• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jordan Peterson is recovering from severe tranquiliser addiction in Russia

NoMereRanger said:
Comparing zoning laws to your right to free speech, which is one of the most basic and fundamental of all human rights, is apples and acorns. Free speech shouldn't even be on the negotiating table. You yourself benefit from it because it allows you to come on a public forum and drop juvenile quips like they're still relevant. But good chat.
Click to expand...

Simple facts:

1. Peterson made a case about a law forcing him to use pronouns.

2. There is not a single use of the word pronoun used in the entirety of Bill C-16.

3. No one in Canadian history has gone to prison or been taken to trial as predicted by Kermit Peterson because of this law.

4. No one has gone to court because the law forced them to use to a pronoun.

Could it possibly be because at no point did the law force anyone to do anything? Hmmmmmm, nope. Jormit Pillpophoser must be on to sumtin'.

Intellecshuals, ya know that crazy bunch.

40b520197220d266760966d3cec74340.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lol, time to pull the curtain on your Jesus guys.
3db8d1884c82a9cfab953504e01fdbbe.jpg


Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
 
NoMereRanger said:
Comparing zoning laws to your right to free speech, which is one of the most basic and fundamental of all human rights, is apples and acorns.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Zoning laws are about balancing property rights and the wants/needs of the community as a whole. That's pretty freakin' important.

More importantly, you completely whiffed. In both the zoning and gender examples, the individual is in serious legal trouble not because of the original civil violation, but because they repeatedly and specifically refused to respect the authority of the courts. I could be here ALL DAY naming examples of civil violations that can get you locked up for contempt of court -- and that includes existing anti-discrimination laws. Thus, Jordan's idea that "free speech could land you in jail!" is complete and utter bull****. That's not much of a surprise, given that he apparently has no legal training whatsoever.

By the way, societies long ago realized not only that rights are not unlimited (including the right to freedom of speech), but that some rights come into tension with one other rights. In this case, the right to speak is in tension with civil rights. I've got a news flash for you: Industrialized nations decided decades ago that you have the right to speak freely, but you don't have the right to harass people in many public situations on the basis of their race, creed and sex. Many have added sexual orientation and now gender as well. I.e. Peterson's wrong-headed claims are about 50+ years behind the times.

Or, as another example: Peterson's employers have the right to exercise their freedom of association, no? Do they not have the right to fire someone whose public statements demonstrate that the individual is a racist or a transphobe, or just doesn't reflect the company's values? It's not like the right of association is any less basic or vital than the right of speech. Who are you to deprive employers of their right to decide whom they want to work for them, whom they want to associate with?

There is no one single answer to these types of conflicts of rights, but a lot of these questions already have been settled, litigated and tested in courts. Complaining about the underlying civil rights laws that are 50+ years old, only when we add "gender" to those protections? It seems pretty obvious that at best, Peterson is clueless about the law, at worst targeting one of the most vulnerable and stigmatized groups.
 
The cruelty towards Jordan is just heart breaking.....once I think that I understand what slime Modern Morons are I keep getting taught the painful lesson that they are even worse than that.

We Are SO Screwed!
 
Hatuey said:
Lol, time to pull the curtain on your Jesus guys.
3db8d1884c82a9cfab953504e01fdbbe.jpg


Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
Click to expand...

I believe that is his man cave room, not his bedroom. You know, a man who has accomplished something in life should be allowed a room to do whatever the **** he wants in. Your oh so petty jealousy is obvious.
 
Visbek said:
No, it isn't. Zoning laws are about balancing property rights and the wants/needs of the community as a whole. That's pretty freakin' important.

More importantly, you completely whiffed. In both the zoning and gender examples, the individual is in serious legal trouble not because of the original civil violation, but because they repeatedly and specifically refused to respect the authority of the courts. I could be here ALL DAY naming examples of civil violations that can get you locked up for contempt of court -- and that includes existing anti-discrimination laws. Thus, Jordan's idea that "free speech could land you in jail!" is complete and utter bull****. That's not much of a surprise, given that he apparently has no legal training whatsoever.

By the way, societies long ago realized not only that rights are not unlimited (including the right to freedom of speech), but that some rights come into tension with one other rights. In this case, the right to speak is in tension with civil rights. I've got a news flash for you: Industrialized nations decided decades ago that you have the right to speak freely, but you don't have the right to harass people in many public situations on the basis of their race, creed and sex. Many have added sexual orientation and now gender as well. I.e. Peterson's wrong-headed claims are about 50+ years behind the times.

Or, as another example: Peterson's employers have the right to exercise their freedom of association, no? Do they not have the right to fire someone whose public statements demonstrate that the individual is a racist or a transphobe, or just doesn't reflect the company's values? It's not like the right of association is any less basic or vital than the right of speech. Who are you to deprive employers of their right to decide whom they want to work for them, whom they want to associate with?

There is no one single answer to these types of conflicts of rights, but a lot of these questions already have been settled, litigated and tested in courts. Complaining about the underlying civil rights laws that are 50+ years old, only when we add "gender" to those protections? It seems pretty obvious that at best, Peterson is clueless about the law, at worst targeting one of the most vulnerable and stigmatized groups.
Click to expand...

