Jordan Peterson interview on C4

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

It's not much of a common goal when there are over 4k different organised religions in the world, and a couple of billion individual understandings of what the concept of god actually means, in a sphere of discourse where people are prepared to die or kill to defend the honour of their particular version of their particular concept of god.

Dogmatic ideas like religion are not uniting on a grand scale, Locally they unite because they create a congregation of faith, but on a macro scale they are divisive because they have enormous inertia and there is a psychological barrier towards any religious devotees changing their minds. Religious belief is often enforced and removed by the pointy end of a sword.

You can't blame the idea for the actions of people who subscribe to it.

There's no denying some massive similarities across the major relgiions.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, this is it. You need to assume the stories are telling you about something which actually exists beyond simply being story subject matter. But we don’t do the same thing with other stories. We don’t assume there was an actual Spider-Man even though the stories are cool and deal with interesting issues.

Sure we do, we tell children myths, fairy tales and other stories which contain morals, virtues, villains, all teaching the child something.

Akrasia wrote: »

Well, he can probably cure leprosy pretty easily, just give them some antibiotics.

He can pay for surgery to cure countless children of preventable blindness, and raising someone from the dead, as has already been stated, is either impossible, or a routine medical procedure depending on how you define it.

But how exactly does any of this got anything to do with Jordan Peterson?

The point is it's a deliberately sh1te comparison.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

It's like computer programming, garbage in, garbage out. If someone makes an interesting point that requires a thoughtful rebuttal, that's what they get. If people are trying to argue that Jordan Peterson makes sense when he says that Jesus might have risen from the dead because he was like a monk which some how gives himself super powers, then it's an obvious response to point towards someone who is a street magician who performed tricks in full view of the public that are much more impressive than the things JP attributes to Jesus and point out that these feats of endurance and sleight of hand are possible without any appeal to divinity, 'transcendence' or the supernatural

Right, but nobody said that.

Akrasia

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The impressive thing would be surviving the crucifixion.

That's right. It would be extremely impressive

I don't think any monks could survive that, even David Blaine might struggle.

It's all a bit silly though considering there isn't any evidence outside of christian doctrine that the crucifixion ever took place or that he survived it

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

David Blaine froze himself in a block of ice in the middle of Time Square for more than 3 days. That's a lot more impressive than some guy pretending to be dead for a while, hiding out in a cave on his own for a couple of days and then disappearing

Did David Blaine cure leprosy, raise people from the dead, cure the blind?

No. Did anyone else do those things?

I can’t help seeing this talking out both sides of your mouth in both yourself and Peterson’s approach. On one hand it’s all metaphorical and it holds deep meaning, then without warning you jump straight to assuming it’s actually real and not simply metaphorical.

Maybe David Blaine’s endurance tricks are a metaphor for death and rebirth in which case, yes he resurrected from the dead, right? And the story can hold deep and meaningful metaphorical substrates. The spirit of David Blaine is transmitted through stories just like the bible stories, right?

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, this is it. You need to assume the stories are telling you about something which actually exists beyond simply being story subject matter. But we don’t do the same thing with other stories. We don’t assume there was an actual Spider-Man even though the stories are cool and deal with interesting issues.

Sure we do, we tell children myths, fairy tales and other stories which contain morals, virtues, villains, all teaching the child something.

Yes we tell the stories because of the metaphorical usefulness, but we don’t assume the characters are actually real. Is Jesus as real as Spider-Man in that they both are part of an interesting story with life lessons?

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No. Did anyone else do those things?

I can’t help seeing this talking out both sides of your message ugh I’m both yourself and Peterson’s approach. On one hand it’s all metaphorical and it holds deep meaning, then without warning you jump straight to assuming it’s all real and not simply metaphorical.

Maybe David Blaine’s endurance tricks are a metaphor for death and rebirth in which case, yes he resurrected from the dead, right? And the story can hold deep and meaningful metaphorical substrates. The spirit of David Blaine is transmitted through stories just like the bible stories, right?

The stories write about Jesus doing those things.

I didn't jump to anything. I gave the example of the power of meditation and how monks can use it, as an example of something that is slightly beyond our understanding of the objective world.

You asked if Jesus literally died and was resurrected or not. I said that I was playing devil's advocate for a minute, drew out the example, and said it was something I'd have to think about more.

This is the entire issue. Jordan peterson doesn't claim any of the things you're saying he does. You jump on specifics with a scientific, objective lens, when the man is trying to explore concepts beyond our articulated understanding of the world so far.

