User Posted December 21, 2024 Report Posted December 21, 2024 18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: The social contract of basic kindness and acceptance itself cannot be legislated. There is no social contract of "acceptance" A lot of folks confuse acceptance with tolerance. They are two completely different things. 1 Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
eyeball Posted December 21, 2024 Report Posted December 21, 2024 1 hour ago, User said: There is no social contract of "acceptance" Acceptance is an act of consent - it is the contract. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted December 21, 2024 Report Posted December 21, 2024 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: Acceptance is an act of consent - it is the contract. Acceptance as is being used here: "agreement with or belief in an idea, opinion, or explanation." -from google Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
eyeball Posted December 21, 2024 Report Posted December 21, 2024 51 minutes ago, User said: Acceptance as is being used here: "agreement with or belief in an idea, opinion, or explanation." -from google Yup, as in the acceptance of a contracts terms. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted December 21, 2024 Report Posted December 21, 2024 Just now, eyeball said: Yup, as in the acceptance of a contracts terms. Then the comment I responded to made no sense. "The social contract of basic kindness and acceptance itself cannot be legislated." So, if acceptance meant a contract... we get: The social contract of basic kindness and contracts itself cannot be legislated. He already said contract. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
eyeball Posted December 21, 2024 Report Posted December 21, 2024 1 minute ago, User said: Then the comment I responded to made no sense. "The social contract of basic kindness and acceptance itself cannot be legislated." So, if acceptance meant a contract... we get: The social contract of basic kindness and contracts itself cannot be legislated. He already said contract. Well, get back to me when you figure out what it is you're trying to say. It sounds like your determined to establish there is no contract of any kind. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted December 21, 2024 Report Posted December 21, 2024 33 minutes ago, eyeball said: Well, get back to me when you figure out what it is you're trying to say. It sounds like your determined to establish there is no contract of any kind. I said what I wanted to say. Feel free to actually respond to that. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
eyeball Posted December 21, 2024 Report Posted December 21, 2024 6 minutes ago, User said: I said what I wanted to say. Feel free to actually respond to that. Ok, it sounds like your determined to establish there is no contract at all. Do you think might should make right instead? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonbox Posted December 22, 2024 Report Posted December 22, 2024 9 hours ago, eyeball said: Do you think might should make right instead? That's how it is in lobster hierarchies, and we share common ancestry 300 million years ago (which is wrong, but these sorts of details don't matter when you're talking nonsense authoritatively to a gullible audience and telling them what they want to hear.) It's just the natural way of things. 🫠 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
CdnFox Posted December 22, 2024 Report Posted December 22, 2024 8 minutes ago, Moonbox said: That's how it is in lobster hierarchies, and we share common ancestry 300 million years ago (which is wrong, but these sorts of details don't matter when you're talking nonsense authoritatively to a gullible audience and telling them what they want to hear.) It's just the natural way of things. 🫠 That's nothing like what he said. If you can't be honest about it why even comment? A hierarchy is not might makes right. And in fact he said there are multiple hierarchies in most circumstances certainly more than that in human circumstances. His whole point was that throughout the animal kingdom long before humans came along hierarchies existed and are a natural occurring phenomenon that is ingrained into the majority of animals even down to lobsters who are observed to have hierarchies today . Therefore, any system that you try to put in place that doesn't account for that is almost certain to fail because you will be fighting against human nature. And that point is observably true. You've been listening to your echo chamber again. He has never proposed that might makes right. Quote
Moonbox Posted December 23, 2024 Report Posted December 23, 2024 On 12/22/2024 at 12:30 AM, CdnFox said: That's nothing like what he said. If you can't be honest about it why even comment? What part? What he actually said is even dumber. Here's the transcript, when he's bullshitting about seratonin: "We diverged from lobsters 350-600 million years go, and it's the same circuit" (which is retarded) "it's absolutely unbelievable and it shows you how deep inside you how basic primordial that circuit is in you" On 12/22/2024 at 12:30 AM, CdnFox said: His whole point was that throughout the animal kingdom long before humans came along hierarchies existed and are a natural occurring phenomenon that is ingrained into the majority of animals even down to lobsters who are observed to have hierarchies today . He argues that lobster neurochemistry is the same as human (at least when it comes to serotonin), which is absurd considering the former is an insect-brained crustacean with 1/1,000,000th the number of neurons that a human brain has, with neurochemical complexity differences to match. Serotonin affects both organisms completely differently, with it predictably promoting aggression in lobsters, where in humans it has all sorts of varied and complex interactions and usually does the opposite. Peterson probably knows this, but doesn't care, because he also knows that the gullible rubes that follow him are never going to scrutinize or question him. He's validating their feelings, and that's all that matters. If he was just talking about how hierarchies exist in the natural world, and how baser instincts are natural parts of the human experience, I suspect most people would agree with him. The lobster fantasy is utterly absurd however, and it's only one of the more famous examples of this once-respected academic torching his own credibility. 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Michael Hardner Posted December 23, 2024 Report Posted December 23, 2024 42 minutes ago, Moonbox said: What part? What he actually said is even dumber. Oh yes, but as his supporters will tell you... You are cherry picking the worst things he said. For example if he says two things, one intelligent and the other batsh!t bonkers then you must quote the INTELLIGENT THING. 1 Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
CdnFox Posted December 23, 2024 Report Posted December 23, 2024 (edited) 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: What part? What he actually said is even dumber. Here's the transcript, when he's bullshitting about seratonin: "We diverged from lobsters 350-600 million years go, and it's the same circuit" (which is retarded) "it's absolutely unbelievable and it shows you how deep inside you how basic primordial that circuit is in you" Considering he was speaking in a very general and non technical way to a layperson, what part of that is substantially wrong? Quote He argues that lobster neurochemistry is the same as human (at least when it comes to serotonin), No he doesn't. He points out that they have similarities. And there are. He wasn't giving an interview about lobsters, he was pointing out how pervasive hierarchy is in the animal kingdom and that it's genetically hardwired in animals as far removed from us as lobsters. And he's right. But because YOU don't like him, you decide to turn it from "there's a lot of similarity, we're based on the same basic biology" to "we're exactly the same and lobster brains work the same as humans". Human brains don't have "circuits". Neither do lobsters. but he's using the concept to point out that in the end the lobsters are hardwired and so are we and there's no getting around that. So people like you who can't compete with the guy intellectually twist what he says to try to make it sound unreasonable. Fact is that hierarchies are indeed hard wired into most animal life, including humans and including lobsters. And trying to design a societal system that doesn't account for that is doomed to failure because it ignores our biology. Yeash. go clean your room. Edited December 23, 2024 by CdnFox Quote
User Posted December 23, 2024 Report Posted December 23, 2024 1 hour ago, Moonbox said: What part? What he actually said is even dumber. LOL. This? This is what you are all upset about? You claimed to like him back in 2017/2018. He was saying this back then too. He put it in his book 12 rules for life, published the first part of 2018. 1 Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
Moonbox Posted December 27, 2024 Report Posted December 27, 2024 On 12/23/2024 at 3:39 PM, CdnFox said: Considering he was speaking in a very general and non technical way to a layperson, what part of that is substantially wrong? Speaking in a very general manner, about something very specific. Right... The only thing you're right about is that he was speaking to laypersons, but even that's generous. Gullible rubes is a better term. As for what was wrong, I already explained that. On 12/23/2024 at 4:24 PM, User said: LOL. This? This is what you are all upset about? Who's upset here? I'm not the one whose guru is being clowned on. On 12/23/2024 at 4:24 PM, User said: You claimed to like him back in 2017/2018. He was saying this back then too. He put it in his book 12 rules for life, published the first part of 2018. No, I claimed I supported him back in 2017/2018, and more specifically what he was saying about free speech after the Lyndsey Shephard controversy at my Alma Mater. Where are you going with this? Did you figure there was some contradiction here? 😑 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted December 27, 2024 Report Posted December 27, 2024 17 minutes ago, Moonbox said: No, I claimed I supported him back in 2017/2018, and more specifically what he was saying about free speech after the Lyndsey Shephard controversy at my Alma Mater. Where are you going with this? Did you figure there was some contradiction here? Yeah, you act like it is a new thing to not like him and the big example you came up with is from when you claimed you did like him. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
CdnFox Posted December 27, 2024 Report Posted December 27, 2024 3 hours ago, Moonbox said: Speaking in a very general manner, about something very specific. Right... Well done, you're now as intelligent as my parrot Quote The only thing you're right about is that he was speaking to laypersons, but even that's generous. Gullible rubes is a better term. Yes, we're well aware that your type thinks of anyone that doesn't agree with them or tow their line as being somehow stupid or subhuman. However he was speaking to virtually everybody and frankly his point was entirely valid Quote As for what was wrong, I already explained that. You really didn't. But that's really no surprise Quote Who's upset here? I'm not the one whose guru is being clowned on. Very clearly you. I'm not the one foaming at the mouth trying to pick apart somebody else's comment from god knows how many years ago which is substantially accurate as far as it relates to his point because I'm slightly buthurt that someone told me to clean up my room Quote
Moonbox Posted December 28, 2024 Report Posted December 28, 2024 19 hours ago, CdnFox said: Well done, you're now as intelligent as my parrot You would have a parrot. Nobody else wants to talk to you. 🤡 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.