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

[User]

17 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

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?

You did not merely "mention" them, you made an obviously bad assertion about them. 

It is your bad argument, not mine. So, did you have any actual argument?

[User]

13 hours ago, herbie said:

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.

For it to be an "I know you are but what am I" exchange, you had to have been a part of that... when you sit here calling people a$$holes, that is not you pointing things out logically. 

You had no point other than to be insulting and now that it is thrown back in your face all you can do is cry about it. 

[SkyHigh]

4 minutes ago, User said:

You did not merely "mention" them, you made an obviously bad assertion about them. 

It is your bad argument, not mine. So, did you have any actual argument?

So no actual counter argument?

[User]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

Show us your best Jordan Peterson quotes for where he was bolstering the Russian war effort and reducing support for NATO.

While you are at it, we need some evidence you are not a pedophile. 

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

So no actual counter argument?

You never had an actual argument to counter. 

[SkyHigh]

17 minutes ago, User said:

Show us your best Jordan Peterson quotes for where he was bolstering the Russian war effort and reducing support for NATO.

While you are at it, we need some evidence you are not a pedophile. 

You never had an actual argument to counter. 

My lord, you're absolutely terrible at this.

[User]

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

My lord, you're absolutely terrible at this.

Feel free to explain how... 

Don't think I forgot that you also ran away from your m0ronic statement on infinity... 

[SkyHigh]

8 minutes ago, User said:

Feel free to explain how... 

Don't think I forgot that you also ran away from your m0ronic statement on infinity... 

Ran away? Please 

There's no reason to argue with someone so ignorant of math, you might as well be arguing 2+2=647.

[User]

6 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Ran away? Please 

There's no reason to argue with someone so ignorant of math, you might as well be arguing 2+2=647.

Yes, ran away, as you are still doing here. 

[SkyHigh]

15 hours ago, Legato said:

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.

Oh you're starting to get it, π is great example.

Infinity is used to describe a set of numbers often between to points.

Ie: if you take a ruler and divide it in half, theoretically you will have infinite measurements, but because numbers must be finite and infinity has no numerological value it is not used in hard math, but is simply a place holder to better explain a concept.

This is not controversial, this is the consensus of the entirety of science 

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, ran away, as you are still doing here. 

Ok last time, you're arguing against something that no educated person would contest and I don't find that interesting 

And since I have no interest in debating with someone so far detached from reality.

I will wish you a wonderful day and sincerely hope you find the courage to honestly evaluate how your world view fails to correspond to the reality we all share.

[User]

11 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Ok last time, you're arguing against something that no educated person would contest and I don't find that interesting 

Ah yes... you tried to make a cute comment and claim some superiority in your understanding of science, but now that you are called out for it being ignorant, its not interesting anymore. 

Run away. 

Again. 

 

[User]

19 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Ie: if you take a ruler and divide it in half, theoretically you will have infinite measurements, but because numbers must be finite and infinity has no numerological value it is not used in hard math, but is simply a place holder to better explain a concept.

LOL, "hard math"

You mean, like you can't figure out a math problem? OMG, this is too funny.

It is amazing how far you will go to avoid just admitting you were wrong. 

[Legato]

13 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Oh you're starting to get it, π is great example.

Infinity is used to describe a set of numbers often between to points.

Ie: if you take a ruler and divide it in half, theoretically you will have infinite measurements, but because numbers must be finite and infinity has no numerological value it is not used in hard math, but is simply a place holder to better explain a concept.

This is not controversial, this is the consensus of the entirety of science 

Another example in an asymptote, a line (or curve) where the distance between the curve and the asymptote approaches zero as they tend toward infinity. (Hyperbola)

OK now what about your assertions concerning zero.

All number systems start at zero, binary base 2   0 to 1, octal base 8  0 to 7, hexadecimal base 16   0 to F.

Without zero there can be no negative numbers.

 

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, User said:

Ah yes... you tried to make a cute comment and claim some superiority in your understanding of science, but now that you are called out for it being ignorant, its not interesting anymore. 

Run away. 

Again. 

 

Nope, just stated the scientific consensus, seriously just google "is infinity a number". I did after my first comment on the topic just to confirm I wasn't talking out my ass. So if there was a hint of superiority it is more related to your unwillingness to challenge what you believe.

Not being able to divide by zero is remedial math

And the concept of infinity is introduced in early high school 

Try harder son

 

[User]

17 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Nope, just stated the scientific consensus, seriously just google "is infinity a number".

The argument was not if infinity was a number or not. Seriously, why must you be this dishonest?

The argument was your absurd assertion that infinity is just a philosophical thing, not used in the hard sciences. 

17 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Not being able to divide by zero is remedial math

Keep your people straight, I made no comment about being able to divide by zero. 

My entire response here was mocking your notion of "hard math" and once again that infinity is not used there. 

 

Edited October 20, 2024 by User

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

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.

You're not understanding the issue that was at hand.

Certain speech always was and still is unprotected, such as hate speech.  Peterson felt, with reason, that the law might declare refusal to SAY a word as hateful.

3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

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. 

I don't know WHAT to make of him.  I don't find his ideas that clever.

People who like him, seem to only agree with his morality.  That's not the same as thinking he's smart, though, and they don't seem to get that fact.

Them calling him smart is like me calling Mother Teresa brilliant for being kind to the lepers.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Not my opinion, it's the law 

 

It's not the law. What the law means would be decided by judges in a specific court case. You are not a judge and you don't have a court case to reference. So its your opinion

That's how our legal system works. So what I hear you saying is that you have very limited experience or understanding of our legal system. Which is fine, frankly I wish I had less. But it doesn't mean you're not qualified to speak on it.

4 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

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

Makes no difference. The mere threat of the law, which somehow magically they injured interpreted completely different than you, Was enough to repress somebody's rights. Nothing you can say makes that go away

4 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Again if you have an example of someone being charged and convicted by our legal system I will amend my view

If you have a case of somebody being charged and found not guilty then I'll amend mine.

But what I can demonstrate with certainty is that it'll always used to steal the rights of a person.

As to the law enforcing transgender speech, there have been cases as i've noted.  Here's one

Canadian man jailed for calling his biologically female child as 'daughter' (opindia.com)

 

So now that we know you're not qualified to speak on the legal system or how laws work AND we know that courts have already been enforcing this principle and will also be the ones deciding what that law ACTUALLY means.....   I'm afraid you have no reasonable grounds to continue pretending that the law is innocent and can't be abused. 

[Michael Hardner]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:06 PM, User said:

Who are you talking about here?

This thread talks about Jordan Peterson and how the PM falsely claimed Russia was paying him. 

I don't have any definitive evidence either way.  Do you?

We have Peterson criticizing NATO, giving some level of excuse to Russia but maybe he just doesn't like our longstanding allies.

[User]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't have any definitive evidence either way.  Do you?

We have Peterson criticizing NATO, giving some level of excuse to Russia but maybe he just doesn't like our longstanding allies.

I don't have any definitive evidence you are not a pedophile. So... do you have any that you are not one?

Are you starting to see what a dishonest game you are playing?

 

[SkyHigh]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're not understanding the issue that was at hand.

Certain speech always was and still is unprotected, such as hate speech.  Peterson felt, with reason, that the law might declare refusal to SAY a word as hatefu

I think I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree.

The Charter had been around for a long time, and if such things were possible, they would have already been adjudicated by someone. I don't see how refusing to use someones preferred pronoun could be considered hate anymore than calling a homosexual a fág, or a woman a bítch  and this forum alone proves that, or half the people here would have faced criminal charges by now.

But maybe I missed something. I believe you to be an honest interlocutor (one of the few here) therefore I respect your opinion (even if I don't always agree) and invite you to potentially expand my understanding of your point.

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't have any definitive evidence either way.  Do you?

 

If you don't and the pm doesn't then maybe it's pretty horribly morally wrong for either of you to suggest it. 

I don't have any definitive evidence either way you haven't touched children. So it would be wrong for me to suggest you had, even if i DID happen to think you might have.   

See how that works?

1 minute ago, User said:

I don't have any definitive evidence you are not a pedophile. So... do you have any that you are not one?

Are you starting to see what a dishonest game you are playing?

 

Beat me to it by a nose.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, CdnFox said:

If you don't and the pm doesn't then maybe it's pretty horribly morally wrong for either of you to suggest it. 

We don't know what CSIS showed him. 

 

And do me a favour and stop responding to my posts to other posters.  Thanks in advance.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

We don't know what CSIS showed him. 

Then maybe it's inappropriate for him to be speaking of it if he can't show us

I don't know what evidence the police might have been shown that you are a pedophile. So it would be grossly inappropriate for me to suggest you were one without knowing.

You know you're wrong here. You know it's wrong to accuse people without evidence. We both know you have at least that much intelligence and don't need that explain to you. What you are doing here is defending the morally wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I think I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree.

The Charter had been around for a long time, and if such things were possible, they would have already been adjudicated by someone. I don't see how refusing to use someones preferred pronoun could be considered hate anymore than calling a homosexual a fág, or a woman a bítch  and this forum alone proves that, or half the people here would have faced criminal charges by now.

Well, such things figure into harassment etc.

The key issue was Peterson's concept of "forced utterance* and nobit wasn't tested before 

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

But maybe I missed something. I believe you to be an honest interlocutor (one of the few here) therefore I respect your opinion (even if I don't always agree) and invite you to potentially expand my understanding of your point.

 

People don't realize that I was on Peterson's side on the thought crime angle.  I'm also strongly in favour of religious rights but all it means is I have zero friends here 😥

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

People don't realize that I was on Peterson's side on the thought crime angle.  I'm also strongly in favour of religious rights but all it means is I have zero friends here 😥

LOL  awwww you poor thing   

I love that you think THATS why you have zero friends here,  Mr "I R conservative!!!"