I really thought the debate over the preferred pronouns of 0.00001% of the population ended years ago. We're still attacking Peterson over this? Yikes.
 
truthatallcost said:
I believe that is his man cave room, not his bedroom. You know, a man who has accomplished something in life should be allowed a room to do whatever the **** he wants in. Your oh so petty jealousy is obvious.
Click to expand...

A man who has helped as many people as he has to live happier more meaningful lives can petty much write his own ticket so far as I am concerned.

Because unlike most of the rest I am NOT a moron!

The good works we do in this life matter.

I know that the left calls Bull****.

But then again they SUCK!
 
truthatallcost said:
I really thought the debate over the preferred pronouns of 0.00001% of the population ended years ago. We're still attacking Peterson over this? Yikes.
Click to expand...

It might be time for me to chime in with my argument that people suck now.....

That we used to be BETTER!
 
truthatallcost said:
I believe that is his man cave room, not his bedroom. You know, a man who has accomplished something in life should be allowed a room to do whatever the **** he wants in. Your oh so petty jealousy is obvious.
Click to expand...

He accomplished scamming incels and cucks by telling them to clean their rooms. Even Deepak Chopra can do that with the right group of dumb hippies.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
 
Hawkeye10 said:
A man who has helped as many people as he has to live happier more meaningful lives can petty much write his own ticket so far as I am concerned.

Because unlike most of the rest I am NOT a moron!

The good works we do in this life matter.

I know that the left calls Bull****.

But then again they SUCK!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Jordan Peterson took it upon himself to help a demographic within society that we've been told doesn't need or deserve help, just scorn. There's a million self professing gurus pushing books and seminars, but virtually none were chosen from obscurity to lead, in the way Peterson was. Marianne Williamson, Ben Shapiro, the Obama's... They all lobbied to win the title of leader, while Peterson was chosen by the public, based upon merit and courage.
 
Hatuey said:
He accomplished scamming incels and cucks by telling them to clean their rooms. Even Deepak Chopra can do that with the right group of dumb hippies.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
Click to expand...


Well at least you know the difference between a man cave and a bedroom now. Have fun with your little hate fest here.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
It might be time for me to chime in with my argument that people suck now.....

That we used to be BETTER!
Click to expand...

The coddling really needs to stop. I got into boxing and later music in high school, and it was the best thing for me. I think we need to start teaching boys how to box again, and not how to be passive aggressive little complainers.
 
truthatallcost said:
The coddling really needs to stop. I got into boxing and later music in high school, and it was the best thing for me. I think we need to start teaching boys how to box again, and not how to be passive aggressive little complainers.
Click to expand...

It is worse than that, it is communicating that being weak and incompetent is now to be cheered, and that men should not step up to responsibility.

It is the act of slitting our own throat..

We suck that much now.

We are so screwed!
 
truthatallcost said:
Well at least you know the difference between a man cave and a bedroom now. Have fun with your little hate fest here.
Click to expand...
Lol, we get it, popping pills in the disorganized man cave is fine as long as the bedroom is clean.

That's goofy.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
 
Hawkeye10 said:
It is worse than that, it is communicating that being weak and incompetent is now to be cheered, and that men should not step up to responsibility.

It is the act of slitting our own throat..

We suck that much now.

We are so screwed!
Click to expand...

Well, until you identify where that originated from, and who's promoting it to young people today, and decide to fight them, I think you'll go on saying that we used to be better.
 
Hatuey said:
Lol, we get it, popping pills in the disorganized man cave is fine as long as the bedroom is clean.

That's goofy.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
Click to expand...

It's not ok, which is why he's seeking help for it. His wife is also currently dying of cancer. So it's great that you can stand there in judgment of him, and kick him when he's down, but your pain is assured. It is for all of us.
 
truthatallcost said:
Well, until you identify where that originated from, and who's promoting it to young people today, and decide to fight them, I think you'll go on saying that we used to be better.
Click to expand...

Says the guy from California Circa 2020..."We used to be better than this??!!....









:lamo
 
truthatallcost said:
you know, a man who has accomplished something in life should be allowed a room to do whatever the **** he wants in.
Click to expand...

truthatallcost said:
It's not ok,
Click to expand...

Well, alright. Must be some of them non existent rules he talks about. Keep your room clean, do whatever you want in your man cave, wait except pop pills, Peterson gets to do that.

I wouldn't hire that guy as a life coach, or buy his books.

Seems unstable like his followers.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
 
Last edited:
Vern said:
Anyhoo, lets review. He misrepresents Canadian law on pronouns.
Click to expand...

How's that? Because the word "pronoun" isn't included in the bill?

It's quite simple... If a professor call a student by a pronoun they disagreed with or didn't identify themselves with, or simply chose not to address them by the pronoun they preferred, they could file suit against the university and the professor. That is legislating speech.

Has irrational fixation on Marxism and feminism.
Click to expand...

Actually, he has a very rational disdain for the Marxist doctrine based on it destructive and deadly history, and opposes radical feminism, not women as so many people tend assert.