You're doing it again with the David blaine thing. I've said it's a terrible comparison.
Have stories been written about him and his feats, stories which have survived through generation after generation and held enough value to people that they continued to share the stories?

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes we tell the stories because of the metaphorical usefulness, but we don’t assume the characters are actually real. Is Jesus as real as Spider-Man in that they both are part of an interesting story with life lessons?

I don't know. I haven't done any research into the historical accuracy of the accounts of Jesus.

blinding

Hector Savage wrote: »

Have to say MArian Finucane didn't make a balls of it like Cathy Newman did.

It's a good interview ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvytmaD_PeQ

Kathy is too interested in cutting off balls to do a good interview !:eek:

blinding

Akrasia wrote: »

David Blaine froze himself in a block of ice in the middle of Time Square for more than 2.5 days. That's a lot more impressive than some guy pretending to be dead for a while, hiding out in a cave on his own for a couple of days and then disappearing

David Blane is a Magician . You do realise the Magicians do their Tricks / Acts by Trickery = Not real magic .

Akrasia

kubjones wrote: »

Except its not vague at all, or at least is as vague as all philosophy ISN'T. For any one of us to claim we completely understand human behaviour would be a lie. There's no complete knowledge about the psyche, or the self, but we have a lot of ideas and theories, most of which he bases his arguments on.

Its so easy for you to say he talks nonsense, but your arguments about why its nonsense are far more nonsensical. Maybe its more likely that you simply don't understand it.

He is picking and choosing 'facts' or theories that he sees as 'true', plausible or even 'possible' and then over extending those 'possibilities', 'truths' or 'plausibilities' to defend other statements that do not necessarily follow from his previous assertions.


For example, he goes on all the time about heirarchies always leading to corruption. He asserts this regularly as if it's a fact or even an interesting idea. But it's vacuous. Heirarchy is just a system of organisation. It can be designed so that it reduces corruption or it can exist in a way that gives all the power to a corrupt class of actor. And then there is the argument that if one person or class of person has all the power then there is no need for corruption, the system is already in a state where he can do whatever he wants without needing to corrupt the process.

What I'm saying is that he throws out these words as if they mean something, but they can be interpreted in so many different ways.

Another example of his utter waffle is his oxford address. just face palmingly nonsense waffle that seems like it's intelligent, but is actually pure nonsense.

here's a quote from the start of that talk

Let’s start with a couple of simple observations. The first is that complex biological creatures—and even simple biological creatures, for that matter—have to move forward in the world. That’s the case for any creature that’s mobile, and that goes all the way down to one-celled organisms. The idea that approach and avoidance are the fundamental motivations is a very old biological idea, and it seems to apply across levels of analysis in the animal kingdom. And it’s true for us as well. We have to move forward towards things, because we have requirements. There are things that we require to keep us alive, and to keep us wanting to be alive as well, and those are different things. We move forwards towards things that we value.

What the F does that mean? Firstly, not all biological creatures 'move forward in the world' What does forward mean? Lots of creatures move but don't move forward, they move away from danger, they move with the currents in the ocean, they are moved by other creatures as parasites or symbiotic animals, they drift and filter their food as it comes to them...
Peterson seems to be trying to say that because animals move, they must be moving with a purpose. By moving towards something, they automatically value it, and this creates a heirarchy of some kind, which is more nonsense, because there are lots of systems of being where there a number of 'values' that are all equally desirable and an organism doesn't choose between them, they just arrive at which ever one they are in contact with first and make the most of whatever resources are there (or get eaten)

He then goes to say that because there are values, 'there is no escaping' that we always live in 'a framework of value' by simple virtue that we are 'moving towards something' implying that whatever we are moving towards at any moment is the thing we value the most, then somehow shoehorns in socialism and university departments
The full transcript of his talk is here
https://jordanbpeterson.com/transcripts/oxford-union/


The point I am making is that he builds his arguments on tenuous statement after tenuous statement until the conclusions bear no relation to the underlying assertions.

He spends 10 minutes waffling on about this until it looks like he even realises that he's got nothing to say and ends almost mid sentence. If Peterson had actually prepared a talk instead of turning up to oxford and waffling off the cuff, he might have actually made sense. Peterson contradicts himself because he doesn't properly formulate his ideas before speaking in public. He makes an enormous amount of unsupported assertions and leaps from concept to concept in an incoherent way.


What does this even mean?
It's like the Socratic method but instead of getting agreement on each point before moving on, he makes a whole load of assertions and then jumps to conclusions based on a mish mash of those conclusions, and when someone doesn't agree with his argument, he goes off and says he wasn't fully understood or taken out of context.

Look, Philosophy is often a wishy washy exercise, but logic, as a branch of philosophy, is a rigorous process. To evaluate an argument using logic, you need to check of premises are supported, and the conclusions follow from the premises, and that the connection is logically sound.

Peterson is like a scattergun, he doesn't present his arguments carefully, he builds them on a mountain of sand but because he talks so fast and throws out so many statements in any single argument, he always leaves himself the escape capsule of 'you didn't fully understand my argument'

When is is forced to slow down and is challenged in his statements like he was with Joe Rogan, he falls apart and is forced to admit that he hasn't thought things through.

xckjoo

This thread gives off the vibe that Peterson must be either an oracle or a charlatan and can't be anything in between. He's right about things and he's wrong about things. Determine what he says that you think is right and (more importantly) what'll improve your life and let the reactionaries and the zealots fight it out. He's just human after all*






*until he gets put to death for our sins and rises again to show us "the way"

Giraffe Box

Hector Savage wrote: »

Have to say MArian Finucane didn't make a balls of it like Cathy Newman did.

It's a good interview ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvytmaD_PeQ

Akrasia wrote: »

It's all part of JP's quest, the search for meaning. When you talk in vague nonsense, it's a quest to find any kind of meaning in what he actually says. It's funny if you think about how far people are prepared to go to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just spouting waffle.

Nailed it 'Akrasia', this is why I think Cathy Newman was unfairly ridiculed.
She did a reasonably good job in trying to get JP to clarify wtf he was actually trying to say, not an easy gig at all. In fact, to quote John Lennon, it's like 'trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork in the wind.'
Her big 'mistake' was being honest enough to openly admit 'on air' that she had momentarily lost her train of thought, which is something that can happen to anyone on TV, or even in a normal conversation.
Of course the always adversarial JP got his 'Gotcha' cheap shot in immediately.
Oh how his fanboys laughed.
He's ultimately a snake-oil salesman, a philosophical huckster, the Eamon Dunphy of the internet intelligentsia.
Has an opinion on everything but won't be 'boxed in' by taking a clear stance on anything save for 'equality of outcome'.
So stand up straight with your shoulders back, and listen hard for the sound of BS.
You're being had.

Akrasia

blinding wrote: »

David Blane is a Magician . You do realise the Magicians do their Tricks / Acts by Trickery = Not real magic .

Yes I know. This is in response to someone saying that maybe Jesus just pretended to be dead.

Jordan Peterson is enjoying the luxury of sitting on the fence, talking about god being necessary and referring to scripture and religious principles to justify his positions, but when he is asked if the supernatural elements of the god story are true, he says he isn't sure because there isn't evidence one way or the other.

It's shameless obfuscation imo. God without the supernatural is just the consequence of either some street magicians tricking uneducated peasants thousands of years ago, or some scribes and story tellers making up and embellishing stories that never happened and then others claiming them to be true.

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

The stories write about Jesus doing those things.

I didn't jump to anything. I gave the example of the power of meditation and how monks can use it, as an example of something that is slightly beyond our understanding of the objective world.

You asked if Jesus literally died and was resurrected or not. I said that I was playing devil's advocate for a minute, drew out the example, and said it was something I'd have to think about more.

This is the entire issue. Jordan peterson doesn't claim any of the things you're saying he does. You jump on specifics with a scientific, objective lens, when the man is trying to explore concepts beyond our articulated understanding of the world so far.

You're doing it again with the David blaine thing. I've said it's a terrible comparison.
Have stories been written about him and his feats, stories which have survived through generation after generation and held enough value to people that they continued to share the stories?

If David Blaine had trained as a magician like he did for all those years, and instead of doing his tricks as a magician, he had called himself a prophet and told people he was performing miracles instead of doing magic tricks, you can bet he would have a lot of people telling stories about his great miracles
South Park did a great episode about this.

Sathya Sai Baba was an Indian man who died a few years ago, he has millions of people who believe he performed thousands of miracles and if you talk to them, they'll produce a hell of a lot more evidence for them than JP can find to justify Jesus' possible miracles that he doesn't deny happened. (yet I doubt very much he'd accept Sai Baba as anything more than a charlatan cult leader)

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

He is picking and choosing 'facts' or theories that he sees as 'true', plausible or even 'possible' and then over extending those 'possibilities', 'truths' or 'plausibilities' to defend other statements that do not necessarily follow from his previous assertions.


For example, he goes on all the time about heirarchies always leading to corruption. He asserts this regularly as if it's a fact or even an interesting idea. But it's vacuous. Heirarchy is just a system of organisation. It can be designed so that it reduces corruption or it can exist in a way that gives all the power to a corrupt class of actor. And then there is the argument that if one person or class of person has all the power then there is no need for corruption, the system is already in a state where he can do whatever he wants without needing to corrupt the process.

He says hierarchies lead to corruption, and you go on to list 3 types of hierarchy, one with "reduced" corruption, one very corrupt, and one dictatorship, which is inherently corrupt.

Can hierarchies be designed to exist without corruption?

Akrasia wrote: »

What I'm saying is that he throws out these words as if they mean something, but they can be interpreted in so many different ways.

Another example of his utter waffle is his oxford address. just face palmingly nonsense waffle that seems like it's intelligent, but is actually pure nonsense.

here's a quote from the start of that talk

What the F does that mean? Firstly, not all biological creatures 'move forward in the world' What does forward mean? Lots of creatures move but don't move forward, they move away from danger, they move with the currents in the ocean, they are moved by other creatures as parasites or symbiotic animals, they drift and filter their food as it comes to them...
Peterson seems to be trying to say that because animals move, they must be moving with a purpose. By moving towards something, they automatically value it, and this creates a heirarchy of some kind, which is more nonsense, because there are lots of systems of being where there a number of 'values' that are all equally desirable and an organism doesn't choose between them, they just arrive at which ever one they are in contact with first and make the most of whatever resources are there (or get eaten)

Right, but you agree they all move.

Plants move towards light. If there are 2 light sources, it will grow in both directiosn perhaps, but more so towards the stronger source of light.

Creatures which run from danger, what do they do if there are 2 sources of danger? Is one more dangerous than the other?

Can you give an example of an organism which doesn't choose to some extent between options?

Akrasia wrote: »

What does this even mean?
It's like the Socratic method but instead of getting agreement on each point before moving on, he makes a whole load of assertions and then jumps to conclusions based on a mish mash of those conclusions, and when someone doesn't agree with his argument, he goes off and says he wasn't fully understood or taken out of context.

What conclusions does he jump to?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

Sathya Sai Baba was an Indian man who died a few years ago, he has millions of people who believe he performed thousands of miracles and if you talk to them, they'll produce a hell of a lot more evidence for them than JP can find to justify Jesus' possible miracles that he doesn't deny happened. (yet I doubt very much he'd accept Sai Baba as anything more than a charlatan cult leader)

I'll have to read about him, he sounds interesting.

blinding

xckjoo wrote: »

This thread gives off the vibe that Peterson must be either an oracle or a charlatan and can't be anything in between. He's right about things and he's wrong about things. Determine what he says that you think is right and (more importantly) what'll improve your life and let the reactionaries and the zealots fight it out. He's just human after all*






*until he gets put to death for our sins and rises again to show us "the way"

Peterson and Douglas Murray are interesting . Look at their videos and make up your own minds .

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Created or discovered?

Created. First we created animal spirits, then we created astrological gods, then we created slightly enhanced humans as gods(gods of Olympus, Asgard etc.), then we created monotheism and finally we started killing god because we didn’t need him.

Each phase of religious devotion was destroyed by knowledge. When we learned enough about the world each type of god became silly to believe in. Monotheism is hanging on for now, but there’s a growing number of people who are rejecting the idea of a supernatural creator being as its actually quite a silly idea.

I’m paraphrasing quite a complex idea, but would be happy to expand on it.

I don't see Peterson claiming that God definitely exists.

No. Because that would be taking a solid position. He doesn’t really do that.

Even if it's exactly what you describe, a man made construct to provide a common goal, and we've called it God, does that construct not exist?

What's the common goal in your description of God?

I don’t have a description of god.

But my Caesar salad just arrived. I’ll get back to this later.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

Created. First we created animal spirits, then we created astrological gods, then we created slightly enhanced humans as gods(gods of Olympus, Asgard etc.), then we created monotheism and finally we started killing god because we didn’t need him.

Each phase of religious devotion was destroyed by knowledge. When we learned enough about the world each type of god became silly to believe in. Monotheism is hanging on for now, but there’s a growing number of people who are rejecting the idea of a supernatural creator being as its actually quite a silly idea.

I’m paraphrasing quite a complex idea, but would be happy to expand on it.



No. Because that would be taking a solid position. He doesn’t really do that.



I don’t have a description of god.

But my Caesar salad just arrived. I’ll get back to this later.

If you're open to expanding on the idea I'd be happy to read it.

Would you take a solid position in saying that God absolutely does not exist?

Brian?

xckjoo wrote: »

This thread gives off the vibe that Peterson must be either an oracle or a charlatan and can't be anything in between. He's right about things and he's wrong about things. Determine what he says that you think is right and (more importantly) what'll improve your life and let the reactionaries and the zealots fight it out. He's just human after all*






*until he gets put to death for our sins and rises again to show us "the way"

Nah. He’s a bleeding charlatan


You’re right though. He is correct sometimes, if that helps people, lovely stuff. He’s not a bad fella after all. His motivations are good.

But people need to be careful about swallowing everything says whole. Critical analysis needs to be applied to everything he says. A lot of which is wrong.

There’s a tipping point. When I disagree with him more than I agree, I stop listening to most of what he says.

That’s my point.

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

He says hierarchies lead to corruption, and you go on to list 3 types of hierarchy, one with "reduced" corruption, one very corrupt, and one dictatorship, which is inherently corrupt.

Can hierarchies be designed to exist without corruption?

When someone says x leads to y where y is a quantity of something, the implication is that more x increases the incidence of y. so if some kinds of x lead to the reduction of y, then the statement is logically invalid.

A hierarchy is simply a system of decision making. Even non hierarchical decision making structures still need to have some kind of hierarchical structure in order to make decisions, whether it's by consensus or by some kind of electoral system. When JP attributes all of these features to the word 'hierarchy' he is vastly over simplifying things and taking the concept way too far

(A good example of a non hierarchical decision making structure is a bee colony, for example. when a bee colony is looking for a new hive, a small number of scouts set off in every direction, when a scout finds a suitable location it returns to the rest of the colony and does a dance which indicates how suitable that location is, the longer the dance, the better the location and the more bees get convinced to follow that scout back to her chosen site. If two sites are similarly promising, it becomes a competition over which scouts convince the most of the colony to follow them. the majority decides so when a consensus emerges all the colony accepts it and works together to build the new home. The decision is made collectively without a hierarchy, but the decision making process prioritises the consensus of the colony in order to preserve the colony and avoid splitting the group)

Right, but you agree they all move.

Plants move towards light. If there are 2 light sources, it will grow in both directiosn perhaps, but more so towards the stronger source of light.

Creatures which run from danger, what do they do if there are 2 sources of danger? Is one more dangerous than the other?

Can you give an example of an organism which doesn't choose to some extent between options?

Mussels and other sessile organisms that float around until they can anchor on a rock where they then spend their lives filtering whatever happens to float past or dissolving whatever rock they're living on.

What conclusions does he jump to?

follow his arguments, his premises don't support his conclusions.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

If you're open to expanding on the idea I'd be happy to read it.

Would you take a solid position in saying that God absolutely does not exist?

My salad was delicious, in case anyone was wondering. Really zingy anchovies, a rare delight. PM me for details.

I’m very open to expanding on the idea. But I’m wondering if I’ll do it justice. How would you feel about a reading list?

I take a position that on the balance of probabilities there is no Devine creator being controlling the universe. I.e. a “god” like the Judeo-Christian-Muslim Yahweh/Holy trinity/Allah doesn’t exist.

Does a prime creator exist? Possibly. Is it worth finding out? Probably not, there are far bigger fish to fry locally and whatever form hat god takes isn’t going to a give a fiddlers if we know or worship them.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

My salad was delicious, in case anyone was wondering. Really zingy anchovies, a rare delight. PM me for details.

I’m very open to expanding on the idea. But I’m wondering if I’ll do it justice. How would you feel about a reading list?

I take a position that on the balance of probabilities there is no Devine creator being controlling the universe. I.e. a “god” like the Judeo-Christian-Muslim Yahweh/Holy trinity/Allah doesn’t exist.

Does a prime creator exist? Possibly. Is it worth finding out? Probably not, there are far bigger fish to fry locally and whatever form hat god takes isn’t going to a give a fiddlers if we know or worship them.

Sure, if you've any particular recommendations they're welcome.

While it might be irrelevant in the scheme of things if we worship them by going to mass and saying prayers etc, however it would imply that there are some ways to act which result in more positive times for us, and ways we can act which will result in negative consequences.

I'm glad you enjoyed your salad.

Akrasia

Brian? wrote: »

My salad was delicious, in case anyone was wondering. Really zingy anchovies, a rare delight. PM me for details.

I’m very open to expanding on the idea. But I’m wondering if I’ll do it justice. How would you feel about a reading list?

I take a position that on the balance of probabilities there is no Devine creator being controlling the universe. I.e. a “god” like the Judeo-Christian-Muslim Yahweh/Holy trinity/Allah doesn’t exist.

Does a prime creator exist? Possibly. Is it worth finding out? Probably not, there are far bigger fish to fry locally and whatever form hat god takes isn’t going to a give a fiddlers if we know or worship them.

For the record, let it be stated that my thanking this post is not an endorsement of anchovies in Cesar Salad.

Bleurgh

(just my personal tastes)

seannash

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Nailed it 'Akrasia', this is why I think Cathy Newman was unfairly ridiculed.
She did a reasonably good job in trying to get JP to clarify wtf he was actually trying to say, not an easy gig at all. In fact, to quote John Lennon, it's like 'trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork in the wind.'
Her big 'mistake' was being honest enough to openly admit 'on air' that she had momentarily lost her train of thought, which is something that can happen to anyone on TV, or even in a normal conversation.
Of course the always adversarial JP got his 'Gotcha' cheap shot in immediately.
Oh how his fanboys laughed.
He's ultimately a snake-oil salesman, a philosophical huckster, the Eamon Dunphy of the internet intelligentsia.
Has an opinion on everything but won't be 'boxed in' by taking a clear stance on anything save for 'equality of outcome'.
So stand up straight with your shoulders back, and listen hard for the sound of BS.
You're being had.

You're way off the mark,
Her mistake was that she attacked him because he said we should be allowed to risk offending people in the name of free speech and she argued that you shouldn't be allowed use words that offend certain groups of individuals.
He countered her argument by pointing out that she is risking offending him with her questions and thats perfectly fine.
She stopped cold because how can it be okay to risk offending Jordan Peterson but not okay to risk offending a trans person. Its a complete double standard.
If you cant see this in the video you're unwilling to see it.
She wasn't trying her best to find out what Jordan Petersons beliefs are, she was trying to sum them up in a nice little offensive soundbite and he wouldn't let her.
His position on the gender pay gap was quite clear, sex is a factor but its one of many factors. She wouldn't accept that and every other factor Peterson said was a contributor to the pay gap such as intelligence was jumped on by her with headline grabbing statements such as "So you're saying Women aren't as smart as men"
The woman had an agenda and she didn't fulfil it. Plain and simple

Giraffe Box

Mark 12:17

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar his salad, and don't forget the anchovies, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him..... or something.''

xckjoo

Brian? wrote: »

Nah. He’s a bleeding charlatan


You’re right though. He is correct sometimes, if that helps people, lovely stuff. He’s not a bad fella after all. His motivations are good.

But people need to be careful about swallowing everything says whole. Critical analysis needs to be applied to everything he says. A lot of which is wrong.

There’s a tipping point. When I disagree with him more than I agree, I stop listening to most of what he says.

That’s my point.

Yup. We need more discussion about things and less one side vs the other. The two sides of the coin are accepting everything he says has gospel (if you'll pardon the pun) and dismissing everything he says as quackery. The world is not black and white. People need to learn to recognise the shades of grey. People also need to recognise that we're all rarely as right as we think we are

7aubzxk43m2sni

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PH-57FhL-U

The first 10 minutes of this are interesting.

Actually the whole thing is fascinating.

lukesmom

LOVE him

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Sure, if you've any particular recommendations they're welcome.

Sure thing. I’ll post some in a bit.

While it might be irrelevant in the scheme of things if we worship them by going to mass and saying prayers etc, however it would imply that there are some ways to act which result in more positive times for us, and ways we can act which will result in negative consequences.

I see what you’re saying. A supreme creator being isn’t necessary for groups to act together for the greater good though.

Quite the opposite in fact. An atheist is unlikely to fly a plane into a building in the name of atheism.

I'm glad you enjoyed your salad.

Thanks. It really was top notch.