An epic exchange...Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

Debate ???

Liberals have declared debating to be politically incorrect.

 

Where have all the lefties gone?

 

The debate is over! (Because it comes out like the video)

 

More discussion about the exchange...

 

Peterson will make a decent point now and then, and will sometimes ask good questions. He doesn’t seem to have much interest in coming to conclusions though. The Socratic questioning gets annoying if you’ve read enough dialogues.

 

What sort of conclusions do you think he should be making? That women will be happier with strong men? That there is a gender pay gap, but due to the behavior of women? That free speech is more important than feelings?

 

Well I’d agree on that last one, he probably would to, at least til it’s convenient to recant it. The others he will say, then become slippery, and disagree when he’s asked to repeat it.

I’m also referring to other places I’ve heard him outside this interview. He’ll provoke, then backpedal to the point where theres nothing interesting left to it.

 

We all change our positions over time because new information is constantly forcing us to reevaluate previously held positions. If you think he has been inconsistent, then you can always point out the inconsistencies, just as that lady could have done.

However, all you've done here is say that he has been inconsistent. That's not good enough.

 

Laughable. You must not have any idea what he is talking about. All you know is that you don't agree with him.lol

 

That was exactly the question her left-wing viewers would have wanted her to ask. This is the issue that has made Peterson well known, his defense of free speech in the face of those who want to shut people up on the grounds that they or someone else might be offended.

 

You need to get better informed before commenting. Its always a good idea.

 

believe it or not someone might actually be unimpressed with what a psychology professor thinks about philosophy

 

[QU

Thus has your argument (not that you ever had one) has devolved.

You're just not impressed with psychology professors.

Why do you guys bother commenting on stuff you know nothing about, and even profess to care nothing about? Is it some form of sadism? Maybe you get off on having your uninformed opinions laughed at?

 

Looks like there is some blowback...

 

attempted strawman after attempted strawman after attempted strawman...

You can tell a lefty has lost the argument wheever they say "you mean that ********?"

They're incapable of actually arguing, so all they have are fallacies.

It must really suck to be a lefty, knowing you're intellectually incapable of formulating simple arguments.

 

do you think i'm trying to debate you or something

 

Obviously not, since all you have to offer is an opinion.

but I do recognize your ability to form an opinion, if that means anything.

 

There is no higher level of discussion, its all straw men and projection.

Just the latest example of the inevitable failures of leftism.

 

I like Peterson, he's a rambler, but he can be fun sometimes. I didn't care for the radical left; postmodernist, neo-Marxist rhetoric while arguing that identity politics are bad. He's often very agreeable, and says everything has a point even if he disagrees with it, all the controversy feels contrived.

He bumbled around a bit while trying to define truth when he was on Sam Harris' podcast: "Okay, well then I would say that I don't think facts are necessarily true (laughs). So I don't think these scientific facts, even if they're correct from within the domain that they were generated, I don't think that that necessarily makes them true. And I know that I am gerrymandering the definition of truth, but I'm doing that on purpose, because I'm trying to nest truth within the Darwinian framework which I think is a moral framework and I think that the logic of your argument about morality is going to push you in the same direction inevitably."

He doesn't ground himself to a material understanding of truth, he believes a moral truth which he finds within himself, or what he understands is best for the species. I don't object to his concept, but I agree with Harris' when he says it's counterproductive to their discussion, at least to continue for so long. At times he obsesses over abstraction and can jump all over the place connecting dots to lobsters.

https://www.scribd.com/document/337709796/Sam-Harris-Jordan-B-Peterson-What-is-Truth-Transcript

 

Sure thing, Jordy.

 

That sort of partisan BS might win you a few brownie points from the RW Fever Swamp Peanut Gallery...BUT, you can't possibly think that anyone outside of the RW Echo Chamber could possibly take that re-hashed (ages old) RW BS seriously.

Try to work on some new material.

Thx in advance.

Oh, and on topic:

Jordan Peterson is an idiot.

Some people actually care about what says?

Jordan Peterson?

 

That looks like a philosophical discussion on what various interpretations of what "truth is", which is necessarily going to get a bit deep in the weeds. That's a far cry from the video in question which is just swatting away SJW talking points.

 

if you're actually impressed by peterson, that's your shame, i'm not going to take it away from you

 

Because it's largely joke science

 

Here's more: