Jordan Peterson is recovering from severe tranquiliser addiction in Russia

Fishking said:

Calling a fad diet doesn't negate the possibility of it working. There isn't tons of data on it, at least for long term research, because there's not really many people to pull data from that have done it for a long time. All I'm saying is that I've personally done it for 1 1/2 months and it worked pretty well. My blood pressure had been around the high end of what was acceptable and it dropped down a good bit into the normal healthy range (I was coming in around 140/90, iirc, and I went to more around 118/80).

I will say it's not exactly cheap but eating that way wasn't so bad. I did have cravings for little bit, like just wanting some damn bread with my sausage or grilled ground beef and such.

So far as what she claims, I listened to her on Joe Rogan's podcast and I didn't hear her claim she invented it. That was about a 3 hr interview so I'm not sure where you're getting your info from.

Click to expand...

That's true it could work, but I can't imagine and there's NO evidence limiting your food intake to ONE FOOD for a lifetime is a healthy option. And whether severe restrictions can shock your body into weight loss over a very short period of time is entirely different than claiming it's a diet to live by long term.

As to claims to invent, YouTube

That's her making the claim.... "I'm the creator of the Lion diet" :roll:

Fishking said:

I sure am.

Click to expand...

That's a bit stupid. You can't be a self help guru with an addiction. Then again Peterson is a cult leader pretending to be a self help guru.

Would you trust a cokehead to give you life advise?

Lol. So cultish.



Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

NoMereRanger said:

--- Being punished for contempt of court because you refuse to speak a certain way. That's the possibility in place.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that possibility already exists, in all sorts of ways. Like I said: civil rights laws, obscenity laws, defamation laws, fraud, misleading advertising, copyright laws, trademark laws all relate to speech. Almost all are civil cases, meaning the only way you "go to jail for speech" is if you give the judge the middle finger in the courtroom.

Again, it leaves the door open for what counts as discrimination.

Click to expand...

Yet again! This is not some completely new concept in law with no precedent whatsoever. All it did was literally change a few words in existing civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. In fact, Grim17 already pointed to guidelines published from Ottawa, which established its protections on gender identity and gender expression before the rest of Canada, which the Canadian government said to follow:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default... of gender identity and gender expression.pdf

By the way, your complete inability to understand basic concepts or history of civil rights laws is why people keep getting a bunch of these guys: :roll:

Hypothetically you can get in trouble for refusing to "accept" someone's gender identity because that's discrimination. If I don't call a he a she, I'm not accepting them and can get into trouble. To think this won't happen in real life is naive.

Click to expand...

Again: No one is denying that. It's that this is NOTHING NEW. Anti-discrimination laws have restricted specific types of speech, in specific contexts, for decades.

To wit: If you constantly refer to an individual using a racial epithet, or a slang term for genitalia, or an insulting term referring to their religion, but only in specific contexts -- a place of employment, or while refusing service to someone -- you can get into trouble.

If you are hanging out on your front stoop and use the wrong pronoun for your next-door neighbor, you will not be arrested and immediately thrown in jail. That's not how those laws work.

Obscenity laws are nice but I wouldn't consider them essential. The rest protect us from physical harm by way of protecting our property, reputations, etc, things that are rightfully ours.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether you think they are "essential," they are still explicit restrictions on speech that have nothing to do with direct physical harm. Harm to your "property, reputation etc" is not physical harm -- which is what you stipulated.

Why did he choose Russia to do his recovery?

ProgressPlease said:

No " hand wringing" here.
I never said Yaniv prevailed. The fact that the tribunal would consider such a case is ridiculous. There is still the issue of competing rights.

Click to expand...

First, you kinda did say she prevailed when you said people paid her and others went out of business: "Some women settled and lost their business, paying Jessica upwards of 8K. " And your "ridiculous" narrative is actually quite ridiculous. somebody filed a complaint. the tribunal reviewed it. You don’t blame the system when someone tries to abuse it. And (read this slowly) the tribunal handled it perfectly. They slapped her down and fined her for her abusive tactics. Geez, everything in the world should work as well as the tribunal did in that case.

