?

Sure. They made a miracle cure and they're selling it to gullible people. I would be disappointed if someone I was a fan of was using their name to sell such obvious woo.

It's interesting that people will claim not to be a fan, but will still feel an instinct to defend anything he says. If Peterson said it so there must be some truth in it. That's exactly how they're selling the miracle cure diet.

There are people who sell holy water on those Christian tv channels. This is no different to those people. It's not illegal to sell miracle cure holy water to gullible people, but it's pretty shameful in my opinion.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Strangely enough, all the followers of JP I know, who natter on about him are athiests, or agnostic. I've never heard anyone harping on about the good of the Church, in connection with him. Interesting. Anything in particular I should be listening to?

I find it strange than any atheist can be a fan of Peterson, religion is at the heart of everything he says. He even says you can't give up smoking without believing in god. He's also opined that most atheists are in denial about their belief I god.

Torino

Brian? wrote: »

I find it strange than any atheist can be a fan of Peterson, religion is at the heart of everything he says. He even says you can't give up smoking without believing in god. He's also opined that most atheists are in denial about their belief I god.

I'm an atheist and I'd be a fan of a lot of what he says because I think it makes sense and dispels much of the nonsense we hear today. Obviously I disagree with believing in God.

Jordan Peterson appears to be in favour of that which is good for the the well being and advancement of civilisation. Most of what he advocates appears to be in alignment with that. As an atheist I'd even argue that religion is probably good for civilisation, it is a delusion that supports civilisation to function more smoothly.

Human sexuality from the very beginning to this day has been a massive impediment to the advancement of civilisation. Hypergamy means most men are simply not sexually attractive to women. Without sex though, or the realistic prospect of sex, most men are either unproductive and even destructive for society. This is why I think marriage and much of religion was invented. To make the average man more productive and controllable.

s7ryf3925pivug

Brian? wrote: »

I find it strange than any atheist can be a fan of Peterson, religion is at the heart of everything he says. He even says you can't give up smoking without believing in god. He's also opined that most atheists are in denial about their belief I god.

I certainly have no belief in god. Saw through that nonsense while I was in primary school. Find it bizarre that society hasn't properly moved on from religion.

I gave up smoking years ago. Only belief it involved was in myself. I had utter contempt at the idea that I was addicted to something.

Peterson obviously is a hypocrite and has zero credibility wrt how to overcome addiction.

Torino

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

I certainly have no belief in god. Saw through that nonsense while I was in primary school. Find it bizarre that society hasn't properly moved on from religion.

I gave up smoking years ago. Only belief it involved was in myself. I had utter contempt at the idea that I was addicted to something.

Peterson obviously is a hypocrite and has zero credibility wrt how to overcome addiction.

Well it depends on the level of addiction, some addictions are almost impossible to overcome. It could be that Peterson I'd a hypocrite or it also could be that he was simply wrong and will revise his beliefs based on his experience. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being wrong, everyone is wrong about things. What's important is learning from mistakes and experience.

s7ryf3925pivug

Dunno why people want to take direction on how to be a man from a ****ing benzo addict.

s7ryf3925pivug

Torino wrote: »

Well it depends on the level of addiction, some addictions are almost impossible to overcome. It could be that Peterson I'd a hypocrite or it also could be that he was simply wrong and will revise his beliefs based on his experience. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being wrong, everyone is wrong about things. What's important is learning from mistakes and experience.

I assure you I was badly addicted. Think it would have been easier to starve myself than resist smoking. Yet I did, like loads of other people have. no belief in god involved.

s7ryf3925pivug

It's at odds with the whole persona that he's marketed. He's not stoic, he's an addict who became an addict by abusing drugs. He's not composed or in great control of his emotions, he's just on benzos. Anyone who has taken inspiration from this charlatan has been taken for a fool and should rightly be angry about that.

Torino

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

It's at odds with the whole persona that he's marketed. He's not stoic, he's an addict who became an addict by abusing drugs. He's not composed or in great control of his emotions, he's just on benzos. Anyone who has taken inspiration from this charlatan has been taken for a fool and should rightly be angry about that.

I don't believe he is a "charlatan", I think he gives the advice that he thinks is best.