prevent second german late war revolution by keeping populace well fed= logicaal thinking nazis diverted resources from the war to kill jews while they did not exploit them as labour to 'cause mayhem'= ********
Ad hominem arguments in just about every reply...impressive in a way but understandable i suppose I only commented on the first video, watched the other 2 later. As for the c16 being wrong, you need not look any farther the then the details of the case involving lindsey shepard to see that he wasn't wrong at least in that it could result in any or all of the things he was afraid of, then again you will continue to act like it's fact without any proof to the contrary so meh. Good luck with that i suppose
ok so do you understand: university staff having their own independent rules but going too far in them =/= ( is not/ does not equal) goverment and law enforcement using a law placing trans people in the same category as homosexuals to arrest people that use she or he at a person that wanted something else ? because honestly it is hard to tell if you do. side question did they teach reading and listening comprehension where you are from?
I asked if you wanted it explained, but you ignored that in order to make the VILE AD HOMINEM ATTACK quoted above.
to start I will stop reading any post the moment you attempt to insult me, I don't really care much about the insults them selves they are middle school grade at best they serve no purpose in a proper conversation, and I refuse to abide it for if I do then nothing will get done, we will simply resort to insulting each other which is a waste of my time, although fun if I was in the mood to troll you I suppose. next the university has stated they believed they had the right to do what they did citing c-16 in the audio from the tribunal, they believed this because as c-16 is written Peterson video could be interpreted as hate speech because in Canada hate speech is very loosely defined and open to interpretation, as such a teacher showing a video endorsing hate speech is a fire-able offense. had she not recorded the tribunal, and the public outrage over it followed she'd of had her career ended because of how loosely defined c-16 and the term hate speech is in canada. now the videos with Peterson talking about C-16 that I've seen he has approached it from a position of possibilities, and what c-16 could be used to do, and attacking wrong think has always been the prominent fear of his, this was the first public example of it being done. he also doesn't believe the government has the right to enforce speech which this bill does, for it can be interpreted that refusing to use a persons chosen pronouns is evidence of hate speech, and as such would fall under c-16 specificaly this part "evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor," so in summary his stance is simple at least from the videos of his that I have watched, the government has no right to tell us how to talk(correct), and this bill allows the government or other bodies like public universities(a government funded program) to over reach(also correct). if you have other videos/pod casts that shed new light on his stance I will be glad to watch it, or any video that specifically explains how c-16 does not open the possibilities he mentions that will be an enjoyable watch as well
actually it was an attack on your argument since you favor assertions in your comments, pointing out that you favor assertions is not an attack on you but an attack on your argument. then again I suppose that's up to interpretation but it's how I saw it. assertions have their place in debate but only after common ground has been reached, without common ground they mean nothing. tangent in case it comes up.... "common ground" as used above means we agree on a starting point for this debate, and a number of facts that can be agreed upon, for example if we were going to argue about hate speech, we might find a definition or law that we can both agree upon, and then any assertions made thus forth can be done from a position that we both agree upon that definition, or law.
I do not make attempts, yet insulted you are. speaking of common ground. 1:a loosely related survey of trans people about what constitutes harrasement in their opinion=/=C16 2:A university =/= the goverment / law enforcement. 3:North America's toxic college/university culture and the inability of the people of that continent to seperate work and politics =/= my problem
heh, watching the second video now, he's really laying it on thick for his intro, i'll admit I got a pretty good laugh though reductio ad absurdum as it is I have not quite heard anyone describe peterson in quite as much embelishment.
now this is weird... here is all of c-16 as of taken from the government of canada site Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: R.S., c. H-6 Canadian Human Rights Act 1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E) 1Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following: Purpose 2The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. 1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E) 2Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following: Prohibited grounds of discrimination 3(1)For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. R.S., c. C-46 Criminal Code 2014, c. 31, s. 12 3Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following: Definition of identifiable group (4)In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. 1995, c. 22, s. 6 4Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Act is replaced by the following: (i)evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor, I don't see anything in that limiting it to federal jurisdiction as the video claims and I have no idea where that quote he has comes from....this is a small gripe as I'm really liking this guys video so far and it's likely something to do with the area of the criminal code c-16 amends just would of liked ot know more about the quotes origins anyway he's been pretty accurate about the skeptic culture BS of which I followed at the time, and he is right that it became the new "trend" to point out lefts worst....much like it's common to point out the rights worst.
all right further looking into the previous quote here : https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliamen...age=E&ls=c16&Parl=42&Ses=1&source=library_prb it's been interesting to read
heh well no need to really watch any more, pointing out the letter from the Canadian Bar association is pretty much enough proof to put Peterson fears to rest from my perspective, didn't even bother listening to his commentary just simply went and read the letter and that's more then enough. for one I'm neither a lawyer, nor is Petersons, so I'll take the word from the bar association over his, and while I do still believe c-16 makes a case like Lindsey Sheppard's possible(due to over reach on the part of the school) I no longer believe it supports their action. so I will concede that Peterson was incorrect on the matter of C-16
I think she should have been allowed to show vids, unless the school had something against it in their code of conduct. overzealous people inside bureaucracies as mentioned in one of the vids. but since it was the school not the goverment then the question arises should the goverment intervene, how, on who's behalf and why. I'd say, no ; unless there was a massive breech of rights the goverment should not intervene. That is why I spoke as if he was incorrect, However in being incorrect is where he got all his fame. and there is no denying he knows a bunch about psychology, but he sandwiches unconfirmed theories and what I can only cal bullshit between his legitimate science/expertise and I don't take those cheques. which is why I do not like him.
the second video is funny though it does show a good overview of the "schism of the youtube skeptic community" a few years ago there came a giant rift between right wing and other skeptic channels.
like the first vid. kudos for the tarot card. my computer is down, will reply to all in a week or two hopefully
In order to have common ground both sides need common sense. It also helps to not redefine words just because your trans professor says it’s ok.
how exactly will aliens disprove all religions? The Oriental religions could easily incorporate them into their system (they have the siddhas and all kinds of realms), same goes for the celtic and nordic ones. So you just want to silence people you disagree with so you don't have to go through the effort of studying a subject and uncovering its intricacies and nuances? How progressive and open-minded of you.
So, a reply to all the vids and stuff JP. Just for clarifaction: I've never been a fanboy of his and was initially acquainted with him prior to his C16 controversy in late 2016, where a friend of mine who also started getting into Jungian psychology and suggested me to watch his videos. Back then I studied folklore in uni (pretty sure everyone does when studying languages) and what he said about various myths and religions was incredibly insightful and helped me a lot in understanding the mythological conciousness. That being said, JBP is first and foremost for me a psychoanalytical teacher, and only after a figure of political controversy. I've never really read any of the postmodernists but I read postmodern fiction literature and the wiki of postmodernism so I though I had a good general idea of what its about, so I kind of took in what JP says on the subject although sometimes it did feel repetitive and a bit exaggerated. I'm actually really grateful that you posted those videos since you not only helped my disenchantment from his political rhetoric but also got me to subscribe to two really good channels on philosophy, which have subsequently got me back into studying it again more deeply and listening some decent lectures on postmodern philosophy along the way. In terms of JBP. I honestly don't think he's disingenuous. His understanding of postmodernism comes from Stephen Hicks's book, who is an Ayn Rand apologist and has a very distorted view of the western philosophy through the lense of Rand's reductionism and distortion. So what we're dealing here with is a trifocal lense where each blurs the observable object and adds an additional colour. His neomarxist gibberish seems to be a conconction of boogiemanery with an earnest attempt to classify and address a problem that he's seeing from the left. I'm not sure if he's exaggerating or not, since I haven't seen what's going on in the unis myself but given the fact that most of the left wingers that I respect either don't consider radical "leftism" a big enough problem to go on about it so much or just treat it casually, I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. That being said, I do think his misrepresentation of marxism is a terrible thing to do, especially after I got to know it a bit better and because of that Peterson has lost a lot of my respect. I still think his lectures on mythology and Jung are great (although also with some issues) and are a great way to get acquainted with the ideas of the latter and in general to get a deeper understanding of religion. I'd still recommend people to give him a shot; I'd only warn them to be cautious of his politics. Again, thanks for the vids, Geressen. I'm glad that I got to see beyong his rhetorical hypnosis.
- ... So late to the party just saw Solo... Meh. Did anyone find you wanted more Chewbacca voice lines? and the wookie can't even speak English... I did not get the swashbuckling scoundrel swagger of Harrison Ford from this youngster. I didn't hate Lando... but maybe because I just like Glover... the flamboyant cape pan persona was a bit over done. - And if whats her face is going to be Darth Maul's apprentice then how does that timeline work? He was sidious apprentice and then cut in half...how or when is he a sith lord? or is he not... meh
it involves him ending up in some space trash kept alive by his hatred/dark side force but going insane untill he is restored by his brother and the Mother talzin of the dark side force witches cult from dathomir ( from where Maul was bought ) fights obi and dooku's aprentice He then became the Mandalore, supreme ruler of the mandalorians murdered Obi's bae then he got his shiny metal ass kicked by sidious but he escapes to be hunted by the eventual imperial inquisition. THEN SOLO TAKES PLACE