I have no worries about critiqueing Jordan Peterson, by the way. I will continue to have worries about unintended consequences when it comes to legislation.

Click to expand...

But try not to use false or made up examples to worry about unintended consequences.

Grim17 said:

I don't trust the media's reporting on any stories where there's a political aspect involved, so I check things out myself.

Lets be clear Grim, you don't trust the media's reporting when it doesn't agree with what you want to believe.

OK... The Canadian DOJ posted on their website prior to the bills passing, that bill c16 would be interpreted through the policy precedence already established by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and they included a link to this document that explained it. If you go to section 7.4 "Gender-based harassment and sexual harassment" and they state that gender-based harassment may involve "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun."

That was the basis for Peterson's objection to the law and it was a damned good one... Good if you believe that freedom of speech is worthy of protection.

Click to expand...

Well of course you think Peterson's objection is good but I've posted the Candadian Bar Association's interpretation of C-16. You posted the opinion of a psychologist who has shown he has an irrational fear of feminism (I posted the tweet for you. Its no shock you avoid it). and now you bring up the OHRC as if it proves JP's point. I know, lets see what they say


What does the Ontario Human Rights Code say about gender issues?
Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.

Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?
The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

As one human rights tribunal said: “Gender …may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender.”[1] The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

Questions and answers about gender identity and pronouns | Ontario Human Rights Commission

so you and JP can be the biggest jerks in the world but not when it affects someone's employment, housing or education. Oh and don't forget, please address his unhinged tweet. thanks in advance

Visbek said:

Yes, and that possibility already exists, in all sorts of ways. Like I said: civil rights laws, obscenity laws, defamation laws, fraud, misleading advertising, copyright laws, trademark laws all relate to speech. Almost all are civil cases, meaning the only way you "go to jail for speech" is if you give the judge the middle finger in the courtroom.



Yet again! This is not some completely new concept in law with no precedent whatsoever. All it did was literally change a few words in existing civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. In fact, Grim17 already pointed to guidelines published from Ottawa, which established its protections on gender identity and gender expression before the rest of Canada, which the Canadian government said to follow:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default... of gender identity and gender expression.pdf

By the way, your complete inability to understand basic concepts or history of civil rights laws is why people keep getting a bunch of these guys: :roll:



Again: No one is denying that. It's that this is NOTHING NEW. Anti-discrimination laws have restricted specific types of speech, in specific contexts, for decades.

To wit: If you constantly refer to an individual using a racial epithet, or a slang term for genitalia, or an insulting term referring to their religion, but only in specific contexts -- a place of employment, or while refusing service to someone -- you can get into trouble.

If you are hanging out on your front stoop and use the wrong pronoun for your next-door neighbor, you will not be arrested and immediately thrown in jail. That's not how those laws work.



Regardless of whether you think they are "essential," they are still explicit restrictions on speech that have nothing to do with direct physical harm. Harm to your "property, reputation etc" is not physical harm -- which is what you stipulated.

Click to expand...

I think the main disagreement here is over what should count as discrimination. I can understand sex, age, race etc because those are easily definable things. With something like "identity", it essentially comes down to whatever the party in question wants to claim. Being able to claim discrimination based on how you feel is less concrete than I would like in a law but that seems to be personal preference.

Anyway, I'm moving on to other discussions, feel free to have the final word, I won't deny you seem to be well read on the topic eace

Vern said:

Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?
The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

Click to expand...

And there you have it... That is compelled speech.

If a transgendered person says to a supervisor at work that they must refer to them as "insert some pronoun here" and instead they just refers to them by the gender they resemble, they can be brought before the human rights commission, fined and jailed if they refuse to pay up... Why? because they did not use the speech that someone demanded they use.

Legislating what people can't say is one thing, but legislating what people must say is quite another. I'm a free speech advocate and strongly believe that nobody has the right not be offended.

.

.

Hatuey said:

That's a bit stupid. You can't be a self help guru with an addiction. Then again Peterson is a cult leader pretending to be a self help guru.

Would you trust a cokehead to give you life advise?

Lol. So cultish.



Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

Click to expand...

LOL!! You really know nothing about the man or his work yet insist on giving your ridiculous opinion. Why not read some of his work before posting or, if that's too difficult, watch and listen to some of his talks on Youtube?

Fred C Dobbs II said:

LOL!! You really know nothing about the man or his work yet insist on giving your ridiculous opinion. Why not read some of his work before posting or, if that's too difficult, watch and listen to some of his talks on Youtube?

Click to expand...

I asked you and you ran away, now you're back to munch on my heels: Which section of Bill C-16 discussed pronouns?

Go for it. Cite it.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

Hatuey said:

I asked you and you ran away, now you're back to munch on my heels: Which section of Bill C-16 discussed pronouns?

Go for it. Cite it.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

Click to expand...

Run away? Is this board your entire life? I have no interest in any pronouns as much as I have an interest in Jordan Peterson's writings. Your priorities are not mine.
The man has sold 3 million books, is one of the most popular figures on youtube, given lectures around the world, and been interviewed by most every major international medium and you call it 'cultish'? As mentioned, you're not familiar with his work but are likely parroting something you read on some typically uninformed left wing blog.

Fred C Dobbs II said:

Run away? Is this board your entire life? I have no interest in any pronouns

Click to expand...

Nothing you've said in your first three sentences is either true or relevant.

Here, I'll ask you another simple question: Which part of Bill C-16 stops anyone from being a complete transphobe?

So cultish. We aren't giving you a podium to praise your Jesus on.





Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

JasperL said:

That's true it could work, but I can't imagine and there's NO evidence limiting your food intake to ONE FOOD for a lifetime is a healthy option. And whether severe restrictions can shock your body into weight loss over a very short period of time is entirely different than claiming it's a diet to live by long term.

Click to expand...

*shrug* Do you question vegan or vegetarian diets as much?

As to claims to invent, YouTube

That's her making the claim.... "I'm the creator of the Lion diet" :roll:

Click to expand...

Well...she's full of it when saying that she invented it. Sounds like she's trying to brand it for monetary purposes.

Hatuey said:

That's a bit stupid. You can't be a self help guru with an addiction. Then again Peterson is a cult leader pretending to be a self help guru.

Would you trust a cokehead to give you life advise?

Lol. So cultish.



Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

Click to expand...

You're just repeating yourself. So little depth for someone who seems so sure of himself. What are you compensation for?

Fishking said:

You're just repeating yourself. So little depth for someone who seems so sure of himself. What are you compensation for?

Click to expand...

If there is no depth, there can be no compensation. I guess if I was compensating I'd just drown myself in assholish beliefs involving all meat diets and pill popping.

Did you really need Peterson to tell you that you need organization to succeed?

That's an embarrassing admission.


Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

Hatuey said:

If there is no depth, there can be no compensation. I guess if I was compensating I'd just drown myself in assholish beliefs involving all meat diets and pill popping.

Did you really need Peterson to tell you that you need organization to succeed?

That's an embarrassing admission.


Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

Click to expand...

Oh my...you read something you didn't understand, causing you to write a response that doesn't make any sense to what you were responding to. I am not shocked.

Fishking said:

*shrug* Do you question vegan or vegetarian diets as much?

Click to expand...

Sure! I mean, it's quite clear, and many studies show, that one can live a lifetime, and be healthy, on a vegetarian/vegan diet. There is, however, no evidence for the proposition that one can live long term eating ONLY BEEF.

Well...she's full of it when saying that she invented it. Sounds like she's trying to brand it for monetary purposes.

Click to expand...

First of all, you questioned where I got my info that she invented the diet, and the correct answer, as I've said, is she claims it, in her own words, repeatedly.

I've not seen anyone else recommend an all beef diet, because it's an absurd idea IMO. Keto is the closest and it's really entirely different in practice. For example, there are healthy sources of fat, such as avocados, and the diet doesn't recommend NO carbs, just strictly limiting them which can be done and still consume a fair amount of low calorie, low fat but high nutrient carbs like greens of various sorts, limited fruits, such as berries, and other nutrient packed vegetables like broccoli, etc.

