I'm watching the interview now but I'm already getting the feeling that the interviewer is inexperienced. Just some dumbass who somehow got the chance for his shot at interviewing JP. That's not someone I would enjoy watching interview someone else. He comes off as someone who thinks he's very smart. That's always a red flag. Anyway, back to watching...
Pontius Dilate
Senior member
- Mar 28, 2008
- 217
- 375
- 136
How many times do we have to go over the fact he was told he would be debating atheists and they were told they would be debating a Christian.
I am now so profoundly offended with your endless stupidity and inability to understand context that I am experiencing all kinds of urges to beat you to death, you obnoxious brain dead twit.
Naturally, of course I know you can’t help yourself. You have become profoundly offended by your own imagination thinking that Peterson isn’t human and unlike me too enlightened to ever really feel such confused impatience.
You probably thought I was being serious in my attack on you because you actually feel like a twit and imagine I can see right through you. Rest assured, I am fully aware you just can’t help yourself because you do not know how you really feel. You are actually quite normally blind and unaware. Don't get stressed over it. Self awareness isn’t easy and requires gentle patience I feel.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,697
- 6,257
- 126
Jesus gave 2 Commands. He provided many examples/demonstrations.
Pontius Dilate
Senior member
- Mar 28, 2008
- 217
- 375
- 136
Pull back out of your ego and listen to what you're saying, you piece of shit human being. Talking about murdering me. I knew you were quite an unpleasant person with no genuine care for others, but this is a little surprising I must admit. Enjoy your little flat earth world with two-dimensional slices of three-dimensional reality, it's all you have.
I would call that a cheatsheet for salvation. Do only these two things and you have a great chance of being saved. But a non-Christian can do these two things just as well and still not identify as a Christian.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,697
- 6,257
- 126
I believe that is what you think but you present a chain of reasoning that does not lead to the conclusion you draw. He isn't deliberately dissembling or operating in bad faith. He is telling the interviewer he the interviewer is assuming they are on the same page regarding what it means to be a Christian. Do you think for a second what Peterson believes being a Christian requires is anything remotely like what the interviewer believes one is. You are apparently motivated not to see that obvious fact. You are stuffed full of what are only opinions and fail to read the room.
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,660
- 20,224
- 146
Sure, but Jesus presents the mechanism for us imperfect beings to repent for our shortcomings and continue to follow his teachings the best we can. You are free to go tell Christians how they're not actually Christians, please be sure to report back your experiences.
We can go thru plenty of hypotheticals, seems like distraction though. It's a straightforward question for those who consider themselves Christians. The criteria is pretty clear. People will present many different variations as to what exactly they think the rules consist of, which is why there are denominations. But the two rules remain unchanged. Follow his teachings, accept him as your path to salvation (from eternal damnation, of course).
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,660
- 20,224
- 146
8.5/10 - Solid rant about how much you value critical thinking. 'Nuff said.
A cool little purity test you've built for yourself there. Behind door A, I discard critical thinking for your mystical reasoning. Door B, I choose critical thinking and discard what I really feel. Either way, you're confident in your absolute correctness. Well done, young Peterson.
You are really lousy at sarcasm as well as reading comprehension. Try to be aware of that. All I did wqas show you what a gentle loving Moonbeam would look like if he were the Jordan Peterson you Jordan Peterson as being. Imagine you had been invited before the world to debate what you say as the problems with Atheistic belief and the questions you got were all about how you think monkey shit smells because the other side of the debate was told that's what you came to discuss. Have some compassion for people who were manipulated and lied to about what the debate was about and you had no idea the other side was told something different than you in order to generate a debate in which you would inevitable be asked things that had nothing whatsoever with why you came. Your words murder Peterson and your motivation sucks. I showed you what you look like to me. The only difference is that I don't care you think that way because your inner rage was inevitable as a result of having been murdered as a child.
My advice, be nicer to others because how you treat them is how you treat the them that is really only a projection of how you unconsciously feel about yourself. My aim is to help you see. What you do with what I say is not something I have any ability to control. I will do my best for you even if it's not much. I am not plagued by any uncertainty that life is good and that God is a projection of what you can become. To be a real potential the result has to be real. This is a mystical fact that is seen with the onset of an altered conscious state, as I see it.
OMG! Is this the interview everyone's been upset about???
By the end of it, I even lost my hostility towards the interviewer. It's just two people having a discussion and disagreeing and JP acknowledging that he doesn't know everything and he doesn't have all the answers.
Who in their right mind, after watching that from start to finish, would start accusing JP of stuff???
Grow up, people.
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,660
- 20,224
- 146
You should learn more about it then, so should Peterson so he can be more confident in his answers.
The Christianity you are talking about is the Christianity you have in your head. <--- your own words apply to you as well.
Peterson could simply answer "I don't know, still figuring it out" and move on. Just a thought there, he doesn't have to react the way he does. I think we agree people have a choice in their actions and words.
I disagree with religion, not with belief.
You assume it's important to me. Merely pointing out how he doesn't answer the question.
Cool story, bro.
I am a radical feminist who has has hidden my sexual lust for women by being a bigger feminist than they are and just when I think I'm abut to get my hands in their pants along comes Jordan Peterson crapping on the authoritarianism radical feminism of my sexual fantasy. Have you any idea of what I had to give up to become a woman's doormat. I had to throw out my club and leave my cave. Damn you. Growing up means no more erections.
Last edited:
Pontius Dilate
Senior member
- Mar 28, 2008
- 217
- 375
- 136
I wasn't being sarcastic you idiot, complete misread from you as usual. Go ahead and look around the forum and show me posters routinely talking about beating other posters to death. You're not trying to help me or anyone else, you're a fucking bully who lost his cool. You've admitted to that, not caring about what other people say, saying things you don't believe in an attempt to trigger responses from people. Own up to who you are. Hilarious listening you talking about compassion and being nice to others while you talk about beating me to death. Maybe pull out the classic internet badass "I was just joking, can't you take a joke?" or point at your signature to explain why you thought that was totally appropriate and compassionate and helpful and nice. "I was speaking in the voice of who I imagine you imagine Jordan Peterson to be, that's not really me." I believe you Moonbeam. That's sarcasm.
How tepid. Where's the passionate belief. The time not to feel anything is when you are dead.
Please stop digging. I wasn't accusing you of being lousy at being sarcastic. I was accusing you of taking my sarcasm as what I believe, that you actually beat up on Peterson like he deserves to die and i sarcastically showed you what that looks like to me. You should know that we liberals are enraged by irrational thinking and you do it in spades. But in my case my enormous capacity for empathy, owing to the realization you can't help but be blind as a bigot is simply not your fault. I would never ever physically harm you. See if you can see that, please.
- May 19, 2011
- 20,506
- 15,307
- 136
I find it interesting how JP opens up with an assertion that he clearly pulled out of his ass and you're like "everything is fine because this lines up with my beliefs", then when he's got that line of bullshit out there without a challenge, he retreats to his usual "I'm not really saying anything, who me?" position.
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,660
- 20,224
- 146
My zeal not up to snuff? Sad.
A conclusion based on an assumption. This response seems to be a result of the false dilemma you presented. You've assumed that I choose not to feel because I choose critical thinking. However, that's a False Dilemma, as there are other options that you don't choose to acknowledge.
So here, you've created the criteria that you accept, tell me it's one or the other, then in this post you have a conclusion based on your assumption there's only two answers.
You and @igor_kavinski may choose to ignore critical thinking as it's inconvenient to your thought processes, but that's your choice. You have agency, you can change, it's up to you.
The record:
Some things you just know instinctively, no thought or opinion required.
Last edited:
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,660
- 20,224
- 146
So I was considering not replying to this, but I guess I will lol
I mean, you've already made your stance on JP clear. You like him. You'll use motivated reasoning to keep that ball rolling.
When I grow up, can I hate women and ignore information with vigor to match your own? Can I be so assured in my beliefs that my self righteousness compels me to hate 50% of the population as "tools of Satan"? Can I say "facts" and then anything I say after is assumed factual? Can I blame others for my inability to operate in the world around me? Can I keep distractions like the pain and suffering of others to hold me over until death?
No sir, I submit that it is you that needs to grow.
Who's upset? You didn't watch the interview?
Other people are upset, yet you have hostility? Are you simply projecting your emotional lifestyle onto others? Perhaps.
Nice little purity test here, a la Moonie: So if people critique JP, they must be crazy, right?
I mean, you've already made your stance on JP clear. You like him. You'll use motivated reasoning to keep that ball rolling.
What does this mean to you?
When I grow up, can I hate women and ignore information with vigor to match your own? Can I be so assured in my beliefs that my self righteousness compels me to hate 50% of the population as "tools of Satan"? Can I say "facts" and then anything I say after is assumed factual? Can I blame others for my inability to operate in the world around me? Can I keep distractions like the pain and suffering of others to hold me over until death?
No sir, I submit that it is you that needs to grow.
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,660
- 20,224
- 146
There's a ton in the video that is just silly JP stuff. Right off the bat, basic information wrong, assumptions, etc...
JP says a ton of stuff, quickly, and before people can answer the questions he's off to another one. JP does this quickfire question / answer method often. Who knows his motivations for it. IMO, he ends up with not really answering anything because he understand accountability. Giving definitive answers creates vulnerability. He convinces people that he's doing this because he wants to provoke thought it others.
Last edited:
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,660
- 20,224
- 146
Forming conclusions based on feelings. Introducing irrelevant information into the conversation (aka Red Herring). Cognitive Bias, motivated reasoning. Well done, sir!
- May 19, 2011
- 20,506
- 15,307
- 136
I didn't bother to watch it all because from experience a key tactic in dealing with a bullshit merchant is that as soon as they start with the bullshit, one has to pull them up on it straight away, otherwise as you say, you're thinking "hold on, the keystone of this series of bullshit assertions happened 15 minutes ago" and you've got to try and rewind back to that point, by which point they've probably dropped a few more intellectual turds and/or other tactics like "I didn't say that", "I was being fake", "you'll understand if you ever reach my plane of existence", etc.
I am going to try to go over this slowly but no matter what I say if you don't want to see it you won't unfortunately.
I should ask first if you have ever been diagnosed as socially challenged, not picking up on body language or situational context, etc, Asperger’s Syndrome etc. I am at times amazed by how much I think you miss. Just saying. it's not that I'm looking to put you down, but to change how I talk with you if you have those kinds of issues. I break a lot of social rules to illustrate the behaviors I witness in myself and other people, stuff people with such conditions would likely have more than the usual problem navigating.
This statement of yours is where it began:
“The VIce conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, specifically the purpose of makeup segment. Jordan was rapid-firing statements and questions to disrupt his interlocutor, repeatedly interrupting him, posing rhetorical questions he immediately answered himself, then asking a question and waiting until his interlocutor gets out a partial response and pouncing before he's finished speaking. It was very manipulative and designed to put his counterpart off balance and keep him there. Jordan hates it when someone tries to do it to him.”
This statement of yours was already debunked as horse shit and here you go repeating the same claim. To assassinate Petersons character the way that you did after having been told contradicting information is rather nasty and evil. Your characterization of him in this way can therefore be seen as morally corrupt and deserving of the same level of character assassionation you so blithely engaged in and why, because you can’t alter your viewpoint even with countervailing evidence. Shame on you. Such rejection and ignoring of points of view that lay bare the shallowness of your reasoning are for a liberal brain, painfully disgusting and profoundly contemptuous. What I did was to show you how your behavior would look in your very own eyes were you capable of seeing what you really did. You treated Peterson to the same contemptuousness as you would treat yourself if you could actually see what you did.
Here I reminded you for the second time of the context you failed to account for:
“Peterson was thrown into a confusing and irritating situation where he and the students were lied to by the assholes that set up the debate. They told him he would be debating Atheists and they were told they would be debating Christians and what happened in the debate was the intended absurdity that followed. What you saw was a person unknowingly set up, facing endless questions and badgering on a subject irrelevant to the reason he agreed to and expected would ensue.
Your moral outrage, were you to see those facts, should be directed at the swine who set him and those students up like that. You have so far shown no comprehension at all of your continued misapprehension of Peterson’s behavior. As a human being you should tone down the ease with which you deal out your righteous indignation.
And that is why I said:
“How many times do we have to go over the fact he was told he would be debating atheists and they were told they would be debating a Christian.”
And here comes the sarcasm, mine not yours:
“I am now so profoundly offended with your endless stupidity and inability to understand context that I am experiencing all kinds of urges to beat you to death, you obnoxious brain dead twit.” This is the behavior you implied was behind Peterson’s assault on those poor rationally minded students because they kept asking him to debate something completely off topic and having nothing to do with the topic of Atheism. You did what you accused him of doing so I did it to you so you might experience what it can be like to be judged as a worth piece of shit and with irrational moral outrage.
Don’t deal what you can’t take on rebound. So my coarse words to you were not delivered out of a state of real exasperation or rage. They were there to show you what lack of charity to others looks like first hand. This is a request to wake up.
Here I attempted to tell you the real intention behind my words and so far you are having none of it:
“Naturally, of course I know you can’t help yourself. You have become profoundly offended by your own imagination thinking that Peterson isn’t human and unlike me too enlightened to ever really feel such confused impatience.”
I am saying that I am not reacting to you out of the level of confusion Peterson’s and those students were put through. I find you to be irritatingly obtuse in so far as I am also by temperament irritated by the irrational, but all of that is moderated in me by the apperception that that kind of ability to be triggered is no less insane and irrational.
I am of the opinion that people are asleep, that they are motivated by unconscious forces they could not have survived this vicious world without, but can’t consciously control. In a state of sleep nobody can be classically guilty of anything. There is no way on earth that I could ever actually wish you to be beaten, much less to death.
I tried to explain that here:
“You probably thought I was being serious in my attack on you because you actually feel like a twit and imagine I can see right through you. Rest assured, I am fully aware you just can’t help yourself because you do not know how you really feel. You are actually quite normally blind and unaware. Don't get stressed over it. Self awareness isn’t easy and requires gentle patience I feel.”
“You are really lousy at sarcasm as well as reading comprehension. Try to be aware of that.”
Here I try to explain to you that the sarcasm was all mine and not you being lousy at doing it. I put you down not out of real contempt but to do to you what you really did to Peterson.”
More of the same:
“All I did was show you what a gentle loving Moonbeam would look like if he were the Jordan Peterson you tried to make out him as being. Imagine you had been invited before the world to debate what you say as the problems with Atheistic belief and the questions you got were all about how you think monkey shit smells because the other side of the debate was told that's what you came to discuss. Have some compassion for people who were manipulated and lied to about what the debate was about and you had no idea the other side was told something different than you in order to generate a debate in which you would inevitable be asked things that had nothing whatsoever with why you came. Your words murder Peterson and your motivation sucks. I showed you what you look like to me. The only difference is that I don't care you think that way because your inner rage was inevitable as a result of having been murdered as a child.”
So, if you can comprehend what I say above and see any truth to it perhaps you will listen again to this:
“My advice, be nicer to others because how you treat them is how you treat the them that is really only a projection of how you unconsciously feel about yourself. My aim is to help you see. What you do with what I say is not something I have any ability to control. I will do my best for you even if it's not much. I am not plagued by any uncertainty that life is good and that God is a projection of what you can become. To be a real potential the result has to be real. This is a mystical fact that is seen with the onset of an altered conscious state, as I see it.”
Thanks for that. Now we just need to determine what is thought, what is opinion, and what is instinct.
Wouldn’t thought be what is expressed by language with all of the past emotional associations with words coloring what is heard as being expresses, and opinions also thoughts ipexpressed in colored words stated without air tight logical proof. So what then would knowing truth from falseness instinctively be? Perhaps at a minimum, then, it would not be thoughts or opinions put into words, which is everything we have said but which I have just night have some relationship to the source of knowing you know nothing. Are you saying that is your condition? I do.
And if in fact you are a know nothing what sort of ignorant asshole have I been talking to making all those claims?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter