‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 > 
 
   
 

Jordan Peterson Criticism

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2021 08:48
 

weird:

I know you believe it.  I’ve been asking you to demonstrate how you know that it’s an actual possibility, and not just a boogey-man concern.

While you’re at it, why not ask me to speculate on other lawsuits that might be coming in the next couple of decades? Several times now, I’ve given you what I think is a plausible path to a successful harassment lawsuit. We disagree on how plausible it is. It’s not going to matter for me to say it again, we’re still going to disagree smile

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2021 08:50
 

If you want to compensate me, I’d be happy to keep you up to date on more of the free speech issues that come up every day smile

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
15 May 2021 10:39
 
icehorse - 15 May 2021 08:48 AM

weird:

I know you believe it.  I’ve been asking you to demonstrate how you know that it’s an actual possibility, and not just a boogey-man concern.

While you’re at it, why not ask me to speculate on other lawsuits that might be coming in the next couple of decades? Several times now, I’ve given you what I think is a plausible path to a successful harassment lawsuit. We disagree on how plausible it is. It’s not going to matter for me to say it again, we’re still going to disagree smile

Yes…. I know what you think.  You’ve expressed it many, many, many times.

I am asking you to demonstrate that it is based on something in reality… other than your opinion.  I’m super happy for you that you’ve identified your belief in big-foot.  Can you demonstrate that it is true?

You try to pretend that your belief is justified, but when I ask for the justification… all you have is your opinion.  If an opinion is all that is necessary, then my opinion is as equally justified as yours.  And not just that we can have them… but by your logic you must consider my opinion as equally true as yours.

I on the other hand am free from such a burden.  By insisting on evidence to support any conclusion, I am able to discard yours as unlikely to be true, while mine is likely to be true.  In addition, I am able to change my mind whenever new evidence is presented.

[ Edited: 15 May 2021 10:44 by weird buffalo]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2021 10:47
 
weird buffalo - 15 May 2021 10:39 AM
icehorse - 15 May 2021 08:48 AM

weird:

I know you believe it.  I’ve been asking you to demonstrate how you know that it’s an actual possibility, and not just a boogey-man concern.

While you’re at it, why not ask me to speculate on other lawsuits that might be coming in the next couple of decades? Several times now, I’ve given you what I think is a plausible path to a successful harassment lawsuit. We disagree on how plausible it is. It’s not going to matter for me to say it again, we’re still going to disagree smile

Yes…. I know what you think.  You’ve expressed it many, many, many times.

I am asking you to demonstrate that it is based on something in reality… other than your opinion.  I’m super happy for you that you’ve identified your belief in big-foot.  Can you demonstrate that it is true?

You try to pretend that your belief is justified, but when I ask for the justification… all you have is your opinion.  If an opinion is all that is necessary, then my opinion is as equally justified as yours.  And not just that we can have them… but by your logic you must consider my opinion as equally true as yours.

I on the other hand am free from such a burden.  By insisting on evidence to support any conclusion, I am able to discard yours as unlikely to be true, while mine is likely to be true.  In addition, I am able to change my mind whenever new evidence is presented.

When did I say that my opinion is better than yours? We’re both speculating. Since the law is in place, I hope you’re correct, but I fear I am.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
15 May 2021 10:57
 
icehorse - 15 May 2021 10:47 AM
weird buffalo - 15 May 2021 10:39 AM
icehorse - 15 May 2021 08:48 AM

weird:

I know you believe it.  I’ve been asking you to demonstrate how you know that it’s an actual possibility, and not just a boogey-man concern.

While you’re at it, why not ask me to speculate on other lawsuits that might be coming in the next couple of decades? Several times now, I’ve given you what I think is a plausible path to a successful harassment lawsuit. We disagree on how plausible it is. It’s not going to matter for me to say it again, we’re still going to disagree smile

Yes…. I know what you think.  You’ve expressed it many, many, many times.

I am asking you to demonstrate that it is based on something in reality… other than your opinion.  I’m super happy for you that you’ve identified your belief in big-foot.  Can you demonstrate that it is true?

You try to pretend that your belief is justified, but when I ask for the justification… all you have is your opinion.  If an opinion is all that is necessary, then my opinion is as equally justified as yours.  And not just that we can have them… but by your logic you must consider my opinion as equally true as yours.

I on the other hand am free from such a burden.  By insisting on evidence to support any conclusion, I am able to discard yours as unlikely to be true, while mine is likely to be true.  In addition, I am able to change my mind whenever new evidence is presented.

When did I say that my opinion is better than yours? We’re both speculating. Since the law is in place, I hope you’re correct, but I fear I am.

Who do you think is right?  Me or you?  Which evaluation of the bill is more likely to be true?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2021 11:24
 

weird:

Who do you think is right?  Me or you?  Which evaluation of the bill is more likely to be true?

To me, it depends on whether the extreme left gains in influence or recedes. If the extreme left continues to gain power, I think the odds of compelled speech go up.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
15 May 2021 12:35
 
icehorse - 15 May 2021 11:24 AM

weird:

Who do you think is right?  Me or you?  Which evaluation of the bill is more likely to be true?

To me, it depends on whether the extreme left gains in influence or recedes. If the extreme left continues to gain power, I think the odds of compelled speech go up.

That isn’t what I asked.
You claim this law compels speech.
I claim the law does not.

Which of us is better portraying what comports with reality?  Our opinions are mutually exclusive, there is no middle ground.  Only one of us can be right… do you think it’s you or me?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2021 12:38
 
weird buffalo - 15 May 2021 12:35 PM
icehorse - 15 May 2021 11:24 AM

weird:

Who do you think is right?  Me or you?  Which evaluation of the bill is more likely to be true?

To me, it depends on whether the extreme left gains in influence or recedes. If the extreme left continues to gain power, I think the odds of compelled speech go up.

That isn’t what I asked.
You claim this law compels speech.
I claim the law does not.

Which of us is better portraying what comports with reality?  Our opinions are mutually exclusive, there is no middle ground.  Only one of us can be right… do you think it’s you or me?

You are correct in terms of today’s reality. I don’t care. I’m concerned about the future.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
15 May 2021 13:20
 

Oh man, getting you to answer a question with a straight answer is really fucking hard.

We can’t both be right.  Which one of us do you think is more likely to be right?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2021 14:57
 
weird buffalo - 15 May 2021 01:20 PM

Oh man, getting you to answer a question with a straight answer is really fucking hard.

We can’t both be right.  Which one of us do you think is more likely to be right?

I really don’t know if the extreme left will continue to ascend, I hope they don’t. To me, the likelihood of compelled speech being enacted is closely tied to the rise of the extreme left.

Back to an earlier point, is it your stance that since we haven’t used nuclear weapons to destroy the planet YET, we don’t have to worry about nuclear weapons?

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
15 May 2021 15:38
 

Nope.  And my argument has never been solely “it’s never happened before, therefore it can’t happen”.

My evidence has been:
1) the law in NO WAY says what you claim it says.
2) Canadian law actually has a lot of definitions and standards making the language far less ambiguous than you claim (you just happen to not have studied Canadian Law… so, it’s okay that you ignorant of them, but your ignorance is not evidence that they don’t exist).

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2021 16:05
 
weird buffalo - 15 May 2021 03:38 PM

Nope.  And my argument has never been solely “it’s never happened before, therefore it can’t happen”.

My evidence has been:
1) the law in NO WAY says what you claim it says.
2) Canadian law actually has a lot of definitions and standards making the language far less ambiguous than you claim (you just happen to not have studied Canadian Law… so, it’s okay that you ignorant of them, but your ignorance is not evidence that they don’t exist).

ALL LAWS are open to interpretation, that’s why we have judges.

Back to the personal attacks again, so friggin’ tedious you are. I read the relevant parts of the law. The definition of what constitutes “harassment” is open ended. It’s up for interpretation. No doubt Canadian plaintiffs are bringing harassment claims to court that present judges with variations on claims they’ve seen in the past. THIS IS WHAT JUDGES DO!!  They consider the edge cases. They use their understanding of existing case law, their mastery of legal principles, and they’re expert intuition to determine whether new claims pass muster or not. 

So imagine a claimant says they’ve been harassed in the work place because despite repeated requests, their supervisor refuses to use the pronoun they’ve requested. The claimant might say that they’ve endured extreme stress due to the language the bosses use. They claim it’s abusive.

How dare you assert that five or ten years from now, a left leaning judge might not find in favor of the claimant? How can you possibly know that?

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3311
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
15 May 2021 20:33
 

There is no such thing as culture war - there is only social and cultural trends, which tend to swing back and forth over time.
No question that the US political, economic and law enforcement culture has moved far to the Right since Bill Clinton, lagging far behind the general culture.
We don’t see a takeover be my the Left - we see an overdue correction of divergent trends.
Once those in power have caught up with the majority of the citizenry, no doubt we will sooner or later see a widespread cultural drive to the right.
Note that we don’t have a right-wing culture, just an anti-left culture.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
15 May 2021 22:04
 
icehorse - 15 May 2021 04:05 PM
weird buffalo - 15 May 2021 03:38 PM

Nope.  And my argument has never been solely “it’s never happened before, therefore it can’t happen”.

My evidence has been:
1) the law in NO WAY says what you claim it says.
2) Canadian law actually has a lot of definitions and standards making the language far less ambiguous than you claim (you just happen to not have studied Canadian Law… so, it’s okay that you ignorant of them, but your ignorance is not evidence that they don’t exist).

ALL LAWS are open to interpretation, that’s why we have judges.

Back to the personal attacks again, so friggin’ tedious you are. I read the relevant parts of the law. The definition of what constitutes “harassment” is open ended. It’s up for interpretation. No doubt Canadian plaintiffs are bringing harassment claims to court that present judges with variations on claims they’ve seen in the past. THIS IS WHAT JUDGES DO!!  They consider the edge cases. They use their understanding of existing case law, their mastery of legal principles, and they’re expert intuition to determine whether new claims pass muster or not. 

So imagine a claimant says they’ve been harassed in the work place because despite repeated requests, their supervisor refuses to use the pronoun they’ve requested. The claimant might say that they’ve endured extreme stress due to the language the bosses use. They claim it’s abusive.

How dare you assert that five or ten years from now, a left leaning judge might not find in favor of the claimant? How can you possibly know that?

What is your evidence that such a case would be considered seriously in a Canadian court?
I don’t care about whatever stupid hypothetical you can imagine.  I care about what actually happens.

Calling you ignorant about Canadian law isn’t a personal attack.  It is an accurate description of the level of knowledge you’ve displayed about Canadian law.  All you’ve done repeatedly is make claims and assumptions.  You never bother even looking anything up and demand other people do it for you.  Then when they do, you cherry pick sentence fragments, and ignore the rest of the context in order to make your point.  That is very ignorant behavior.  If you don’t want to be described that way… you can always choose to alter your methods.

Here, since you get to present a hypothetical that you like, I now get to present one to you.  Lets imagine that someone kills a transgender person, and uses the transpanic defense.  The judge is transphobic, and so finds them not guilty.  This situation really needs some sort of law in order to protect transpeople.  Oh wait, mine isn’t really hypothetical, since murderers in Canada have used the gay-panic defense to receive reduced sentences.

[ Edited: 15 May 2021 22:12 by weird buffalo]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
16 May 2021 07:48
 

weird,

Can you not see the irony in your last post???

 
 
‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 >