Author Topic: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?  (Read 332 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2020, 09:20:44 pm »
Right, but he is known chiefly as the person who killed 'God' and morality by dissecting it and breaking it down as a human need.
He killed God but didn't kill morality.  He said God was dead and isn't the maker of our morality any more, we have free will and logic to make our own morality, and this will cause nihilism before you begin to build your moral system based on what you believe is right and wrong, not what the Bible or Church says.

Quote
'Activism' is different, but I see what you are saying.  It has come to mean fighting for identity politics and the onboard morality it contains.  I think that the primary goal of an academic is/should be knowledge.

Yes but also things like climate science.  Even if your hypothesis is wrong you need to report all the data, and not conveniently ignore the data that disproves your "denier" or "alarmist" agenda.
 
Quote
Yes, and politics is difficult between it sits between "pure" knowledge and emotions.  But if it drifts one way or the other then a correction happens.

I think politics is still hard even everyone agrees 100% on all the facts, because people with different moralities (philosophies/ideologies) will still disagree on how to solve whatever problem they're looking at.

Quote
The thing is, he had a foothold in being a contrarian in the service of "civil discourse" and he blew it.  All he would have had to do is be a little more careful with his language.  Did he deserve to be demonized ?  I would say not, but he was the one who blew it.  You can blame the mob, but I don't blame a dog who bites me I blame the master, the leash maker, my wife, you, Waldo... anybody else... but the dog and myself...

He didn't blow it, that's just your opinion.  He's still very popular, he hasn't been working publicly because he's been hospitalized and very sick the last year or so.  He's more careful with his language than anyone, he talks about that all the time, because if he says something in just the wrong way people will slay him for it, because to many people he's the enemy and they're waiting to jump on him on any stumble.  The mob (left or right) attacks anyone who counters their agenda.  It's information warfare out there.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2020, 09:22:14 pm »
Like I say, there is room and even a need for someone like him... early on I had hoped he would be the guy.  But he's not.

He's just a guy, he's not a saviour.  His opinions don't have to 100% have to match yours or mine.  That's the whole point.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2020, 09:33:36 pm »
Ok.  If he was a minimally competent academic, he wouldn't be here.
Because his views offend you?  He's a heretic!  Burn him at the stake!

Quote
I disagree.  He wants to be civil, but he misgenders people
When did he do that?  Link?

Quote
...makes unconsidered statements.... he isn't being civil, he is denying people their rights, associating with extremists and overstating his case.  Nice that he wants to be 'civil' but he should lead by example.
Whose rights is he denying?  His whole argument is that the government is denying HIS rights by enforcing compelled speech.  He's never said he'd not use someone's preferred pronoun, but that the government shouldn't force him to.  I can't name another example of compelled speech in law, can you?

Which extremists is he associating with?  People who happen to follow him on twitter, which is out of his control?  I think you've bought into to the BS social media spin about this guy and not actually what's going on.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2020, 09:37:48 pm »
Language changes all the time, so if a word became commonly used it wouldn't be a 'made-up term' - I suppose the people who're interested in having a third pronoun to indicate non-gender are hoping for that outcome.

I don't mind calling people what they prefer, so if I met someone that wanted me to refer to them as "zhe', I would try to accommodate that even if I thought it was a bit weird or something.  Also, does spoken 'zhe' sound much like spoken 'she'?

Of course, you might ask me if I'd refer to someone as a pumpkin, if zhe asked me to.  And yes, for the time I was with them, I probably would - unless it was my job to talk them out of referring to themselves as a pumpkin, or if I was on an internet forum in which disagreement was the point of the discussion.

I agree it's best to use pronouns that people prefer typically, but that's not Peterson's argument.  Do you think the government should compel us by law to do so?  And if we refuse the punishment is fines, being sued, or men with guns and clubs throwing us in jail.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2020, 09:40:28 pm »
There are many problems with Jordan's behaviour as a debater. Among them are his tendency to raise his voice in an attempt to belittle his opponents.
[/quote]
My only criticism with his behaviour is that at times he can have a short temper and he can lose it on occasion, and so acts less civil.  But it's not like academics on the left are Jesus.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2020, 09:44:27 pm »
So they’re not synonymous? 

Do you think The Rebel are extremists then?

When I think of ‘extremist’ I think of someone who uses or promotes violence to meet their goals.  Maybe you are using ‘extremist’ in another manner, but I don’t think we should be using a term that, in general usage, refers to people who use or promote violence to refer to people who we just disagree with. 

It’s a tactic that the cancel-culture ‘woke’ folks use often, and you seem to be using it too.

I agree, an extremist is someone who uses violence.

The Rebel are really weird illogical people with a fair share of bad arguments who smear a lot with low-brow journalism, but they aren't extremists.  They don't hurt anyone.   They aren't even radicals.  They're just kinda immature and dumb.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2020, 09:47:27 pm »
I didn't suggest that Jordan's crowd are a bunch of Christians. They're more wannabe intellectuals than that, even though many are expectant Christians.
I think that Jordan offers an expectation for them that their faith can be plausible in the face of evidence that proves it just isn't. They think that Jordan's explaining, doubletalk, and hairsplitting  can make religous faith work.  But of course it never can.

This is just nonsense.  I listen to a lot of Jordan's stuff and I'm an athiest.  He does talk about Christianity though and is a Christian but he talks more about Christian mythmaking etc and the moral value and lessons in their stories and whatnot.

I didn't know you were a wannabe intellectual if you listen to the man's perspectives.  Thanks!  Like squiggy said i think you're reading the room wrong.  You clearly are a staunchly leftwing and don't like his views, therefore he and people who listen to him are simpleton retardos to you.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 09:52:23 pm by Gorgeous Graham »
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2020, 09:55:17 pm »
The Rebel is a far-right publication that promotes objectionable views.  He jumped into bed with them early on, because they promised to raise money for him.

I think they're just FOX News Canada.  They're definitely strongly rightwing but I wouldn't say far-right, they're right on the edge.  They aren't fascists.  Ezra Levant is Jewish.  His name is Ezra Levant lol.  He's fired someone who made far-right comments.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7932
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2020, 09:29:17 am »
He killed God but didn't kill morality.

Yes, you are correct.  What he did was dissect it and see it as a human activity that meets human needs, and framed it as you said correctly.  I wasn't careful enough in my language there.


Quote
Yes but also things like climate science.  Even if your hypothesis is wrong you need to report all the data, and not conveniently ignore the data that disproves your "denier" or "alarmist" agenda.

Well... maybe but I don't think Richard Lindzen or Michael Mann are normally referred to as 'activists'.  They are primarily scientists and if someone tags them as 'activists' I suspect it's an effort to discredit them.  I agree with your principle of intellectual honesty.  Both of these scientists, I'm sure, know the perils of lying.
 
Quote
I think politics is still hard even everyone agrees 100% on all the facts, because people with different moralities (philosophies/ideologies) will still disagree on how to solve whatever problem they're looking at.

Agreed.

Quote
He didn't blow it, that's just your opinion. 

Well, everything here is my opinion really.  Even when I relay facts they're facts that I *believe* are true.

Quote
He's still very popular,

Ok but being popular is under the bar for being able to facilitate discussions such as the ones he tries to broker.  Rush Limbaugh is also 'popular'.

Quote
  He's more careful with his language than anyone, he talks about that all the time, because if he says something in just the wrong way people will slay him for it, because to many people he's the enemy and they're waiting to jump on him on any stumble.

No, he's sloppy with language AND thinking.  I think it was the Joe Rogan podcast where he was talking about imposing social rules on the collective and Rogan caught a contradiction ?  Joe Rogan.  Also there's the ridiculous tendency to call people 'Post Modern Marxists' which sounds incorrect... like saying "Christian Athiest"

Quote
The mob (left or right) attacks anyone who counters their agenda.  It's information warfare out there.

Who cares about the mob ?  If they are so misguided then don't bring them up.  Trump's mob is also idiotic but I don't use them as evidence that Trump's ideas are bad.

He's just a guy, he's not a saviour.  His opinions don't have to 100% have to match yours or mine.  That's the whole point.

I would think that a public intellectual would try to help public conversations happen.  Actually, they should do that.  He fails because he's lazy and appears to offend people on purpose while trying to promote 'civil discourse'. 

Because his views offend you?  He's a heretic!  Burn him at the stake!
When did he do that?  Link?

I have read about it, in the past, in several places.  Quick Google gave me this:
https://thetalon.ca/the-post-truth-politics-of-jordan-petersons-gender-nonbinary-pronoun-debate/

On November 19th, 2016 Dr. Peterson engaged in a debate with UBC’s Dr. Mary Bryson, Senior Associate Dean and Professor in the Faculty of Education, who is gender nonbinary and uses the pronouns “they/them.” ... Peterson repeatedly misgendered Dr. Bryson, referring to them as “she” and “her.


Also, to add: I have been pretty reasonable about my reasons that he should be rejected as anything more than a marginal voice in the discussion.  The 'burn him at the stake !' comment is undermining your assertion that his opponents are unreasonable and his proponents are reasonable.

Quote
Whose rights is he denying?  His whole argument is that the government is denying HIS rights by enforcing compelled speech.

He's denying the right of people to define their gender identity.  He has never been compelled to use a specific word or phrase by the government.

Quote
Which extremists is he associating with?   

The Rebels promotion of race haters, their inclusion of Proud Boys founder and Faith Goldy is a good measure of their extremism.  He signed up to raise money for himself with them.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 09:55:39 am by MH »

Offline Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2020, 11:55:22 am »
This is just nonsense.  I listen to a lot of Jordan's stuff and I'm an athiest.  He does talk about Christianity though and is a Christian but he talks more about Christian mythmaking etc and the moral value and lessons in their stories and whatnot.

And many, if not most are Christians I believe. The political right are Christians believers more often than not.

I didn't know you were a wannabe intellectual if you listen to the man's perspectives.  Thanks!  Like squiggy said i think you're reading the room wrong.  You clearly are a staunchly leftwing and don't like his views, therefore he and people who listen to him are simpleton retardos to you.
[/quote]

I'm definitely leftist as that pertains to Canadian standards but not leftwing. If I was an American you could correctly say I'm leftwing.
I don't consider anybody to be retarded due to their political leaning. But I do consider many rightist views to be wrongheaded and incorrect. Not all, but it would take a calm and nuanced conversation to sort out my pros from my cons.

I'm a bit disappointed in you when you use a word like 'retardos'. However, for now at least I'm still interested in building bridges with you.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2020, 07:16:13 pm »
Well, everything here is my opinion really.  Even when I relay facts they're facts that I *believe* are true.
Ok that's fine.  If you don't like or agree with or are offending by Jordan's opinions or behaviour that's your right.  No provincial human rights commission will haul you in front of a hearing for it.

Quote
No, he's sloppy with language AND thinking.  I think it was the Joe Rogan podcast where he was talking about imposing social rules on the collective and Rogan caught a contradiction ?  Joe Rogan.
So what you're saying is that the standard for which you set for him is perfection.  Do you hold the same standard for thinkers on the left?  That's your prerogative if you do.  He went on Joe Rogan and they didn't call each other names.  He debated a black left-wing professor during a Munk Debate and Jordan was called "a mean mad white man" in anger and very poor taste, and has to deal with the large majority of the mainstream media trying to do everything to undermine and discredit him in endless articles and interviews, so if he loses his cool once in a while i think it's understandable.  If he says something that's incorrect and you or I challenge him on it, great.  That's called civil discourse.  He's not God, he's not a saviour, he doesn't have to be right all the time, I disagree with him on things.

I also don't see him waving the flag of "civil discourse", that sounds like something you've projected on to him.  Like Ben Shapiro, I enjoy listening to him because he provides a different point of view than than the vast majority of the discourse we see, he challenges many of the "holy" assumptions that are shoved down our throats.  And he does it with an intellectual rigor missing from the vast majority of right-leaning commentators who are often a bunch of ignorant boneheads.

Quote
Also there's the ridiculous tendency to call people 'Post Modern Marxists' which sounds incorrect... like saying "Christian Athiest"
Using "cultural marxism" is a bit off as a term, but there's nothing wrong with calling people post-modern marxists if that's what they are.

Quote
Who cares about the mob ?  If they are so misguided then don't bring them up.  Trump's mob is also idiotic but I don't use them as evidence that Trump's ideas are bad.
You're the one you brought it up, i responded to you.

Quote
I would think that a public intellectual would try to help public conversations happen.  Actually, they should do that.
He is having public conversations.  He's going out and doing debates and interviews.  He hasn't called for anyone to be banned or fired or arrested, and he isn't burning cars or looting stores, and he doesn't call people names, unless "cultural marxist" or "post-modernist" is a bad name.

Quote
He fails because he's lazy and appears to offend people on purpose while trying to promote 'civil discourse'.
What are you talking about??  If his opinions are offensive to you or anyone else, that's the whole darn point.  People who interview him or write about him are offensive to him all the time, they attack him and try to discredit him constantly, as you're doing now. I've never seen him purposefully try to offend people just for its own sake, or be unreasonably "provocative".  That's just a meme.  He's not Milo.

Many people don't like his opinions, his narratives are a dangerous threat to their political agendas, and they want to take him down  Do you have anything to say about any of his actual opinions, or do you wish to keep trying to discredit him?

Quote
I have read about it, in the past, in several places.  Quick Google gave me this:
https://thetalon.ca/the-post-truth-politics-of-jordan-petersons-gender-nonbinary-pronoun-debate/
This is a leftwing "alternative" student newspaper in the most leftwing province in Canada that doesn't provide any evidence he "misgendered' anyone.  Let's see the footage.

Quote
Also, to add: I have been pretty reasonable about my reasons that he should be rejected as anything more than a marginal voice in the discussion.  The 'burn him at the stake !' comment is undermining your assertion that his opponents are unreasonable and his proponents are reasonable.
If people disagree with his opinions that's great, that's called civil discourse.  If they just "don't like him", well that's their opinion, but it means nothing.

You can "reject him" all you like, that's your right..  He isn't a marginal voice "in the discussion" (whatever that is) though, because a lot of people are listening to his arguments.  The majority which center around psychology, and about taking responsibility in your life etc. that have had very positive impacts on tens of thousands of people because they write him letters and tell him this after touring lectures.

Quote
He's denying the right of people to define their gender identity.
In what way???  Name one example.  This is a meme told to you in bad faith by the people who wish to discredit him.  And you will repeat these lies to other as you're doing now.  The tactic has worked.

Quote
The Rebels promotion of race haters, their inclusion of Proud Boys founder and Faith Goldy is a good measure of their extremism.  He signed up to raise money for himself with them.

Goldy was fired for things that happened after Jordan appeared on the Rebel.  McGinnis was on the Joe Rogan podcast, is Joe guilty by association?  Is Peterson on the far-right?

Quote
In April 2017, Peterson was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant for the first time in his career, which he interpreted as retaliation for his statements regarding Bill C-16.[19] However, a media-relations adviser for SSHRC said, "Committees assess only the information contained in the application."[108] In response, Rebel News launched an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign on Peterson's behalf,[109] raising C$195,000 by its end on 6 May, equivalent to over two years of research funding.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2020, 07:25:45 pm »
And many, if not most are Christians I believe. The political right are Christians believers more often than not.
Well that's pretty weak evidence.

Quote
But I do consider many rightist views to be wrongheaded and incorrect. Not all, but it would take a calm and nuanced conversation to sort out my pros from my cons.
Sure so do I, and same here.

Quote
I'm a bit disappointed in you when you use a word like 'retardos'. However, for now at least I'm still interested in building bridges with you.

I only use the colloquial use of such words because I am hilarious and enjoy offensive comedy.  I have nothing against actual retards.  (Again, that's a bad taste joke).

I enjoy building bridges with anyone who is willing to put their hand out to meet halfway, i'm glad you have.  I will never call you, personally, a retardo.  That's the last time I will use that word.  In this thread.  For the rest of today.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7932
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #42 on: October 16, 2020, 08:22:05 pm »
Ok that's fine.  If you don't like or agree with or are offending by Jordan's opinions or behaviour that's your right.  No provincial human rights commission will haul you in front of a hearing for it.

I don't think I said I dislike or disagree with him, and if I did then fine but it's beside the point.

Quote
So what you're saying is that the standard for which you set for him is perfection.

Hahahaha.  Joe Rogan !

Quote
Do you hold the same standard for thinkers on the left?

I believe so.  But there's nothing like a Peterson on the left as far as I can see. 

Quote
...has to deal with the large majority of the mainstream media trying to do everything to undermine and discredit him in endless articles and interviews, so if he loses his cool once in a while i think it's understandable.

Well, it's not though.  What people say matters and it's hard to step back from that.  Hillary Clinton called her opponents 'deplorables' and lost a large swath of voters.  And it's not the media undermining him and discrediting him if he does it himself.

Quote
If he says something that's incorrect and you or I challenge him on it, great.  That's called civil discourse.

No - civil discourse is being CIVIL.  You can't call people the n-word or call them women if they're not and so on.  You didn't talk about that in your definition.

Quote
He's not God, he's not a saviour, he doesn't have to be right all the time, I disagree with him on things.

I don't think being God or a saviour was ever on the table.  The question is does he hold water as a reasonable public intellectual who has earned the attention of a critical mass of "the" public ?  That's a high pedestal, but - no - he doesn't do it.

Quote
I also don't see him waving the flag of "civil discourse", that sounds like something you've projected on to him.

I think others on this thread said it about him, which is why I commented on it.

Quote
  Like Ben Shapiro, I enjoy listening to him because he provides a different point of view than than the vast majority of the discourse we see, he challenges many of the "holy" assumptions that are shoved down our throats. 

Listen to Sam Harris then.  I disagree with him quite a bit on lots of things, but he is immensely thoughtful and precise with his language and ideas.

Quote
And he does it with an intellectual rigor missing from the vast majority of right-leaning commentators who are often a bunch of ignorant boneheads.

You are misunderstanding something here: a *commentator* and an *intellectual* are very far apart and have been since ... well the 80s or early 90s I would say. 

In case you missed it: there is no leftist intellectual who is in the ballpark of what I'm calling for either.

Quote
Using "cultural marxism" is a bit off as a term, but there's nothing wrong with calling people post-modern marxists if that's what they are.

It's an oxymoron, though, right ?  Post-modernism is post-Marxism.  The Marxists I know of are anti-woke. 

Quote
You're the one you brought it up, i responded to you.

I used it because I felt you were tacitly referring to the mob, or at least popular whims, with your statements on page 1:

"Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth".  Jesus was nailed to a cross.  Who are we crucifying today?  What are our holy beliefs that only heretics question?"

Quote
He is having public conversations.  He's going out and doing debates and interviews.  He hasn't called for anyone to be banned or fired or arrested, and he isn't burning cars or looting stores, and he doesn't call people names, unless "cultural marxist" or "post-modernist" is a bad name.

Your bar is too low.  A public intellectual needs to be held to a higher standard than "not burning cars", seriously.

Quote
What are you talking about??  If his opinions are offensive to you or anyone else, that's the whole darn point.

He insults people to their face, is my point.  Not "he says things to which people take offense".

Quote
you're doing now. I've never seen him purposefully try to offend people just for its own sake, or be unreasonably "provocative".  That's just a meme.  He's not Milo.

But he does.


Quote
Many people don't like his opinions, his narratives are a dangerous threat to their political agendas, and they want to take him down  Do you have anything to say about any of his actual opinions, or do you wish to keep trying to discredit him?

I have been very clear as to why he's to be rejected as a public intellectual.

1. He insults people on purpose
2. He aligns himself with The Rebel, an anti-intellectual and anti-human endeavour that exists to disunify people and spread falsehoods
3. He's sloppy with his language and his thinking

I'm not saying he should be killed, or that I dislike him personally.  I'm saying he's unfit to lead public discussions, except to continue to sow disunity and extend the culture war.  At the beginning of his career as a public intellectual, it wasn't so.  And as time goes on, he shows himself to be a poor thinker, a hypocrite in terms of his moral stance and his didactic advice to others.. and kind of a sad individual to boot.

Quote
This is a leftwing "alternative" student newspaper in the most leftwing province in Canada that doesn't provide any evidence he "misgendered' anyone.  Let's see the footage.

I gave you a source.  Do you want another one ?  Does this mean that if there is evidence of what I claim, you will change your opinion on him somewhat ?  I would like to know if I'm just on a wild goose chase, given that I gave you a cite already.

Quote
If people disagree with his opinions that's great, that's called civil discourse.  If they just "don't like him", well that's their opinion, but it means nothing.

You keep missing the other option - that his reasoning and his thinking is flawed.  Whether or not people like him, or his opinions is beside the point really.  I respect people with whom I disagree, if their opinions have enough basis to be reasonably close to valid.

Quote
You can "reject him" all you like, that's your right..  He isn't a marginal voice "in the discussion" (whatever that is) though, because a lot of people are listening to his arguments. 

He's marginal because he isn't generally acceptable.  It's like saying Rush Limbaugh is an important voice in the trans rights debate because he has millions of listeners.

 
Quote
Goldy was fired for things that happened after Jordan appeared on the Rebel.  McGinnis was on the Joe Rogan podcast, is Joe guilty by association?  Is Peterson on the far-right?

The Rebel didn't have Gavin McInnes and Faith Goldy as guests - they worked there.  It's a shit-slinging organization and doesn't deserve to be considered legitimate.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2020, 06:58:15 pm »
The Rebel didn't have Gavin McInnes and Faith Goldy as guests - they worked there.  It's a shit-slinging organization and doesn't deserve to be considered legitimate.

We can say anything we like about anyone.  We can say Peterson hangs out with Nazis every weekend and throws up the salute, but that has nothing to do with the merit of his individual arguments.  Attacking the character, tone, motives, and who he may have associated with on one occasion, these are ad hominem arguments.  This fallacy is designed to discredit the person making the argument, and not the argument itself.  And it's fine to not like him personally, it's just not as interesting.

I find it a lot more interesting talking about his arguments about post-modernists dominating academia, and the causes of the gender wage gap., and how people have to grow up and take more responsibility in order to better their lives.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7932
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2020, 07:15:41 pm »
We can say anything we like about anyone.  We can say Peterson hangs out with Nazis every weekend and throws up the salute, but that has nothing to do with the merit of his individual arguments.

Ok, but we haven't spoken about any of his individual arguments here, either.

Quote
  Attacking the character, tone, motives, and who he may have associated with on one occasion, these are ad hominem arguments.

Again, we're not talking about his arguments we are talking about the man and where he fits in, as some kind of public figure.

Quote
  This fallacy is designed to discredit the person making the argument, and not the argument itself.  And it's fine to not like him personally, it's just not as interesting.

See above.

Quote
I find it a lot more interesting talking about his arguments about post-modernists dominating academia, and the causes of the gender wage gap., and how people have to grow up and take more responsibility in order to better their lives.

Well... some of those are arguments and some of it is that self-help stuff he puts out there, but sure.  I think that a public moralist would be a great thing right now, and a Canadian conservative would be a perfect fit to host some kind of consensus-building on whatever moral commonality we have these days.

But he's not it.