Jordan Peterson interview on C4

El_Duderino 09

markodaly wrote: »

On a side note, I am bewildered that this thread has carried on so long. I see it is the same 4-5 posters week after week debating the same tired old arguments. Obsession is not just an aftershave it seems.

Chortle chortle chortle.

Discussion is a good thing in my opinion. If Peterson’s fans aren’t inclined to discuss his work, it’s good that someone is willing to discuss it. Better than declaring him a genius and running away

Zubeneschamali

20Cent wrote: »

My argument is that the law doesn't exist not that it is being ignored or not enforced.

Well, there is a law, and it references a policy, and one local version of that policy which might influence federal courts includes language that may mean refusing to refer to a person by their preferred pronoun would be judged discrimination.

Maybe.

RandomName2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Chortle chortle chortle.

Discussion is a good thing in my opinion. If Peterson’s fans aren’t inclined to discuss his work, it’s good that someone is willing to discuss it. Better than declaring him a genius and running away

You are clearly wasting everyone's time

RandomName2 wrote: »

I dare you. I double dare you, find someone.. anyone.. on this thread declaring him a genius in anything other than an ironic fashion.

I love the smell of lobster in the morning.

I asked you to show where anyone (other than yourself) is calling hi a genius. Trying to avoid looking like you have an obsessional opposition against Peterson by trying to pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is a doe eyed sycophantic fan of Peterson is one of these really obvious lies that you keep repeating, but it doesn't get any less untrue with repetition.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

My argument is that the law doesn't exist not that it is being ignored or not enforced.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Mountainsandh

markodaly wrote: »

On a side note, I am bewildered that this thread has carried on so long. I see it is the same 4-5 posters week after week debating the same tired old arguments. Obsession is not just an aftershave it seems.

Thing is, even as you're tired of arguing and you clearly say it, the same posters seem to have difficulty letting go.
Thanks anyway, it helped make up my mind, I was toying with the idea of answering back some posts but I won't bother, I've made my points.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Chortle chortle chortle.

Discussion is a good thing in my opinion. If Peterson’s fans aren’t inclined to discuss his work, it’s good that someone is willing to discuss it. Better than declaring him a genius and running away

You are not really discussing it, you seem more intent in chipping at his credibility (and the self validation stuff) for what I've seen in these past few pages.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are clearly wasting everyone's time

I asked you to show where anyone (other than yourself) is calling hi a genius. Trying to avoid looking like you have an obsessional opposition against Peterson by trying to pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is a doe eyed sycophantic fan of Peterson is one of these really obvious lies that you keep repeating, but it doesn't get any less untrue with repetition.

Thanks RandomName2 too. Saves me having to explain more, you said it well

There is so much more to explore than Peterson. I'll keep on with the personality lectures alright because I like them, but the controversial interviews do my head in.

I also tried listening to a bit of Sam Harris there recently thanks to this thread, but there's something about the way he speaks that annoys me, his voice and pronunciation are just a bit sharp aren't they ? I'll listen to a bit more, I will, but meh, voice is important for podcast type of listening. Plus, I don't like meditation and he seems maaad into that.

There's just so much out there, I love Youtube.

I sneakily watched a history lecture in between other things the other day for anyone interested, the guy is brilliant. He's a professor with great credentials, but do be weary, it could all be balderdash, and I haven't read all that he's read, and his interpretation of the sea people could be incorrect. Plus, he dives into geography but he's no qualification in that. So maybe he's not so brilliant after all. It's about 1177 : The Year Civilization Collapsed, and for anyone who thinks it's something they'd like, here's a link https://youtu.be/bRcu-ysocX4

There's a link on my page on the right to a guy that talks about "why they invented The Jesus", I might click on it just for the title.

20Cent

RandomName2 wrote: »

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

The post I was replying to was regarding that c 16 bill. Peterson's famous rant was about that bill. This link is to something else.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

The post I was replying to was regarding that c 16 bill. Peterson's famous rant was about that bill. This link is to something else.

That link is to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It is relevant.

The following is taken directly from the Canadian Department of Justice.

It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. This amendment would give explicit protection to transgender and gender-diverse persons from discrimination in areas such as employment opportunities and access to goods and services.

In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

My argument is that the law doesn't exist not that it is being ignored or not enforced.

Bill C-16 is not a Canadian Law? News to me, or are you lying again.

markodaly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Chortle chortle chortle.

Discussion is a good thing in my opinion. If Peterson’s fans aren’t inclined to discuss his work, it’s good that someone is willing to discuss it. Better than declaring him a genius and running away

Who is declaring him a genius? I have searched the entire thread, and no one has called him a genius apart from you.

markodaly

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are clearly wasting everyone's time

Check out his/her postings or should I say rants on The Gentleman's Lounge. Infamous for their goal post shifting and strawman.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Bill C-16 is not a Canadian Law? News to me, or are you lying again.

Bill C-16 won't send anyone away for using pronouns. Do keep up kid.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Bill C-16 won't send anyone away for using pronouns. Do keep up kid.

In your opinion, of course.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

Bill C-16 won't send anyone away for using pronouns. Do keep up kid.

Keep up? Keep up.

RandomName2 wrote: »

It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. This amendment would give explicit protection to transgender and gender-diverse persons from discrimination in areas such as employment opportunities and access to goods and services.

In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission

Brian, you should really be promoting higher posting quality than this and El Duderino's blinkered bon mots.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

In your opinion, of course.

And the Canadian Bar Association.

SterlingArcher

RandomName2 wrote: »

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

And you don't see any pitfalls or issue arising from this ill conceived bill?

My chosen gender identity is random2isapissbagof****eandillsmashisfaceinandnobodycanstopme ... Respect it or suffer the consequence.

RandomName2

SterlingArcher wrote: »

And you don't see any pitfalls or issue arising from this ill conceived bill?

My chosen gender identity is random2isapissbagof****eandillsmashisfaceinandnobodycanstopme ... Respect it or suffer the consequence.

I'm going to be honest, your reply is a bit strange.

I was quoting verbatim from the linked website, for the benefit of 20Cent.

However, I know that 20Cent isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer (or they appears not to be), so I couldn't be arsed wrapping the quote in quotation marks as I was expecting they to either ignore the post or go off on some tangent. They went for the first option in the end.

SterlingArcher

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm going to be honest, your reply is a bit strange.

I was quoting verbatim from the linked website, for the benefit of 20Cent.

However, I know that 20Cent isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer (or they appears not to be), so I couldn't be arsed wrapping the quote in quotation marks as I was expecting they to either ignore the post or go off on some tangent. They went for the first option in the end.

I 100% agree with your assessment of them not being the most colourful crayon in the box.

I kinda used you as a way to get the point across about the bill in question(not Jordan Peterson), without having to actually reply back to..... Soz.

20Cent

Refer to the actual bill Peterson was talking about.
Replies refer to some other bill and something that "might" happen.
Try to keep discussion about what actually happened and get called a liar by the lobsters.

Every JP discussion






Ever

20Cent

Arkham City wrote: »

Why does this guy wind lefties up so much?

Lefties have higher intellectual standards, dislke spoofers and are willing to critique their own. Right wingers seem happy to deem anyone who says what they want to hear an intellectual (in his field Peterson is very good it's when he strays out of it he spoofs).

SterlingArcher

20Cent wrote: »

Lefties have higher intellectual standards, dislke spoofers and are willing to critique their own. Right wingers seem happy to deem anyone who says what they want to hear an intellectual (in his field Peterson is very good it's when he strays out of it he spoofs).

Lefties have higher intellectual standards. ha Cathey Newman called.... You must be far right so eh?

Lefties have spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof.

Your post works under the ignorant assumption everyone and anyone who listens to or agrees with him is right wing. do you confuse inquisition for critique?

Talking like you are in some political hive mind.

Soon people thinking like you will just scream like ****ing body snatchers. pointing at anyone who questions anything " rawwwrr right wingerrrrr.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

Refer to the actual bill Peterson was talking about.
Replies refer to some other bill and something that "might" happen.

'Might happen' because government agency was writing in advance of the bill (C-16) becoming an act. It even says it at the very top of the page

Archived information
Legislation on gender identity and gender expression received royal assent on June 19, 2017.

Jesus

20Cent wrote: »

Try to keep discussion about what actually happened and get called a liar by the lobsters.

Nobody's calling you a liar. That's El duderino.

And that's.. not what.. lobsters.. that's to do with deflection.. why..

