Jordan Peterson funded by Russia? So Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Claims

[herbie]

Bring out the razor.

-Trudeau has security clearance and you don't
_Trudeau swore under oath and you can't
- Here's a stack of instances where Peterson acted as Putin's bum boy

Who is believable that Russian $$ were involved.

Or are you just petty arseholes so full of hatred you'll stand for anything you can hurl at Trudeau.

[SkyHigh]

53 minutes ago, Legato said:

No? Try dividing by zero.

You can't divide anything by zero nimrod, particularly when it's not even a number . 

Divide a banana by zero 

Edited October 19, 2024 by SkyHigh

[User]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

So make an actual argument because if you think "GASP lots of people say things" is  valid or sound. Just quit now numbskull 

It was your dumb argument. You have nothing to support it. All I have done is point that out. 

 

58 minutes ago, herbie said:

Or are you just petty arseholes so full of hatred you'll stand for anything you can hurl at Trudeau.

Sounds like you are the petty a$$hole that will do anything and say anything to back the indefensible. 

 

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Just a regular  unbias "hack" then

I know you're not resorting to putting words in my mouth right?

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

during the shepherd case. The Canadian government frequently make statements about the law which turn out to be grossly untrue

If memory serves me all that happened in the Shepard case, was some student didn't like a video she showed,complained to the university, who held a meeting where they suggested she may have done something wrong. It was then passed up to an independent arbitrator that said that, the university was wrong to even have a meeting with her and she had done nothing wrong. So no legal consequences or even sanctions from the university at all. The bill in question did nothing but add gender expression to the protected class clause of the Charter. So it's as illegal as not hiring a woman simply because she's a woman. It is not illegal though to just say women shouldn't be in the work plac or not using people's prefers pronouns . So he was very wrong.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That would require listening to Jordan Peterson. I you're expecting  to boil down 2-hour lectures between him and Slavoj Zizek for example into some sort of 'one liner' then that's not going to happen.  I found that particular debate/discussion quite interesting as i previously mentioned.  You can probably find it on youtube

I'm not asking you to detail everything he's said throughout the many,many times he's spoke, I'm asking for one specific thing he has said that you find "interesting," enough to include it in your world view.

I have listened to him many times and all I hear is a whole bunch of words (personally I don't think anyone really understands him , most are just not intellectually honest enough to admit it) without him actually saying anything.

Edited October 19, 2024 by SkyHigh

[Moonlight Graham]

Maybe JP is funded by Russia, but i don't really see what they'd gain from it.   He doesn't talk about foreign policy much.

He did go to Russia for a medical procedure, which is unusual.

[Legato]

17 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

You can't divide anything by zero nimrod, particularly when it's not even a number . 

Divide a banana by zero 

Not even a number? Try binary.

A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity.

All numbering systems start at zero.

Yet here you are attempting to blind us with science

This is a Nimrod 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Even his concept of a Judeo-Christian metaphysical substrate (besides just being nothing more than educated verbal diarrhea) manages to completely negate the fact that we know, Jewish and Christian theology borrowed extensively from Confucius  and Zoroastrianism, just to mention a couple, and these philosophies predate christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years respectively. 

So you couldn't address the points I brought up so you brought up something completely different which I specifically said I don't listen to.

I guess that's one way of saying you can't refute my initial claim  

[SkyHigh]

19 minutes ago, User said:

was your dumb argument. You have nothing to support it. All I have done is point that out. 

 

Nope, I mentioned Confucius and Zoroastrianism . You're response was exactly what I said.

I didn't even mention them stealing from Horus or Greek philosophy either, and I could go on 

So any actual argument?

[SkyHigh]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you couldn't address the points I brought up so you brought up something completely different which I specifically said I don't listen to.

I guess that's one way of saying you can't refute my initial claim  

Oh you're getting snippy. This was written before you responded to my original post and this metaphysical substrate in considered a big part of his world view.  

So maybe if you don't agree with what he says you shouldn't defend his intellectual prowess 

[CdnFox]

 

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Oh you're getting snippy. This was written before you responded to my original post and this metaphysical substrate in considered a big part of his world view.  

Okay fair enough. It looked like it was after it first glance and I responded in that light, you say it was before that response then my bad.

Edited October 19, 2024 by CdnFox

[SkyHigh]

35 minutes ago, Legato said:

Not even a number? Try binary

Binary is a computer language, the one and the zero are nothing but characters they not actual numbers 

Infinity is not a number. 

Edited October 19, 2024 by SkyHigh

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity.

Nope, a number divided by zero is considered by mathematicians to be undefined.

Even zero.

Seriously, you are one of the most ignorant people I've ever had the misfortune of speaking with 

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 

Okay fair enough. It looked like it was after it first glance and I responded in that light, you say it was before that response then my bad.

No worries, though I would like you to respond to my post that provided counter points to the specific arguments you did make.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

I know you're not resorting to putting words in my mouth right?

Of course not!  Or arent i......   (dun dun dunnnnn)  

Quote

If memory serves me all that happened in the Shepard case, was some student didn't like a video she showed,complained to the university, who held a meeting where they suggested she may have done something wrong. It was then passed up to an independent arbitrator that said that, the university was wrong to even have a meeting with her and she had done nothing wrong. So no legal consequences or even sanctions from the university at all.

She was the one that showed the film. And in the meeting where she got shoot out they compared Peterson to Hitler and claimed that the new law allowed them to bring charges against her.

Peterson always said that not only was there a risk of legal action being taken against people as a result of the law but that it would be used to bully people. And absolutely they used it to bully her.

Threatening legal action they actually did take punitive action and essentially demoted her and the fact that she had violated this law was one of the foundational elements of that decision.

The lack of clarity in the law and the fact that it could be interpreted a different way was always one of the main problems with it. And in fact it was absolutely 100% missused to threaten and bully a person who had done absolutely nothing wrong. The clip she showed was a university arranged debate between Peterson and another University Professor that was absolutely 100% relevant to the subject matter at hand that she was discussing with the class.

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

I'm not asking you to detail everything he's said throughout the many,many times he's spoke, I'm asking for one specific thing he has said that you find "interesting," enough to include it in your world view.

Well I gave you a specific dialogue that you can look up on YouTube if you wish regarding discussions about communism and socialism versus hierarchical or capitalist models, as well as some more general elements and subjects that I found interesting. I would expect that would be enough to suggest that he contributed more than just "clean your room"

You'd probably find that dialogue interesting, so I certainly suggest you go look it up. I'll probably watch it myself now that I'm thinking of it. It brought an interesting insight into how socialists can look at certain elements of things that I hadn't really thought of before. 

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

She was the one that showed the film. And in the meeting where she got shoot out they compared Peterson to Hitler and claimed that the new law allowed them to bring charges against her.

Peterson always said that not only was there a risk of legal action being taken against people as a result of the law but that it would be used to bully people. And absolutely they used it to bully her.

Threatening legal action they actually did take punitive action and essentially demoted her and the fact that she had violated this law was one of the foundational elements of that decision.

The lack of clarity in the law and the fact that it could be interpreted a different way was always one of the main problems with it. And in fact it was absolutely 100% missused to threaten and bully a person who had done absolutely nothing wrong. The clip she showed was a university arranged debate between Peterson and another University Professor that was absolutely 100% relevant to the subject matter at hand that she was discussing with the class.

Let me be clear, I think (save the examples I've already mentioned) that speech should be protected at all costs and think  ze and zer (or whatever ) are ridiculous and in no way think misgendering someone rises to the point of hate speech ( though it is a dick move) But I went through my early years with more than one nickname, I see no difference between that and a Trans person asking people to use the name they want to be called.

But, I  will reiterate that, bill c-16 (yes I had to look it up, hahaha) does not criminalize  speech, it just doesn't allow people to discriminate against people based on their gender expression, Unless you can provide an example of someone that was charged criminally for simple speech , not inciting violence or blatant hate speech, but simple speech. 

Do you know what came of their law suits against the university?

Edit: I also feel that (warranted or not) private (or semi private in the case of universities) organizations can make internal decisions based on their principles (baring anything that may infringe on their fundamental rights, an employee right to say whatever they want to anyone would not fall under that). That's capitalism.

If one of my employees made for example, a racist comment to another employee, I would fire them on the spot, regardless if it was his right or not. I sign your cheque you follow my rules and a university professor should be held to an even higher standard.

Edited October 20, 2024 by SkyHigh

[Legato]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Binary is a computer language, the one and the zero are nothing but characters they not actual numbers 

Infinity is not a number. 

Not a language but a number system with a base of 2. Octal base 8, hexadecimal base 16. All start at zero.

 Resolve Pi to see where the end is.

[Legato]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Nope, a number divided by zero is considered by mathematicians to be undefined.

Even zero.

Seriously, you are one of the most ignorant people I've ever had the misfortune of speaking with 

You have 10 pebbles. Remove 0 and put in pot 1, remove 0 and put in pot 2, remove 0 and put in pot 3, come back to me when there are none left.

Without zero no number systems would exist. Without zero there would be no negative numbers, no calculus etc.

Please enjoy your misfortune.

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, Legato said:

Not even a number? Try binary.

A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity.

All numbering systems start at zero.

Yet here you are attempting to blind us with science

This is a Nimrod 

By definition, infinity can't a number.

[Legato]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

By definition, infinity can't a number.

Who said it was?

 

[herbie]

4 hours ago, User said:

Sounds like you are the petty a$$hole that will do anything and say anything to back the indefensible. 

 

Sounds like I pointed things out so logically, so clearly that you haven't a single counter to it, So fall back on I know you are but what am I?
as the usual to prove my point.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Let me be clear, I think (save the examples I've already mentioned) that speech should be protected at all costs and think  ze and zer (or whatever ) are ridiculous and in no way think misgendering someone rises to the point of hate speech ( though it is a dick move) But I went through my early years with more than one nickname, I see no difference between that and a Trans person asking people to use the name they want to be called.

Sure, let's be clear. To date every transgender person i've met or was friends with I have referred to in the gender of their choice. If they ask me to refer to them using a bizarre pronoun I just simply use their name and skip pronouns altogether because I'm not remembering which pronoun goes with what person, but neither do I use a pronoun of my choice.

But I have no interest in the slightest compelled by law or civil tribunal to say words I don't mean, and that currently is a thing in Canada.

As far as the workplace or the light goes Ican certainly see laws saying that employers cannot be insulting or demeaning to people in a gratuitous sense as a general rule and calling somebody a girl when they're a boy is demeaning whether they're transgender or not. 

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

But, I  will reiterate that, bill c-16 (yes I had to look it up, hahaha) does not criminalize  speech, i

Your opinion on this is of no interest to me. It is already been used to abuse people and here's one case that I presented to you there are others out there.

You're literally arguing that something is not harmful that is already harmed people.

They were asked to fix the law. It was easy to write the law in such a way that there was no possibility of it being misused. They made a very deliberate decision not to.

And all it will take is one activist judge to decide that it means something slightly different than you interpret for it suddenly what Jordan Peterson feared. And if you have any eperience whatsoever with the court system you will know that what I'm saying is absolutely true regardless of the intent of the law when it was written.

That law should be struck, along with a hell of a lot of other laws that were passed under the liberals but they claim will never be used for bad purposes but which clearly can be And very obviously are intended to when they think they can safely. 

These are the people that declared the emergency act in force because some truckers showed up with bounc castles. But have taken no action against actual terrorist groups demanding the destruction of Canada. These are the people you are asking me to trust.

Write the law so there is no possibility of it being misused and that's fine. But if Someone is walking down the street and they see a transgender person and they feel like misgendering them for some reason, they absolutely should have the right to do that. Just like they have the right to insult me or you or anybody else. ou do not have the right not to be offended or to be insulted in Canada or at least you should not.

Jordan was right, he has been proven right by actual fact, and in fact a gentleman has gone to jail for refusing to call his son his daughter which he absolutely should be allowed to do. It is factually accurate, and that is his child and he has every right to refer to them by their biological sex even though I made strongly disagree with his opinion and actions.

[Michael Hardner]

13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Maybe JP is funded by Russia, but i don't really see what they'd gain from it.   He doesn't talk about foreign policy much.

He did go to Russia for a medical procedure, which is unusual.

Influence, to reduce support for NATO and bolster the Russian war effort obviously.

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

 

But, I  will reiterate that, bill c-16 (yes I had to look it up, hahaha) does not criminalize  speech, it just doesn't allow people to discriminate against people based on their gender expression

You are correct, however in the brief Twilight where in Peterson to arrived in the public sphere, the law was under discussion, and he had an arguable rationale that the government would implement throught crime legislation.

You can watch his testimony at the parliamentary hearings to understand that.

I was somewhat familiar with the controversy, and Peterson himself had a reputation as a gadfly and an odd moralist. He was featured on CBC ideas fairly often as well. 

 

I held a lot of hope that he was going to be a new voice, a centrist to re-establish an intellectual thought leadership movement. But shortly after he aligned himself with troll outfits like The Rebel.  Given that outfit's reputation as dishonest §hit disturbing scammers, he sold his potential to help heal the culture divide.

[SkyHigh]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Your opinion on this is of no interest to me. It is already been used to abuse people and here's one case that I presented to you there are others out there

Not my opinion, it's the law 

The case (that's even a loaded word because it tends to refer to legal proceedings) you cited was nothing more than an internal matter based on the policies of a private organization and Shepard was not charged criminally, the situation never went above the university level and she faced no repercussions. 

If you don't like the Charter that's fine (weird but fine) but your opinion is just that an opinion and not factual. 

Again if you have an example of someone being charged and convicted by our legal system I will amend my views but you have yet to support your assertions.

 

[SkyHigh]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are correct, however in the brief Twilight where in Peterson to arrived in the public sphere, the law was under discussion, and he had an arguable rationale that the government would implement throught crime legislation

I'm not sure I agree. The Charter had been around for a long time and I don't recall it ever being used to stifle simple speech.

There have and still continue to be, bigots, racists, misogynists , homophobes , etc.. and I can think of no cases where in anyone faced criminal charges and Peterson is intelligent enough to know that adding gender expression to the protected classes won't change the law in any tangible way.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

a lot of hope that he was going to be a new voice, a centrist to re-establish an intellectual thought leadership movement. But shortly after he aligned himself with troll outfits like The Rebel.  Given that outfit's reputation as dishonest §hit disturbing scammers, he sold his potential to help heal the culture divide

I did not share that view, I always thought he was a bit of a blow hard. I think he's a very smart man ,that realized his command of the English language allowed him to just use big words that lean to one side of the political spectrum in a way that nobody could really understand (because he's not actually saying anything) 

I think most. (I'm sure some people with advanced degrees did) of his fans heard him talk about not agreeing with the "tranz movement" and just latched on and  won't admit they don't understand a word of what he says.