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

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, User said:

I love how this is a thread about how the PM is up there making false claims about a private citizen like this... and the usual clowns on here can't find it within them to condemn this and instead pile on with more false claims. 

 

Your hero Trump does it every day.

But Trudeau should be able to back up a statement like that.

Edited October 19, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Pro-Russian propagandists are, effectively, traitors.  Russian is paying dupes off to spout against the "decadent" west.

And onshore dupes are enabling them.

Losers who call people traders without understanding that the term is or what's happening are effectively losers.

There are many reasons why russian organizations may choose to fund various groups. And that can still happen whether they have any influence or not. A group that is divisive or is the source of debate or friction helps the Russians out plenty. So Jordan Peterson is out there saying the government is not your friend even if he's never met a Russian or doesn't have any interest in the Russians it is in the interest of Russia for him to do well.

In other cases it's worth it for the Russians to funnel money to these groups so that at the right time if necessary they can let it leak and cast doubt on various groups

It's kind of like the Americans didn't tell Ukraine to defend itself against the Russians, that's something you cream wanted to do on its own. But it's in the united states best interest that Ukraine have the ability to do that because it screws with the Russians and his disruptive to their interests.

That is not traitorous. Ukraine does nothing wrong by doing that nor would Peterson be doing wrong just because the Russians chose to give him some funding. I doubt very much Peterson needs the money and I doubt very much she would be aware of the Russian interest.

But of course the resident Lefties such as yourself look for any possible excuse to call Jordan now on anything because you dislike him. He has, after all, committed the unforgivable sin of suggesting that people are responsible for their own circumstances.

 

Now go and clean your room  

[myata]

I've no problems with freedom of speech and one has to stand to attempts to impose ideological agendas from anyone and for any even most enlightened reason. But the number of coincidences and correlations of loudmouth beacons of (supposedly) truth and the ugliest totalitarian thug regimes on the planet is 1) noticeable and 2) alarming. One has to understand that the difference between Trudeau and someone like Kim or Vlad, the thugs, is astronomical. There's no chance in a universe that I'd take a word of anyone who criticized Trudeau while kissing the bum of Vlad or Kim, etc. Brain, reason and common sense, well they exist for a reason.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Ok, so tell me what wisdom have you attained through Jordan Peterson?

 

To see through your nonsensical nonsense.

[SkyHigh]

Just now, Legato said:

To see through your nonsensical nonsense.

So none?

And even if I give you the benefit of the doubt,at best that would be discernment not wisdom.

You're terrible at this (and by this I mean using the English language properly)

Edited October 19, 2024 by SkyHigh

[Legato]

Of yours.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Because no one cares (or even understands) what a metaphysical substrate is. Petersons claim to fame was blatantly lying about Canadian laws and he just been spouting nonsense ever since (granted he does use some pretty big words in his pseudo scientific terminology) but still just nonsense.

Now go make your bed (see what I did there?), just because you're a grown man that still lives with his parents doesn't mean you don't have to do your chores 

That might be your opinion but frankly I don't believe it's factually correct and even those portions which are opinion only I think it's perfectly valid to have a different one.

You may find it outside of your understanding. Or you may find that you simply disagree. But he was actually correct about the laws and a lot of what he says is thought inspiring and accurate. He refers to studies and he refers to actual documented works and raises very interesting questions.

If you've heard him discuss or debate with those who  are of different opinions but not ideologically opposed and are open to honest discussion, they are absolutely fascinating discussions in many cases. And he's actually respected by those who aren't interested in partisan positioning even when they have different opinions.

Bt at the end of the day even if he was some sort of hack that you simply disagreed with and who had no value or nothing to bring to the table, it's still wrong for the government to target him. And this is far from the first time

I actually find David Suzuki to be a completely arrogant, ignorant, unscientific hypocrite with no redeeming value who has nothing to add to the Canadian conversation. But it would never occur to me had I the power to silence him or to suggest that just because he gets funding from one source or another he somehow a traitor to Canada. That is the biggest difference between the right and the left these days, there was a time when the left was all about free exchange of ideas and now it's only bout canceling people they disagree with. That's not healthy

[User]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Your hero Trump does it every day.

But Trudeau should be able to back up a statement like that.

Trump isn't my hero. 

[User]

44 minutes ago, myata said:

There's no chance in a universe that I'd take a word of anyone who criticized Trudeau while kissing the bum of Vlad or Kim, etc. Brain, reason and common sense, well they exist for a reason.

There is no common sense, or reason behind sychophantly believing anything Trudeau says as you are doing. 

[SkyHigh]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That might be your opinion but frankly I don't believe it's factually correct and even those portions which are opinion only I think it's perfectly valid to have a different one.

You may find it outside of your understanding. Or you may find that you simply disagree. But he was actually correct about the laws and a lot of what he says is thought inspiring and accurate. He refers to studies and he refers to actual documented works and raises very interesting questions.

If you've heard him discuss or debate with those who  are of different opinions but not ideologically opposed and are open to honest discussion, they are absolutely fascinating discussions in many cases. And he's actually respected by those who aren't interested in partisan positioning even when they have different opinions.

Bt at the end of the day even if he was some sort of hack that you simply disagreed with and who had no value or nothing to bring to the table, it's still wrong for the government to target him. And this is far from the first time

I actually find David Suzuki to be a completely arrogant, ignorant, unscientific hypocrite with no redeeming value who has nothing to add to the Canadian conversation. But it would never occur to me had I the power to silence him or to suggest that just because he gets funding from one source or another he somehow a traitor to Canada. That is the biggest difference between the right and the left these days, there was a time when the left was all about free exchange of ideas and now it's only bout canceling people they disagree with. That's not healthy

First, I agree David Suzuki comes off arrogant.

Second, I never suggested that Peterson is a partisan hack nor do I believe he , or anyone else (save those that preach hate or are advocating for violence) should be "cancelled" 

Third, he was wrong about the law, to the point that the Canadian government released a statement to denounce him.

Forth, what I did say is he hasn't said anything of substance since "clean your room" and speaks almost exclusively in word salad (high syllable word salad, but still word salad

But I invite you to give me the specific wisdom you feel you have acquired from listening to Jordan Peterson. 

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Russian government cares.  That's likely their best option for a contemporary Toyko Rose today.

Taylor Swift is too expensive and moral.

Kid Rock though... Or the academic Kid Rock...

Good to know that you hold Taylor Swift in higher esteem than Jordan Peterson, a highly moral intellectual.  Taylor Swift writes revenge songs about guys she dates.  She’s a great performer who knows how to make catchy music thst sells.  Good for her, but I don’t care about her politics, as she has no documented or demonstrated knowledge of world affairs.

You should think about what kind of world you want for future generations, one where pop stars are deified for promoting anything goes identity politics or one that grapples with facts and seeks solutions that don’t result in thousands of deaths and even lower fertility rates.  You don’t like actual morality as far as I can tell.  

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, User said:

Who are you talking about here?

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

We don't know if the claim is true or false.

Anything based on intelligence is subject to that problem..

 

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm fine with Trudeau ignoring all other foreign threats to our politicians as long as he keeps staying on top of some social media pundit.

[Army Guy]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Pro-Russian propagandists are, effectively, traitors.  Russian is paying dupes off to spout against the "decadent" west.

And onshore dupes are enabling them.

Thats a little dramatic Michael, considering Canada's laws regarding being a traitor are to vague to really charge anyone with that crime, which was tested during Omar Khadr's trail....So perhaps you can explain how these so called pro Russian against are guilty of anything...let alone treason....it also should be noted only 2 people have been charged with treason in Canada....and yet allegations of treason have been made in our parliament, and nobody really cares....now mention something about Russia and people want to get out the rope....fu*king funney... 

46(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, (a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province; (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada; (c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a); (d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or (e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

EXPLANATION

Section 46(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada addresses the criminal offence of treason and outlines the various actions that constitute treasonous behavior. The section specifies that any individual who uses force or violence with the intention of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province, or who knowingly communicates military or scientific information or documents to an agent of a state other than Canada, with the intention of jeopardizing the safety or defense of Canada, is guilty of treason. Moreover, an individual who conspires with others to commit high treason or does anything to execute the actions mentioned in (a) or (b), or who forms an intention and acts overtly by manifesting that intention to others, is also culpable in the crime of treason. The section's provisions serve as a tool to protect the security of Canada and discourage activities that work against its interests. It should be noted that the crime of treason is considered to be one of the most severe offenses under Canadian law. Conviction of the said offense can result in a life imprisonment sentence, as per section 46(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. As such, the country's judicial system maintains strict measures and protocols for the investigation and prosecution of individuals that commit treasonous activities.

 

https://www.criminal-code.ca/criminal-code-of-canada-section-46-2-treason/index.html#:~:text=The section specifies that any individual who uses,or defense of Canada%2C is guilty of treason.

 

[User]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We don't know if the claim is true or false.

Anything based on intelligence is subject to that problem..

 

What a cowardly and moronic statement to make. 

We don't know if you are a pedophile or not either. So... 

 

[Army Guy]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We don't know if the claim is true or false.

Anything based on intelligence is subject to that problem..

 

And you and other have already judged/ sentenced him to hang for his crimes as a traitor no less...

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That might be your opinion but frankly I don't believe it's factually correct and even those portions which are opinion only I think it's perfectly valid to have a different one.

You may find it outside of your understanding. Or you may find that you simply disagree. But he was actually correct about the laws and a lot of what he says is thought inspiring and accurate. He refers to studies and he refers to actual documented works and raises very interesting questions.

If you've heard him discuss or debate with those who  are of different opinions but not ideologically opposed and are open to honest discussion, they are absolutely fascinating discussions in many cases. And he's actually respected by those who aren't interested in partisan positioning even when they have different opinions.

Bt at the end of the day even if he was some sort of hack that you simply disagreed with and who had no value or nothing to bring to the table, it's still wrong for the government to target him. And this is far from the first time

I actually find David Suzuki to be a completely arrogant, ignorant, unscientific hypocrite with no redeeming value who has nothing to add to the Canadian conversation. But it would never occur to me had I the power to silence him or to suggest that just because he gets funding from one source or another he somehow a traitor to Canada. That is the biggest difference between the right and the left these days, there was a time when the left was all about free exchange of ideas and now it's only bout canceling people they disagree with. That's not healthy

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. 

[User]

9 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

that we know, Jewish and Christian theology borrowed extensively from Confucius  and Zoroastrianism

LOL, we do not know that, nevermind that is it "extensively"

Those are speculative arguments at best, with their having some similarities. 

 

[SkyHigh]

9 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, we do not know that, nevermind that is it "extensively"

Those are speculative arguments at best, with their having some similarities. 

 

Ok big guy 

P.S. Confucius spoke about doing unto others, aka the eleventh commandment centuries before Jesus 

But ya, some similarities 

Edited October 19, 2024 by SkyHigh

[User]

13 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Ok big guy 

P.S. Confucius spoke about doing unto others, aka the eleventh commandment.

But ya, some similarities 

*GASP* What, someone else spoke about treating people well? *GASP*

What are the odds of that? It must be 1 in almost infinity. 

[SkyHigh]

4 minutes ago, User said:

*GASP* What, someone else spoke about treating people well? *GASP*

What are the odds of that? It must be 1 in almost infinity. 

First, let me drop a little science on you (science is a credible method of finding truth, or the complete opposite of faith, the only thing you have to cling to) infinity is not a number it is a philosophical concept that isn't used in the hard sciences.

Second, confirming that the core tenant of christianity is something that is known according to your math by more people then have ever existed and many of them, again by your math about two thirds of the infinite people that have lived in the universe according to your Bible (apologies if you don't believe in young earth but I seem to remember you arguing for the validity of Genesis) before the advent of christianity, doesn't really support the truth of christianity 

[User]

4 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

First, let me drop a little science on you (science is a credible method of finding truth, or the complete opposite of faith, the only thing you have to cling to) infinity is not a number it is a philosophical concept that isn't used in the hard sciences.

Well, faith is not the only thing I cling to. Last I checked Math was one of those hard sciences which does in fact use infinity. 

Besides all of this, it was not meant to be taken literally, it was hyperbole to mock you. 

The core tenant of Christianity is not to doing unto others...

I was not making an argument here supporting the truth of Christianity. You were here making the bad argument that we "know" Christianity borrowed "extensively" from Confucius and Zoroastrianism...

 

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Well, faith is not the only thing I cling to. Last I checked Math was one of those hard sciences which does in fact use infinity. 

Besides all of this, it was not meant to be taken literally, it was hyperbole to mock you. 

The core tenant of Christianity is not to doing unto others...

I was not making an argument here supporting the truth of Christianity. You were here making the bad argument that we "know" Christianity borrowed "extensively" from Confucius and Zoroastrianism...

 

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

[Legato]

19 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

 infinity is not a number it is a philosophical concept that isn't used in the hard sciences.

 

No? Try dividing by zero.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Second, I never suggested that Peterson is a partisan hack nor do I believe he , or anyone else (save those that preach hate or are advocating for violence) should be "cancelled" 

Just a regular  unbias "hack" then  

 

Quote

Third, he was wrong about the law, to the point that the Canadian government released a statement to denounce him.

He was not wrong about the law and that became apparent during the shepherd case. The Canadian government frequently make statements about the law which turn out to be grossly untrue

 

Quote

Forth, what I did say is he hasn't said anything of substance since "clean your room" and speaks almost exclusively in word salad (high syllable word salad, but still word salad

And would I pointed out is that's completely incorrect. Well I don't know what he's been doing this last year so he definitely has had a nuber of extremely interesting and thought-provoking interviews, wrote a second book, and has been a significant influencer especially with the issue of free speech

Quote

But I invite you to give me the specific wisdom you feel you have acquired from listening to Jordan Peterson. 

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. 

His study and comments regarding the danish studies on what happens when women are given more freedoms and choices in their careers was very interesting. His discussions on hierarchy  is very interesting and really helps highlight how future solutions to some of our social problems are going to have to be handled if we want success. There's a number of other interesting discussions and research he addresses. 

I mostly tune out anything religious or the like but the rest of it's pretty good, or was when i was listening to it (which admittedly was somewhat periodic rather than regular)