20Cent wrote: »

Lefties have higher intellectual standards

Devoid of irony.

'Lefties' have, by definition, considered themselves to be working against the intelligentsia and be outside the scope of intellectual standards, instead working to expose injustice and challenge traditional authority structures. The left got lost somewhere along the way and now tend to simply challenge anything they consider threatening. Intellectual standards have never been a major factor.

20Cent

Arkham City wrote: »

Citation needed.

Right wingers think Ben Shapiro is an intellectual.

Qed

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

Right wingers think Ben Shapiro is an intellectual.

Qed

That's not how proof works! That's not a citation!

'So what you're saying is that Ben Sharpio is an intellectual'

- now that's a proper example of a lobster move.

Ulysses Gaze

20Cent wrote: »

Right wingers think Ben Shapiro is an intellectual.

Qed

Ben Shapiro is a parrot.

A 21st Century Thomas Gradgrind.

Now, what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the mind of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.

20Cent

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Lefties have higher intellectual standards. ha Cathey Newman called.... You must be far right so eh?

Lefties have spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof.

Your post works under the ignorant assumption everyone and anyone who listens to or agrees with him is right wing. do you confuse inquisition for critique?

Talking like you are in some political hive mind.

Soon people thinking like you will just scream like ****ing body snatchers. pointing at anyone who questions anything " rawwwrr right wingerrrrr.

Who claims Cathy Newman is a left wing intellectual?
Don't think liking Peterson makes someone right wing another straw man there. I do tjink that right wingers are more susceptible to spoofres though. Shapiro, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Alex Jones etc. No real left wing versions of people like that the left don't really tolerate such nonsense.

jace_da_face

B0jangles wrote: »

Isn't he the guy who thinks being asked to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns is oppression and a sign of the impending collapse of modern society?

No. He is the guy who has an issue with it being enshrined into the Canadian constitution that he must use those preferred pronouns and thereby curtailing free speech. There is a difference and you have to look at the sub text. He has no issues referring to transgender people in their preferred pronouns. Nowhere else is free speech curtailed in Canadian law.

20Cent

jace_da_face wrote: »

No. He is the guy who has an issue with it being enshrined into the Canadian constitution that he must use those preferred pronouns and thereby curtailing free speech. There is a difference and you have to look at the sub text. He has no issues referring to transgender people in their preferred pronouns. Nowhere else is free speech curtailed in Canadian law.

Except that nothing remotely like having to use prefered pronouns is "enshrined" in Canadian law.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

Except that nothing remotely like having to use prefered pronouns is "enshrined" in Canadian law.

Well C-16 certainly pertains to pronoun usage. I know you choose not to believe that it does (seeing as the word 'pronoun' isn't actually used in the legislation), but it specifically states that 'it adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code'.

That relates to pronouns by the way.

Whether or not this may lead to negative consequences is a matter of active debate. There is no definitive answer in relation to this, as it is up to the courts to determine how the legislation should be interpreted, and there has yet to be a test case. Many laws take years before being tested in court.

However that is not to say that the law does not have any effects. Indeed, Lindsay Shepherd was threatened by college authorities for having been 'in breach of C-16' by showing a video of Jordan Peterson. Now you may say that they were not right in doing so, but it is still clear that it doesn't necessitate people being behind bars for a law to have a significant impact.

20Cent

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well C-16 certainly pertains to pronoun usage. I know you choose not to believe that it does (seeing as the word 'pronoun' isn't actually used in the legislation), but it specifically states that 'it adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code'.

That relates to pronouns by the way.

Whether or not this may lead to negative consequences is a matter of active debate. There is no definitive answer in relation to this, as it is up to the courts to determine how the legislation should be interpreted, and there has yet to be a test case. Many laws take years before being tested in court.

However that is not to say that the law does not have any effects. Indeed, Lindsay Shepherd was threatened by college authorities for having been 'in breach of C-16' by showing a video of Jordan Peterson. Now you may say that they were not right in doing so, but it is still clear that it doesn't necessitate people being behind bars for a law to have a significant impact.

It's a matter of "active debate" now.

Not dragging people away to prison like Kermit claimed.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

It's a matter of "active debate" now.

Not dragging people away to prison like Kermit claimed.

The anti 8th amendment repealers really should've had you batting for them.