Hilariously endorses "forced monogamy" (this all one needs to call him a quack).
Click to expand...

I think you mean "enforced monogamy" and the only thing hilarious about that, is that the claim was fabricated by a writer who knowingly misconstrued his meaning.

If you want to know his actual position, you can watch this clip from an interview he did with someone who was not what you would call a fan or allie of his.
YouTube


.
 
Evilroddy said:
HK.227:

Yes, I read that sentence. But what is it about Russian detoxification programmes which sets them apart from North American or European detoxification regimes? Also what is the detoxification aimed at? Is it the drug abuse or the allegedly autoimmune response of the gastrointestinal system, or something else? What makes Russia so special in the eyes of the presumably desperate Peterson family?
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, I would assume most Western hospitals have similar detox treatments, and that the family is looking for something else, given he hasn't responded well to them.
 
Chomsky said:
My thoughts:

1] Benzos are GABA-ergics, as is alcohol. They are the only two major classes of addictive drugs thought to cause death directly attributed to their withdrawal. And like alcohol, they can vary greatly & individualistically in their ability to cause dependence. Not everyone that drinks alcohol, even for a long period of time, becomes physically dependent. But for those that do, their dependency can be severe, protracted - and in some cases deadly. It all depends upon one's personal body chemistry, the luck of the DNA draw.

Benzo addiction, for those who are physiological pre-disposed, is a private life-disrupting private hell. I don't wish it on anyone.

2] Jordan is not just a psychologist, but an active professor of psychology. He should know better than to pop benzos. The fact that he showed such poor judgement and awareness as to play around with benzos, would seem to make his "self-help" advice suspect. Similar to Rush Limbaugh, now cancer stricken, actively promoting smoking & giving political advice on nicotine.
Click to expand...

If popping benzo’s is a problem, then why are they prescribed?

It wasn’t his judgement. It was his doctors. Shocking where you would direct blame. Not shocking why.
 
Aberration said:
If popping benzo’s is a problem, then why are they prescribed?
Click to expand...

Repeated millions of oxycontin addicts.



Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
 
I think Jordan Peterson is a man with very deep issues. He appears unhealthy in many ways, mentally and physically. I give him credit for being upfront about his struggles but he also has a large ego and some warped ideas. I agree he is obsessed with what he considers "marxism". He also seems to have a tremendous amount of internal dislike of women (that is being generous) and that is likely the draw for some young men who also have a lot of issues. He also uses similar rhetoric to the far right, though he denies agreeing with them. I do not believe him to be an extremist thought he ought to investigate why he appeals to them.

I have been to one of his talks on his tour (a friend had an extra ticket and invited me). He did not seem entirely stable but definitely had a certain "presence". Kind of like a charismatic preacher. The audience seemed like disciples. Young men who should be developing themselves, growing, learning, remaining open minded, seem to have attached themselves to him as their messiah. Not very healthy, in my opinion.
 
Grim17 said:
It's quite simple... If a professor call a student by a pronoun they disagreed with or didn't identify themselves with, or simply chose not to address them by the pronoun they preferred, they could file suit against the university and the professor. That is legislating speech.
Click to expand...
News flash! We regulate speech all the time.

You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater as a prank. You can't directly threaten people. You can't incite a riot. You can't defame or slander people. Government employees can't cite freedom of speech to release classified materials. You can't cite freedom of speech to violate copyright laws, or commit fraud, or blatantly lie in advertisements, or show genitalia on most public TV channels, and so on.

And guess what? No, guess! Alright, I'll tell you. We already regulate speech in order to protect civil rights, including protection from harassment. If Peterson repeatedly used a racial epithet instead of the proper name of one of his students, you can bet your sweet bippy he'd get in trouble for it.


I think you mean "enforced monogamy" and the only thing hilarious about that, is that the claim was fabricated by a writer who knowingly misconstrued his meaning.
Click to expand...
Or, not. For example, a NYT interview with Peterson:

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

I laugh, because it is absurd.

“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

No wonder Peterson is so beloved by the Incels.
 
Visbek said:
News flash! We regulate speech all the time.

You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater as a prank. You can't directly threaten people. You can't incite a riot. You can't defame or slander people. Government employees can't cite freedom of speech to release classified materials. You can't cite freedom of speech to violate copyright laws, or commit fraud, or blatantly lie in advertisements, or show genitalia on most public TV channels, and so on.

And guess what? No, guess! Alright, I'll tell you. We already regulate speech in order to protect civil rights, including protection from harassment. If Peterson repeatedly used a racial epithet instead of the proper name of one of his students, you can bet your sweet bippy he'd get in trouble for it.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean to tell me you really don't see the difference?

Your examples are things you can't do or say, while bill C16 legislates what people must say. It's just that simple and if you don't get it, i can't help you.





Or, not. For example, a NYT interview with Peterson:

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

I laugh, because it is absurd.

“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

No wonder Peterson is so beloved by the Incels.
Click to expand...

Did you not understand what he said in the clip, or did you just choose not to watch it?

It has to be one or the other, because it's the only thing that explains you response.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom