Originally posted by Tzeentch
Feel free to clarify.
He was mentioning an interview that Peterson gave and was merely given an explanation of what transpired during. He was just explaining the Vice interview. The interview is interesting and you should go listen to it as DMB didn't explain it well. The full interview even opens up with Peterson asking the question if men and women can work together.
Originally posted by NemeBro
“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”It is interesting that the pussy who is always first to (usually mis) label something someone says an ad hominem is ignoring Jordan Peterson actually making one, while also making a strawman.
You left out some context:
“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.
He isn't attacking her but pointing out that females don't have this type of problem at all.
Originally posted by ESB -1138I left out nothing.
You left out some context:He isn't attacking her but pointing out that females don't have this type of problem at all.
“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”
He says she's laughing about them (when she was laughing about this kooky old phuck saying women should be socially ostracized if they aren't monogamous or, more accurately, if they don't date incel losers), and then says that she's doing it because she's a woman.
A classic ad hominem, my stupid friend. Now go ahead and claim I ad hominemed you. Use the phrase wrong against you stupid shit-eating retard.
Originally posted by EmperordmbCan you read?
Holy shit, does Rocky actually think Jordan Peterson is saying there's literal witches and dragons running around in the world? Or that he thinks the state should compel people to **** other people?
"Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today."
How can you defend this garbage? 😂
Wow, Stefan Molyneux does an awesome job going through the article. Right from the beginning, he points out how the New York Times "forgot" to address him as Dr. Jordan Peterson in the article's title:
After the debate there was a 6% shift from Pro to Con.
I wasn't particularly impressed with Peterson here, his points came off a little flat Personally, I attribute the shift of opinions to Fry due to how well he delivered his points.
Surprised the munk debate isn't at least discussed here. 😛
I mean it wasn't an altogether good debate per se. Ad hominems abound, dancing around the topic and one side appears to have been outclassed by the other (IMO).
But still, a debate forum discussing a debate about an issue that is clearly important here (PC culture) being as the forum is highly polarized.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Surprised the munk debate isn't at least discussed here. 😛I mean it wasn't an altogether good debate per se. Ad hominems abound, dancing around the topic and one side appears to have been outclassed by the other (IMO).
But still, a debate forum discussing a debate about an issue that is clearly important here (PC culture) being as the forum is highly polarized.
Which side is outclassed?!
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol yes that hilarious. Imagine if he called him a mean black man.
That would have been irrelevant.
The point that Dyson had to resort to something like that showed that he was already losing.
Will say that I was disappointed in JP's performance, tho. Maybe I expected more? He was clearly trying to make his point against collectivism but I think he dwelled too long onoverclarifying/overdetailing what his point was and had almost zero charisma in doing so. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe it was just the quality of his opponents was he just being too careful about being mischaracterized? Maybe he is not used to having such limited time to state the nuances of his points, he's not used to time limited debates like this (I doubt that)?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
That would have been irrelevant.The point that Dyson had to resort to something like that showed that he was already losing.
Will say that I was disappointed in JP's performance, tho. Maybe I expected more? He was clearly trying to make his point against collectivism but I think he dwelled too long onoverclarifying/overdetailing what his point was and had almost zero charisma in doing so. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe it was just the quality of his opponents was he just being too careful about being mischaracterized? Maybe he is not used to having such limited time to state the nuances of his points, he's not used to time limited debates like this (I doubt that)?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Someone else suggested he got too emotionally charged and thrown off point by their character attacks.
That would make that doubly disappointing as he should have been prepared for this IMO or at least just shrugged it off. Or if it was me, I would have laughed it off and point out that such behavior reinforced my point rather than be "appalled" by it. Idunno. Poor performance, IMO.
I watched most of the debate last night. I agree, I think Fry had the best showing. I think Michelle Goldberg had a decent showing as well. I think Peterson and Dyson weren't very effective. Though they're both cut from the same cloth - two people who obviously love to hear themselves speak, often to their own detriment - the more they speak, the less effective and more muddied and less concise their arguments become.
But this is Peterson's MO for the most part, he's a very clumsy speaker who in his desire to come off as smart, vomits out a bunch of needless words to try and make his point seem more complex than it actually is - the Witch comment being a perfect example of this. He could have made his point with a few words. Instead he rambled and his point became lost.