Jordan Peterson

#201
#201
NashVol11 said:
My guy, he said the most basic definition of "believe" is circular (it's not) and then started saying "believe" means "stake your life on" (it doesn't) and then started saying he wouldn't lie to save someone's life (wtf?) rather than entertain a hypothetical. There was nothing to even argue about and he still managed to lose. Not surprised you're one of his fanboys
Click to expand...
Bro, don’t you have a tranny agenda to promote or something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#202
#202
marcusluvsvols said:
4 or 5 different posters taking shots at Peterson for various different things, I agreed with 1 poster (in a quoted response to his post) who criticizes exactly 1 aspect of JP...him choosing to be an advocate for Christians. You proceed to post your snarky little comment above trying to be cute.

The fact you think all the other things I mentioned describing modern liberals and their insane, detached from reality views are totally unrelated is not surprising. You exemplify ALL OF THEM 🤣. You defend every single ridiculous position I mention in my post. All of them. Completely divorced from logic, reason, biology, etc . At some point you will realize the very basic point: when a Liberal believes that women have penises, men give birth, boys should play girls sports, etc then rational people are not going to listen anymore. See: Democrat Party. 21% approval rating.

I haven't responded to your posts in months bud. You and I apparently agree on nearly nothing and I don't waste time arguing with strangers on the internet. I have no idea why I responded this time...I have ignored you quoting my posts repeatedly for quite some time. Its probably best that we just agree that our viewpoints are irreconcilable. Thankfully we live in a country where we can believe whatever we choose without issues.
Click to expand...
He does support some down right ridiculous 💩.
 
#203
#203
marcusluvsvols said:
4 or 5 different posters taking shots at Peterson for various different things, I agreed with 1 poster (in a quoted response to his post) who criticizes exactly 1 aspect of JP...him choosing to be an advocate for Christians. You proceed to post your snarky little comment above trying to be cute.

The fact you think all the other things I mentioned describing modern liberals and their insane, detached from reality views are totally unrelated is not surprising. You exemplify ALL OF THEM 🤣. You defend every single ridiculous position I mention in my post. All of them. Completely divorced from logic, reason, biology, etc . At some point you will realize the very basic point: when a Liberal believes that women have penises, men give birth, boys should play girls sports, etc then rational people are not going to listen anymore. See: Democrat Party. 21% approval rating.

I haven't responded to your posts in months bud. You and I apparently agree on nearly nothing and I don't waste time arguing with strangers on the internet. I have no idea why I responded this time...I have ignored you quoting my posts repeatedly for quite some time. Its probably best that we just agree that our viewpoints are irreconcilable. Thankfully we live in a country where we can believe whatever we choose without issues.
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of the Democratic Party but if you honestly believe that either party's platform has a 21% approval rating, you should focus some of those YouTube/podcast hours on content that addresses how to deal with misinformation. Democrats in Congress aren't popular because they don't do anything, but Republicans in Congress aren't popular either
 
#205
#205
NashVol11 said:
100% chance you would be saying this about black or gay people in prior decades
Click to expand...

You’re probably a nice guy, based on your benevolent stances, but a lot of your stances are really f’ed up.
If I were a matchmaker, I’d pair you up with Huff. Y’all could argue and bitch for hours on end over some really weird stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79 and NEO
#206
#206
midnight orange said:
Imo… lying to Nazis is not really a hypothetical because it actually happened. Dumb hypotheticals would be like killing baby Hitler.
Click to expand...
It’s a dumb hypothetical because it does not equate to the question of believing if God is real. Just like the point Parker was trying to make that he wouldn’t die for a pencil didn’t make any sense either. He would lie saying it’s not real but his belief in the pencil wouldn’t suddenly cease to exist
 
#207
#207
Smokey123 said:
It’s a dumb hypothetical because it does not equate to the question of believing if God is real. Just like the point Parker was trying to make that he wouldn’t die for a pencil didn’t make any sense either. He would lie saying it’s not real but his belief in the pencil wouldn’t suddenly cease to exist
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are saying this or the opposite, but you realize that's exactly the point of the hypothetical. he was exposing the absurdity of the statement that belief is something you will die for. I will not die for the belief that the pencil is real, but I still believe it is real. That's how normal people think "belief" works. JP says you gotta be totally radical or it's not a belief, and he's totally wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#208
#208
n_huffhines said:
Not sure if you are saying this or the opposite, but you realize that's exactly the point of the hypothetical. he was exposing the absurdity of the statement that belief is something you will die for. I will not die for the belief that the pencil is real, but I still believe it is real. That's how normal people think "belief" works. JP says you gotta be totally radical or it's not a belief, and he's totally wrong.
Click to expand...
Except they’re talking about God and religion not a worthless pencil. Any close follower of an Abrahamic religion would say they’d die for their belief, or at minimum act out their belief. Which is why JP asked him to define belief since he asked if he believed in the idea of an all knowing God. Ex; Plenty of non religious people “believe” Jesus existed that would not identify themselves as believers

He had this exact discussion with Alex O’Connor which was very productive. JP acknowledged that when most people ask that question they mean it in a mundane way but JP explained in a religious sense it’s a much deeper question

Which is why he refuses (in every other discussion) to say yes because he’s not a Christian
 
#209
#209
Smokey123 said:
Except they’re talking about God and religion not a worthless pencil. Any close follower of an Abrahamic religion would say they’d die for their belief, or at minimum act out their belief. Which is why JP asked him to define belief since he asked if he believed in the idea of an all knowing God. Ex; Plenty of non religious people “believe” Jesus existed that would not identify themselves as believers

He had this exact discussion with Alex O’Connor which was very productive. JP acknowledged that when most people ask that question they mean it in a mundane way but JP explained in a religious sense it’s a much deeper question

Which is why he refuses (in every other discussion) to say yes because he’s not a Christian
Click to expand...

The fact that they're talking about religion doesn't invalidate the hypothetical, because the point is not about what a "close follower" would rather do than deny God. It's about the MF definition of believe.

"Close follower" is not the definition of "believer." If this is what he's driving at, all he has to do is say, "I believe there is a God, but not so fervently that I would die rather than deny him." instead of playing useless games with semantics with personal definitions he invented that go nowhere. He will never volunteer that info because taking an actual position means he now has to defend it.

He just confuses and muddles everything in the convo to the point that you don't even understand valid hypotheticals being shared.

You'd probably have a blast debating somebody who had weird, personal definitions for commonly understood things, right? That'd be time well spent
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#210
#210
n_huffhines said:
The fact that they're talking about religion doesn't invalidate the hypothetical, because the point is not about what a "close follower" would rather do than deny God. It's about the MF definition of believe.

"Close follower" is not the definition of "believer." If this is what he's driving at, all he has to do is say, "I believe there is a God, but not so fervently that I would die rather than deny him." instead of playing useless games with semantics with personal definitions he invented that go nowhere. He will never volunteer that info because taking an actual position means he now has to defend it.

He just confuses and muddles everything in the convo to the point that you don't even understand valid hypotheticals being shared.

You'd probably have a blast debating somebody who had weird, personal definitions for commonly understood things, right? That'd be time well spent
Click to expand...
It’d be about the same as debating someone that uses hypotheticals. Both the lowest form of debating
 
#211
#211
Smokey123 said:
It’d be about the same as debating someone that uses hypotheticals. Both the lowest form of debating
Click to expand...
Beefing with the entire concept of hypotheticals is so funny to me. A lot of what we discuss related to politics is hypothetical, hell just go to the Israel-Palestine thread and you can find a "if Hamas just surrendered..." within the last page or 2 of posts
 
#212
#212
NashVol11 said:
Beefing with the entire concept of hypotheticals is so funny to me. A lot of what we discuss related to politics is hypothetical, hell just go to the Israel-Palestine thread and you can find a "if Hamas just surrendered..." within the last page or 2 of posts
Click to expand...
Fair, but at least that is more relatable. You can make an argument (for either side) to the outcome of Hamas surrendering based off evidence. Nobody is going to kill you over your belief of a pencil nor does the significance of a pencil relate to the significance of someone that believes in God

Parker should have simply asked him if by JP definition is an all knowing God real, Then Parker could have gone with whatever rebuttal he was planning. Instead it was a word salad filled with ridiculous hypotheticals. Parker argues in hypotheticals and JP isn’t a good debater I couldn’t imagine a full podcast of them together
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top