JasperL said:

Sure! I mean, it's quite clear, and many studies show, that one can live a lifetime, and be healthy, on a vegetarian/vegan diet. There is, however, no evidence for the proposition that one can live long term eating ONLY BEEF.



First of all, you questioned where I got my info that she invented the diet, and the correct answer, as I've said, is she claims it, in her own words, repeatedly.

I've not seen anyone else recommend an all beef diet, because it's an absurd idea IMO. Keto is the closest and it's really entirely different in practice. For example, there are healthy sources of fat, such as avocados, and the diet doesn't recommend NO carbs, just strictly limiting them which can be done and still consume a fair amount of low calorie, low fat but high nutrient carbs like greens of various sorts, limited fruits, such as berries, and other nutrient packed vegetables like broccoli, etc.

Click to expand...

In fact there are people and cultures who only eat meat. Can you really live on meat alone? Everything you need to know about the carnivore diet | National Post

JasperL said:

First of all, you questioned where I got my info that she invented the diet, and the correct answer, as I've said, is she claims it, in her own words, repeatedly.

Click to expand...

Yes...and I said she was full of it. I'm not sure how that's confusing to you.

I've not seen anyone else recommend an all beef diet, because it's an absurd idea IMO. Keto is the closest and it's really entirely different in practice. For example, there are healthy sources of fat, such as avocados, and the diet doesn't recommend NO carbs, just strictly limiting them which can be done and still consume a fair amount of low calorie, low fat but high nutrient carbs like greens of various sorts, limited fruits, such as berries, and other nutrient packed vegetables like broccoli, etc.

Click to expand...

I don't know about an all beef diet but I've seen lots of people talk about an all meat diet.

Fishking said:

Yes...and I said she was full of it. I'm not sure how that's confusing to you.

I don't know about an all beef diet but I've seen lots of people talk about an all meat diet.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the "carnivore diet" but it also includes dairy, fish, eggs, poultry - i.e. meat and things from animals. It also has no evidence of long term success, but it's also not beef and only beef. So they are different. I've yet to see and I've looked for any diet like hers, likely because it's whacky.

Just for example, fish and fish by products provide lots of different and healthy fats. It's why the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes fish over beef and chicken, is supposed to be healthy. Etc....

JasperL said:

Yeah, that's the "carnivore diet" but it also includes dairy, fish, eggs, poultry - i.e. meat and things from animals. It also has no evidence of long term success, but it's also not beef and only beef. So they are different. I've yet to see and I've looked for any diet like hers, likely because it's whacky.

Just for example, fish and fish by products provide lots of different and healthy fats. It's why the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes fish over beef and chicken, is supposed to be healthy. Etc....

Click to expand...

Ah...I see the distinction you're making now. My bad.

Hawkeye10 said:

Jordan is the best of the best, I wish him well. This guy has a mix of intelligence and moral fiber and good horse sense that almost is never found in the land of the Modern Morons.

Gad Saad is one of his few peers.

Click to expand...

Jordan Peterson - the stupid man's idea of a smart man.

Peterson is a "traditionalist" conservative Catholic middle-aged white male- you only have to listen to some of his youtube videos to realise he prefers "the good ole days" when women knew their place and gay men were in the closet or ridiculed and bashed.

Quaestio said:

Peterson is a "traditionalist" conservative Catholic middle-aged white male- you only have to listen to some of his youtube videos to realise he prefers "the good ole days" when women knew their place and gay men were in the closet or ridiculed and bashed.

Click to expand...

That's a poor description of the man's ideas, none of it is true, and there is nothing wrong with being White, Catholic, Conservative, or middle aged

Quaestio said:

Jordan Peterson - the stupid man's idea of a smart man.

Click to expand...

He was actually fine until he became so political. I listened to about half a dozen of his University of Toronto lectures and they were pretty interesting. Then he chose to go on an anti-sjw crusade and went full stupid.