Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Pa ElGrande

20Cent wrote: »

You don't think man made climate change is real?

Climate change is a fact and always has been, though catastrophic man-made global warming remains an unproven hypothesis. Impress me with your scientific knowledge and explain exactly the physics of how that portion of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity causes a rise in temperature and how this can be scientifically distinguished from natural variability?

20Cent

Searched the Department of Homeland security website dhs.gov for antifa.
The only results are web performance metric reports of most searched terms.
Nothing about them at all there either.

20Cent

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Climate change is a fact and always has been, though catastrophic man-made global warming remains an unproven hypothesis. Impress me with your scientific knowledge and explain exactly the physics of how that portion of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity causes a rise in temperature and how this can be scientifically distinguished from natural variability?

Hi thanks for asking but I've actually given up trying to convince anyone who denies man made climate change. Considering the best minds in the world collectively agree on it I don't think I can add to that.

Pa ElGrande

20Cent wrote: »

Hi thanks for asking but I've actually given up trying to convince anyone who denies man made climate change. Considering the best minds in the world collectively agree on it I don't think I can add to that.

So you deny the scientific method in favour of an appeal to authority? Why do you deny the science?

20Cent

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

So you deny the scientific method in favour of an appeal to authority? Why do you deny the science?

This is why it's pointless interacting with climate change deniers.

Rory28

20Cent wrote: »

This is why it's pointless interacting with climate change deniers.

I was about to ask him what science but you are right. whats the point?

Brian?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Heard it all before, that was not real socialism and the new socialist man. Libertarian socialism is just Chomskys imagination. You should observe Chomsky likes the current system. He just don't want to admit it, because he makes money by being critical of the current system.

Libertarian socialism has been around since the 19th century. What has Chomsky got to do with it?

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's utopian fantasy stuff.

Utopias always fail.

If you really believe what you posted then I'm not sure you belong in a conversation with adults anymore.

Utopias never fail because they’ve never existed.

But no, a utopia isn’t feasible. A utopia implies perfection. There will never be a perfect system. It doesn’t mean we can’t have a system that isn’t based on who can accumulate the most wealth

Pa ElGrande

20Cent wrote: »

This is why it's pointless interacting with climate change deniers.

Rory28 wrote: »

I was about to ask him what science but you are right. whats the point?

You are both science deniers. Go on, explain the mechanics of how human emitted CO2 causes global warming?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaKT2AdJCAc

Pa ElGrande

Brian? wrote: »

Libertarian socialism has been around since the 19th century. What has Chomsky got to do with it?

Brian?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You’re wrong so it’s time for a condescending meme?

Chomsky isn’t a libertarian socialist as far as I’m aware.

Pa ElGrande

Brian? wrote: »

You’re wrong so it’s time for a condescending meme?

Chomsky isn’t a libertarian socialist as far as I’m aware.

So you are saying libertarian socialism does not exist?

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Carried our by everyone. Which is the entire point of socialism to begin with.

So its entirely voluntary so? Which of course means that it fails right away.

Brian?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Actually, what point are you trying to make even? Are you important implying I’m some sort of Chomsky acolyte?

Brian?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

So you are saying libertarian socialism does not exist?

What are you talking about? I genuinely have no idea why you’re bringing up Chomsky. What’s your point ?

markodaly

johnp001 wrote: »

To my understanding property rights directly conflict with the communal ownership and control of the means of production.

That would be my understanding of it. Socialism needs the state as a coercive force to make it work. Otherwise people are not going to volunteer their wealth away for traditional socialists vanity project. Unless of course Brian is talking purely about charity.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

So its entirely voluntary so? Which of course means that it fails right away.

Right. So you believe societies can only be organized through coercion?

Pa ElGrande

Brian? wrote: »

Actually, what point are you trying to make even? Are you important implying I’m some sort of Chomsky acolyte?

I'm asking you to give an overview of what you think "Libertarian Socialism" is?

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

That would be my understanding of it. Socialism needs the state as a coercive force to make it work. Otherwise people are not going to volunteer their wealth away for traditional socialists vanity project. Unless of course Brian is talking purely about charity.

The end goal of socialism is a stateless society, that’s classic Marxism.

I’m too tired for this. I’ll respond tomorrow

Brian?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I'm asking you to give an overview of what you think "Libertarian Socialism" is?

Why didn’t you just do that then? Why the Chomsky critique and the condescending meme?

conorhal

Brian? wrote: »

Why didn’t you just do that then? Why the Chomsky critique and the condescending meme?

Probably because "Libertarian Socialist" is the most laughable oxymoron since "military intelligence"....

Pa ElGrande

Brian? wrote: »

Why didn’t you just do that then? Why the Chomsky critique and the condescending meme?

Go sleep on it, you can tell me all about "Libertarian Socialism" some time over the weekend.

20Cent

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Go sleep on it, you can tell me all about "Libertarian Socialism" some time over the weekend.

So you're saying we should execute librarians?

Max Prophet

20Cent wrote: »

So you're saying we should execute librarians?

Tee hee ! Massive lollers ! Really have you thought about going on stage?

tom_k

I remember when this thread used to be about the Peterson C4 interview

20Cent

Max Prophet wrote: »

Tee hee ! Massive lollers ! Really have you thought about going on stage?

So you're saying Phil Collins and Marilyn Martin didn't have a top ten hit in 1985 with the duet Separate Lives?

Fr Tod Umptious

Brian? wrote: »

Utopias never fail because they’ve never existed.

But no, a utopia isn’t feasible. A utopia implies perfection. There will never be a perfect system. It doesn’t mean we can’t have a system that isn’t based on who can accumulate the most wealth

Supposed utopias have been tried throughout history.
The Soviet system was supposed to be a workers paradise, with no private property and collectives.
Jonestown was supposed to be a Utopia, there was another less well know less tragic one in Oregon around the same time.

Going back as far as the Munster rebellion in the 1500s where private property was abolished was a supposed religious heaven on Earth, that did not end well.

People desire private property, that will never change.

Max Prophet

20Cent wrote: »

So you're saying Phil Collins and Marilyn Martin didn't have a top ten hit in 1985 with the duet Separate Lives?

It tough for you isn't it? Keep going.... what does it feel like being a ball of wool being played with by the kittens ?

Dyr

Brian? wrote: »

People with higher education tend to be more progressive and left leaning. The clear implication here is that it’s because of indoctrination. It’s not. It’s always been thus.

The graph posted actually shows the exact opposite yet you claim "it's always been thus".

I don't believe you're posting in good faith at all but rather just constantly begging the question.

Charmeleon

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Supposed utopias have been tried throughout history.
The Soviet system was supposed to be a workers paradise, with no private property and collectives.
Jonestown was supposed to be a Utopia, there was another less well know less tragic one in Oregon around the same time.

Going back as far as the Munster rebellion in the 1500s where private property was abolished was a supposed religious heaven on Earth, that did not end well.

People desire private property, that will never change.

I wouldn't go that far, private property, as far as land ownership goes, is relatively new. Hunter gatherers don't own land, even British pastoralism operated on common land up to the 12th Century and continued until the enclosure movement succeeded in dividing up common land, pretty much entirely by the 19th century.

One of the biggest problems with socialism is that people don't remain motivated and productive unless the fruits of their labour is recognised and raises their status in their immediate community. Hunter gatherers praise and celebrate successful hunters and providers. Sharing their success raises their status in the group. Idle and otherwise unproductive people are shunned and actively excluded or killed.
To toil away for the faceless and anonymous state, surviving on provision is soul destroying. Production plummets, the horrendous famines in China after collective farms were introduced illustrate this perfectly. The few farms that were still privately owned were vastly more productive.

The left here are often appalled by the consequences of direct provision for asylum seekers yet work towards direct provision for everyone.