Peterson has and continues to argue that treating a narrative revolving a dictator as a supreme moral truth is essential for the functionality of society.
If you consider dictators dangerous, then so too is Peterson's ideaology. This argument isn't as complex as the repeated logical leaps, strawmen, and intellectual gymnastics from several gdf posters would suggest it is.
America is an example of a country which doesn't base it's decisions on a dictator.
North Korea, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and Turkey are all examples of societies whose decisions are based on the code of a single person.
Unless you think the latter are superior societies, any discussion of moral frameworks based on transcendent dictators being good or even nuetral should be tabled untill someone here can show a single benefit of religion that can't be replicated by non religious narratives or governments or institutions.
There are clear inherently negative aspects of religious belief. Hence, any pro-religion case needs to list instrintically positive aspects
And only a moron believes the guy who exults the sovereignty of the individual as the prized cornerstone of western civilization, the guy who consistently argues the dangers of totalitarian regimes, the guy who states repeatedly that it is the actions of the individual rather than the state that are of prime importance in organizing and improving their lives, and the guy who calls out the wishful thinking of utopians for central social planning and praises the founding fathers for recognizing this and seeking to create a limited government... that this guy is is someone calling for state tyranny. It's absurd.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
[B]And only a moron believes the guy who exults the sovereignty of the individual as the prized cornerstone of western civilization, the guy who consistently argues the dangers of totalitarian regimes,
DMB, I know you hate that the dude you worship is being criticized, but can we stick to what I've said he's said before you accuse me of strawmanning?
This is what Peterson has actually said:
https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8?t=3355
Peterson argues that people can't form their own moral systems because rule based systems have failed.
Peterson is wrong off course because of https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8?t=3576
they ahven't failed. The introduction of AI has allowed them to succeed
Peterson tries to cite technology as proof that people can't extrapolate morality from their own, non-religious, rule system and then gets promptly refuted by someone who actually is informed about what he's talking about.
But you don't have to be an expert to reveal Peterson's unwillingness to critically think about what he says:
https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8?t=5850
Questioner: you say evolution underpins religion which underpins morality. Can't it just be that evolution underpins morality? Why the extra step? Animals have shown morality
Peterson: It's not that simple.
The final, and my favorite example of Peterson's dumbassery:
https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8?t=5306
Peterson cites a book where an athiest protected himself and his family by killing someone as proof that atheism is dangerous because it allows you to kill.
Peterson has said dumbshit dmb. You don't like him being called out for saying dumbshit, so you resorted to being dumb:
\
that this guy is is someone calling for state tyranny.
What I said is he's advocating for a supernatural dictator. That you think dictators stop being bad when they become imaginary is a testament to how stupid listening to Peterson makes you.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I find him ranty and angry in delivery. I'm not alone in this.
Yes, many leftists say the same about Peterson. It makes it easier to carte blanche disagree with him if you can group him into one particular negative attribute instead of engaging on specific points and topics about him. It's a dismissal tactic leftists use (who are, according to research, much more likely to ignore differing opinions and block others on social media who have different political opinions because leftists are less open-minded than other political positions).
Yes, I am being overtly critical of your blanket dismissal of Peterson because you incorrectly think he's angry in delivery. 🙂
I've not watched much it's his aggressive delivery and constantly talking about men and physical violence. Like here.
https://youtu.be/dL3Hrwg3A3w
It's funny because he and I are peers in age, and even first degree education. I went to a comparable University in Kings, yet I have never experienced the problems with men and women he talks of, I even still talk to most exes and both ex wives. The guy is an angry hack.
Originally posted by Surtur
So he's advocating for the biblical God?Zing!
1a : a person granted absolute emergency power
especially, history : one appointed by the senate (see SENATE sense 1a) of ancient Rome
b : one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power
c : one ruling in an absolute (see ABSOLUTE sense 2) and often oppressive way
fascist dictators
The biblical God is, by definition, a dictator.