Current Events > Aren't you happy that you're a liberal Democrat?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Damn_Underscore 12/08/17 8:22:20 PM #1:	I know that as a liberal Democrat my political beliefs are correct and everyone else is wrong or evil. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:891852461] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>I know that as a liberal Democrat my political beliefs are correct and everyone else is wrong or evil.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Permodius 12/08/17 8:24:45 PM #2:	I rather be a conservative Republican and disregard facts. --- Permodius http://i.imgur.com/4iOFbT8.jpg <cite>Permodius posted [p:891852576] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>I rather be a conservative Republican and disregard facts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThanksUglyGod 12/08/17 8:25:30 PM #3:	Yeah, I've got no complaints aside from getting cucked all the time <cite>ThanksUglyGod posted [p:891852625] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>Yeah, I've got no complaints aside from getting cucked all the time</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wolf_J_Flywheel 12/08/17 8:26:08 PM #4:	I'm glad I'm not a liberal democrat, I couldn't stand living in a perpetual state of rage and anger. --- Those who act like sheep, will be eaten by wolves http://i.imgur.com/n1L1yBu.jpg <cite>Wolf_J_Flywheel posted [p:891852662] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>I'm glad I'm not a liberal democrat, I couldn't stand living in a perpetual state of rage and anger.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 12/08/17 8:26:46 PM #5:	Pretend I made a joke acting as though this topic were about the Liberal Democrats, a UK political party. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:891852694] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>Pretend I made a joke acting as though this topic were about the Liberal Democrats, a UK political party.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giblet_Enjoyer 12/08/17 8:27:56 PM #6:	TIL only democrats think that they're right --- He which make friends with scorpion, soon come to find out what a scorpion does - they bite people with its tail --ancient Chinese proverb <cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted [p:891852746] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>TIL only democrats think that they're right</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Intro2Logic 12/08/17 8:29:47 PM #7:	Giblet_Enjoyer posted... TIL only democrats think that they're right Personally, I think all my beliefs are wrong. --- Have you tried thinking rationally? <cite>Intro2Logic posted [p:891852825] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote>TIL only democrats think that they're right</quote> Personally, I think all my beliefs are wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Persona6 12/08/17 8:38:11 PM #8:	both sides are self-righteous hacks living in denial --- BignutzisBack <cite>Persona6 posted [p:891853250] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>both sides are self-righteous hacks living in denial</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 12/08/17 8:38:49 PM #9:	Intro2Logic posted... Giblet_Enjoyer posted... TIL only democrats think that they're right Personally, I think all my beliefs are wrong. You too? --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:891853290] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>Intro2Logic posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote>TIL only democrats think that they're right</quote> Personally, I think all my beliefs are wrong.</quote> You too?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Electrokinesis 12/08/17 8:40:07 PM #10:	Imagine not supporting the Green Party. --- It's scientifically impossible for pants to feel "pain". ~ TheRealItachi <cite>Electrokinesis posted [p:891853346] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>Imagine not supporting the Green Party.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/08/17 8:43:37 PM #11:	Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891853512] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giblet_Enjoyer 12/08/17 9:35:25 PM #12:	nicklebro posted... Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die. Jordan Peterson is highly overrated, Sebastian Junger covers the "we need both sides" in a much more coherent and, frankly, sane manner --- He which make friends with scorpion, soon come to find out what a scorpion does - they bite people with its tail --ancient Chinese proverb <cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted [p:891856241] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die.</quote> Jordan Peterson is highly overrated, Sebastian Junger covers the "we need both sides" in a much more coherent and, frankly, sane manner</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
That_Happened 12/08/17 9:39:09 PM #13:	Wolf_J_Flywheel posted... I'm glad I'm not a liberal democrat, I couldn't stand living in a perpetual state of rage and anger. Earlier today you posted fake news from Brietbart (on a topic that even Fox News announced a correction for) and you threw a fit when people correctly didn't believe you and laughed at you. You do this often. --- http://fusionanomaly.net/magnoliabutitdidhappen.jpg <cite>That_Happened posted [p:891856430] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wolf_J_Flywheel posted...</cite> <quote>I'm glad I'm not a liberal democrat, I couldn't stand living in a perpetual state of rage and anger.</quote> Earlier today you posted fake news from Brietbart (on a topic that even Fox News announced a correction for) and you threw a fit when people correctly didn't believe you and laughed at you. You do this often.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/08/17 9:42:09 PM #14:	Giblet_Enjoyer posted... nicklebro posted... Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die. Jordan Peterson is highly overrated, Sebastian Junger covers the "we need both sides" in a much more coherent and, frankly, sane manner Sebastian junger is great too. But I'd need to hear an actual coherent argument as to how Peterson is overrated or how his analysis is insane. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891856562] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die.</quote> Jordan Peterson is highly overrated, Sebastian Junger covers the "we need both sides" in a much more coherent and, frankly, sane manner</quote> Sebastian junger is great too. But I'd need to hear an actual coherent argument as to how Peterson is overrated or how his analysis is insane.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giblet_Enjoyer 12/08/17 9:55:44 PM #15:	nicklebro posted... Sebastian junger is great too. But I'd need to hear an actual coherent argument as to how Peterson is overrated or how his analysis is insane. Peterson is way too emotionally invested in his rather pointless political disagreements to be of much use to me. He's been brought to the verge of tears in his ramblings about how the post-modernists are destroying civilization while holding a post-modernist interpretation of Christianity himself. It's pretty silly tbh I still like him though, he's just not amazing like some people say --- He which make friends with scorpion, soon come to find out what a scorpion does - they bite people with its tail --ancient Chinese proverb <cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted [p:891857239] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Sebastian junger is great too. But I'd need to hear an actual coherent argument as to how Peterson is overrated or how his analysis is insane.</quote> Peterson is way too emotionally invested in his rather pointless political disagreements to be of much use to me. He's been brought to the verge of tears in his ramblings about how the post-modernists are destroying civilization while holding a post-modernist interpretation of Christianity himself. It's pretty silly tbh I still like him though, he's just not amazing like some people say</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/08/17 10:05:11 PM #16:	Giblet_Enjoyer posted... nicklebro posted... Sebastian junger is great too. But I'd need to hear an actual coherent argument as to how Peterson is overrated or how his analysis is insane. Peterson is way too emotionally invested in his rather pointless political disagreements to be of much use to me. He's been brought to the verge of tears in his ramblings about how the post-modernists are destroying civilization while holding a post-modernist interpretation of Christianity himself. It's pretty silly tbh I still like him though, he's just not amazing like some people say Do you have any actual reasons to think he's overrated tho? Junger isn't perfect either, and doesnt understand the human mind and consciousness in general nearly as well as Peterson does. He does get emotional when describing the post modernist ideology that is prevalent nowadays, as he should. He knows where that kind of rationale leads, why is it wrong to be emotional about wanting to avoid the horrors of naziism and communism? Lol and while he does have a somewhat cherry picked definition of religion, to call it post modern makes me think you have no clue what the term means. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you were probably just trying to add some flare to an argument you could tell was much weaker than you made it out to be. I just don't see how "overrated" is a term you could apply to Peterson. Everything he says is extremely well thought out and he has an understanding of reality that is unmatched. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891857735] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Sebastian junger is great too. But I'd need to hear an actual coherent argument as to how Peterson is overrated or how his analysis is insane.</quote> Peterson is way too emotionally invested in his rather pointless political disagreements to be of much use to me. He's been brought to the verge of tears in his ramblings about how the post-modernists are destroying civilization while holding a post-modernist interpretation of Christianity himself. It's pretty silly tbh I still like him though, he's just not amazing like some people say</quote> Do you have any actual reasons to think he's overrated tho? Junger isn't perfect either, and doesnt understand the human mind and consciousness in general nearly as well as Peterson does. He does get emotional when describing the post modernist ideology that is prevalent nowadays, as he should. He knows where that kind of rationale leads, why is it wrong to be emotional about wanting to avoid the horrors of naziism and communism? Lol and while he does have a somewhat cherry picked definition of religion, to call it post modern makes me think you have no clue what the term means. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you were probably just trying to add some flare to an argument you could tell was much weaker than you made it out to be. I just don't see how "overrated" is a term you could apply to Peterson. Everything he says is extremely well thought out and he has an understanding of reality that is unmatched.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 12/08/17 10:10:23 PM #17:	nicklebro posted... Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die. lmao 10/10 --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:891858017] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die.</quote> lmao 10/10</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/08/17 10:23:07 PM #18:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die. lmao 10/10 Hey thanks man, first ten I got in a while. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891858639] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah being a liberal does seem more enjoyable. Especially in the sense of humor department. It'd suck if all the best entertainment shit on me constantly. But I think liberals are wrong precisely 50% of the time. People don't seem to understand that we need people with opposing viewpoints or else we spiral out to the extremes of either fascism or communism. If this makes sense to you, go listen to Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you whether you're a conservative or a liberal you will agree with him and enjoy what he has to teach you. Unless youre an extremist on either side, in which case fuck off and die.</quote> lmao 10/10</quote> Hey thanks man, first ten I got in a while.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giblet_Enjoyer 12/09/17 2:22:14 AM #19:	First off, I was just comparing the two within the context of their ideas about political division in America. I don't care to detail everything I find wrong with what Peterson believes, especially when I know ahead of time that none of it would satisfy you. I'll touch on a few things but we're already in these weeds more than I care to be nicklebro posted... Junger isn't perfect either, and doesnt understand the human mind and consciousness in general nearly as well as Peterson does. Idk about that. Junger has under his belt actual experiences with observing human psychological phenomena that most people, including JP, never get to see. That's the main thing that makes his perspective useful. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you were probably just trying to add some flare to an argument you could tell was much weaker than you made it out to be. Hey now, no need to get tilted, I just think it's funny that he has a sophisticated "meta-truth" interpretation of stories that came from goat herders who couldn't read. I mean he literally said that religious truths are "hyper-true" which is a postmodernist thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality I just don't see how "overrated" is a term you could apply to Peterson. Everything he says is extremely well thought out and he has an understanding of reality that is unmatched. I mean, you just said he has deeper knowledge of life, the universe and everything than anyone else on earth. The dude's not even a scientist (depending on how loose your definition of a scientist is). Do you still not get how I could think he's overrated even though you just made my case for me? You're not even unusual, either. I've seen other members of his fanbase who seem to think that his philosophy is the solution to all of society's ills. He does one thing exceptionally well though, and that's speaking. Almost no one without the last name of "Hitchens" does it better. Anyway, I just prefer Junger's more pragmatic and unifying (for lack of a better word) approach over JP's pathological villainizing --- He which make friends with scorpion, soon come to find out what a scorpion does - they bite people with its tail --ancient Chinese proverb <cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted [p:891869234] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>First off, I was just comparing the two within the context of their ideas about political division in America. I don't care to detail everything I find wrong with what Peterson believes, especially when I know ahead of time that none of it would satisfy you. I'll touch on a few things but we're already in these weeds more than I care to be <cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Junger isn't perfect either, and doesnt understand the human mind and consciousness in general nearly as well as Peterson does.</quote> Idk about that. Junger has under his belt actual experiences with observing human psychological phenomena that most people, including JP, never get to see. That's the main thing that makes his perspective useful. <quote>But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you were probably just trying to add some flare to an argument you could tell was much weaker than you made it out to be.</quote> Hey now, no need to get tilted, I just think it's funny that he has a sophisticated "meta-truth" interpretation of stories that came from goat herders who couldn't read. I mean he literally said that religious truths are "hyper-true" which is a postmodernist thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality <quote>I just don't see how "overrated" is a term you could apply to Peterson. Everything he says is extremely well thought out and he has an understanding of reality that is unmatched.</quote> I mean, you just said he has deeper knowledge of life, the universe and everything than anyone else on earth. The dude's not even a scientist (depending on how loose your definition of a scientist is). Do you still not get how I could think he's overrated even though you just made my case for me? You're not even unusual, either. I've seen other members of his fanbase who seem to think that his philosophy is the solution to all of society's ills. He does one thing exceptionally well though, and that's speaking. Almost no one without the last name of "Hitchens" does it better. Anyway, I just prefer Junger's more pragmatic and unifying (for lack of a better word) approach over JP's pathological villainizing</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giblet_Enjoyer 12/09/17 2:54:28 AM #20:	Also I'd like to know how postmodernism is responsible for both nazism and communism when it didn't come about until after WWII --- He which make friends with scorpion, soon come to find out what a scorpion does - they bite people with its tail --ancient Chinese proverb <cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted [p:891870143] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>Also I'd like to know how postmodernism is responsible for both nazism and communism when it didn't come about until after WWII</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 7:07:48 AM #21:	Giblet_Enjoyer posted... Idk about that. Junger has under his belt actual experiences with observing human psychological phenomena that most people, including JP, never get to see. That's the main thing that makes his perspective useful. Whatever experience Junger had documenting psychological phenomena pales in comparison to Peterson's experience on the subject. Junger is an author, he's merely delved into.these subjects. Peterson has spent his entire professional life researching the human mind and consciousness in general. It's crazy that you can't even cede this point, it suggests that you're too emotionally invested to make an objective comparison between the two. Giblet_Enjoyer posted... Hey now, no need to get tilted, I just think it's funny that he has a sophisticated "meta-truth" interpretation of stories that came from goat herders who couldn't read. I mean he literally said that religious truths are "hyper-true" which is a postmodernist thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality No one is getting tilted, you're just misusing words. And you're not a troll so I know it isn't intentional, just seems like you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. And he goes into great detail to explain how religious truths can be thought of as "meta truths" or hyper, so whether you find it humorous or not is irrelevant, he makes a solid argument and this is where I was hoping you'd have some kind of counter argument but all you've done is compare it to post modernist which makes 0 sense to me,.perhaps you could actually explain that? Giblet_Enjoyer posted... I mean, you just said he has deeper knowledge of life, the universe and everything than anyone else on earth. The dude's not even a scientist (depending on how loose your definition of a scientist is). Do you still not get how I could think he's overrated even though you just made my case for me? You're not even unusual, either. I've seen other members of his fanbase who seem to think that his philosophy is the solution to all of society's ills. Lol c'mon man, when I say an understanding of the universe, I'm not talking about the cosmos. So no, I didn't prove your point for you, you actually need to put forth a substantive argument to back up what you've said and you haven't even tried to do that yet. I'm saying he has an understanding of the human universe that I have yet to see in another person. And Sebastian junger isn't even top 10 in that regard. He isn't a scientist in the sense that you're referring to, but he can be considered a scientist of psychology and is probably the leading figure in his field of research on planet Earth. His understanding of the human mind and the evolution of consciousness is the absolute best in the world, if not of all time. And he has the academic accomplishments to back it up. It really seems like you got caught up being a contrarian and going against the grain just for the sake of doing it. Giblet_Enjoyer posted... Also I'd like to know how postmodernism is responsible for both nazism and communism when it didn't come about until after WWII Wow man, you need to delete this right away. Now I'm questioning if you've ever actually paid attention to anything Jordan Peterson has ever said or if you just skimmed his Wikipedia. He's gone onto.great lengths to describe how post modernism came into being after the fall of the USSR. Never once has he said it started WWII. Damn man, I've been looking for someone who was familiar with his work to discuss his teachings with, but it's really hard to just ignore the massive error you just made. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891875222] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote> Idk about that. Junger has under his belt actual experiences with observing human psychological phenomena that most people, including JP, never get to see. That's the main thing that makes his perspective useful. </quote> Whatever experience Junger had documenting psychological phenomena pales in comparison to Peterson's experience on the subject. Junger is an author, he's merely delved into.these subjects. Peterson has spent his entire professional life researching the human mind and consciousness in general. It's crazy that you can't even cede this point, it suggests that you're too emotionally invested to make an objective comparison between the two. <cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote> Hey now, no need to get tilted, I just think it's funny that he has a sophisticated "meta-truth" interpretation of stories that came from goat herders who couldn't read. I mean he literally said that religious truths are "hyper-true" which is a postmodernist thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality</quote> No one is getting tilted, you're just misusing words. And you're not a troll so I know it isn't intentional, just seems like you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. And he goes into great detail to explain how religious truths can be thought of as "meta truths" or hyper, so whether you find it humorous or not is irrelevant, he makes a solid argument and this is where I was hoping you'd have some kind of counter argument but all you've done is compare it to post modernist which makes 0 sense to me,.perhaps you could actually explain that? <cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote> I mean, you just said he has deeper knowledge of life, the universe and everything than anyone else on earth. The dude's not even a scientist (depending on how loose your definition of a scientist is). Do you still not get how I could think he's overrated even though you just made my case for me? You're not even unusual, either. I've seen other members of his fanbase who seem to think that his philosophy is the solution to all of society's ills.</quote> Lol c'mon man, when I say an understanding of the universe, I'm not talking about the cosmos. So no, I didn't prove your point for you, you actually need to put forth a substantive argument to back up what you've said and you haven't even tried to do that yet. I'm saying he has an understanding of the human universe that I have yet to see in another person. And Sebastian junger isn't even top 10 in that regard. He isn't a scientist in the sense that you're referring to, but he can be considered a scientist of psychology and is probably the leading figure in his field of research on planet Earth. His understanding of the human mind and the evolution of consciousness is the absolute best in the world, if not of all time. And he has the academic accomplishments to back it up. It really seems like you got caught up being a contrarian and going against the grain just for the sake of doing it. <cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote>Also I'd like to know how postmodernism is responsible for both nazism and communism when it didn't come about until after WWII</quote> Wow man, you need to delete this right away. Now I'm questioning if you've ever actually paid attention to anything Jordan Peterson has ever said or if you just skimmed his Wikipedia. He's gone onto.great lengths to describe how post modernism came into being after the fall of the USSR. Never once has he said it started WWII. Damn man, I've been looking for someone who was familiar with his work to discuss his teachings with, but it's really hard to just ignore the massive error you just made.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 7:07:59 AM #22:	Giblet_Enjoyer posted... Anyway, I just prefer Junger's more pragmatic and unifying (for lack of a better word) approach over JP's pathological villainizing That's a horrible mischaracterization and you should feel bad. Not to mention you're obviously not familiar with JPs self/future authoring programs if you're going to actually say that Sebastian's approach is more pragmatic. Jungers breakdown of consciousness isn't less divisive or pragmatic, it's just far easier to understand because he doesn't go nearly as deep as Peterson does nor does he have even close to the level of understanding that Peterson does. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891875226] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote> Anyway, I just prefer Junger's more pragmatic and unifying (for lack of a better word) approach over JP's pathological villainizing</quote> That's a horrible mischaracterization and you should feel bad. Not to mention you're obviously not familiar with JPs self/future authoring programs if you're going to actually say that Sebastian's approach is more pragmatic. Jungers breakdown of consciousness isn't less divisive or pragmatic, it's just far easier to understand because he doesn't go nearly as deep as Peterson does nor does he have even close to the level of understanding that Peterson does.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 7:35:24 AM #23:	Giblet_Enjoyer posted... First off, I was just comparing the two within the context of their ideas about political division in America. I don't care to detail everything I find wrong with what Peterson believes, especially when I know ahead of time that none of it would satisfy you. I'll touch on a few things but we're already in these weeds more than I care to be Well just start with what you actually know then. I mean it's actually a fact that Jordan Peterson knows far more than Junger does when it comes to the differences between people with opposite political leaning, he's literally at the forefront of research into the topic, as opposed to Junger is just an incredibly smart guy who has documented his observations of the different political ideologies, but in no way can anyone argue best done even 1/10th of 1% of the research Peterson has done on this subject. And you're wrong, if you were to actually come up with a solid argument against anything Peterson has said I'd be not only open to hear it, but thankful for sharing something that would have to be incredibly genius insight. Peterson is the one that taught me how to keep an open mind like that, obviously Junger hasnt done the same for you since it now appears (tho correct me if I'm wrong) you shit on Peterson solely because you wanted to prop up someone else that you liked more. See Jordan Peterson actually has a solid overlying philosophy which puts truth at the absolute forefront of everything else. His search for and dedication to the truth is what pits him head and shoulders above Junger IMO. And let's get real here, Junger is merely a very intelligent and talented author. Everything he knows he learned from someone else, as opposed to Peterson who is actually knowledgeable and intelligent enough to make discoveries and have relations all.kn.his own through rigorous study and again, unwavering dedication to the truth. Obviously I'm a bit biased in favor of Peterson, as you are with Junger, but the way you immediately wrote off Peterson In favor of Junger had me thinking you had some incredible knowledge of Junger that I was unaware of. That really excited me because Petersons lessons have truly saved my life and Improved everything about me, so I was stoked to think that maybe Junger had something that could help me even further. Unfortunately, seems as though that isn't the case. I really recommend you do a bit more research on Peterson's teachings as it doesn't seem to me that you have that strong of a grasp on his teachings, especially after you made not one but two two errors regarding post modernism. I'd really like to continue this discussion man, it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891875700] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted...</cite> <quote>First off, I was just comparing the two within the context of their ideas about political division in America. I don't care to detail everything I find wrong with what Peterson believes, especially when I know ahead of time that none of it would satisfy you. I'll touch on a few things but we're already in these weeds more than I care to be</quote> Well just start with what you actually know then. I mean it's actually a fact that Jordan Peterson knows far more than Junger does when it comes to the differences between people with opposite political leaning, he's literally at the forefront of research into the topic, as opposed to Junger is just an incredibly smart guy who has documented his observations of the different political ideologies, but in no way can anyone argue best done even 1/10th of 1% of the research Peterson has done on this subject. And you're wrong, if you were to actually come up with a solid argument against anything Peterson has said I'd be not only open to hear it, but thankful for sharing something that would have to be incredibly genius insight. Peterson is the one that taught me how to keep an open mind like that, obviously Junger hasnt done the same for you since it now appears (tho correct me if I'm wrong) you shit on Peterson solely because you wanted to prop up someone else that you liked more. See Jordan Peterson actually has a solid overlying philosophy which puts truth at the absolute forefront of everything else. His search for and dedication to the truth is what pits him head and shoulders above Junger IMO. And let's get real here, Junger is merely a very intelligent and talented author. Everything he knows he learned from someone else, as opposed to Peterson who is actually knowledgeable and intelligent enough to make discoveries and have relations all.kn.his own through rigorous study and again, unwavering dedication to the truth. Obviously I'm a bit biased in favor of Peterson, as you are with Junger, but the way you immediately wrote off Peterson In favor of Junger had me thinking you had some incredible knowledge of Junger that I was unaware of. That really excited me because Petersons lessons have truly saved my life and Improved everything about me, so I was stoked to think that maybe Junger had something that could help me even further. Unfortunately, seems as though that isn't the case. I really recommend you do a bit more research on Peterson's teachings as it doesn't seem to me that you have that strong of a grasp on his teachings, especially after you made not one but two two errors regarding post modernism. I'd really like to continue this discussion man, it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kineth 12/09/17 7:39:05 AM #24:	No. That means the party has moved too far to the right. I should be considered closer to the center left of the party than the far left of it. Still, I'm not happy with the DNC so I wouldn't call myself a democrat atm. All I am is anti-extreme right wing. --- If you're not looking for any honest discussion, agreement, meeting halfway or middle ground, don't bother arguing with me. Selfish narcissists need not apply. <cite>Kineth posted [p:891875790] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>No. That means the party has moved too far to the right. I should be considered closer to the center left of the party than the far left of it. Still, I'm not happy with the DNC so I wouldn't call myself a democrat atm. All I am is anti-extreme right wing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wolf_J_Flywheel 12/09/17 7:49:41 AM #25:	That_Happened posted... Wolf_J_Flywheel posted... I'm glad I'm not a liberal democrat, I couldn't stand living in a perpetual state of rage and anger. Earlier today you posted fake news from Brietbart (on a topic that even Fox News announced a correction for) and you threw a fit when people correctly didn't believe you and laughed at you. You do this often. I threw a fit? pretty sure I posted the OP topic and never posted again. Don't confuse me with any jabronies around here son. --- Those who act like sheep, will be eaten by wolves http://i.imgur.com/n1L1yBu.jpg <cite>Wolf_J_Flywheel posted [p:891876012] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>That_Happened posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Wolf_J_Flywheel posted...</cite> <quote>I'm glad I'm not a liberal democrat, I couldn't stand living in a perpetual state of rage and anger.</quote> Earlier today you posted fake news from Brietbart (on a topic that even Fox News announced a correction for) and you threw a fit when people correctly didn't believe you and laughed at you. You do this often.</quote> I threw a fit? pretty sure I posted the OP topic and never posted again. Don't confuse me with any jabronies around here son.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trevor_Belmont 12/09/17 7:54:48 AM #26:	I used to lean towards conservative Republican but I have been disgusted with the Republican Party over the past 8 years so now I vote only. Democrat. --- Switch FC: SW-3150-0817-3331 Feel free to send an invite if you want. <cite>Trevor_Belmont posted [p:891876123] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>I used to lean towards conservative Republican but I have been disgusted with the Republican Party over the past 8 years so now I vote only. Democrat.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 9:54:00 AM #27:	Trevor_Belmont posted... I used to lean towards conservative Republican but I have been disgusted with the Republican Party over the past 8 years so now I vote only. Democrat. So you're a conservative Democrat? Cool. I'm not about blind party loyalty, so it's cool you put your vote where your morals are. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891879324] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>Trevor_Belmont posted...</cite> <quote>I used to lean towards conservative Republican but I have been disgusted with the Republican Party over the past 8 years so now I vote only. Democrat.</quote> So you're a conservative Democrat? Cool. I'm not about blind party loyalty, so it's cool you put your vote where your morals are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#28	Post #28 was unavailable or deleted.
averagejoel 12/09/17 10:00:47 AM #29:	nicklebro posted... it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men. wait, you weren't trolling about Peterson? --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:891879536] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men.</quote> wait, you weren't trolling about Peterson?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 10:18:38 AM #30:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men. wait, you weren't trolling about Peterson? Not at all. He's a genius and I immediately assume you're a clown if you disagree. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891880187] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men.</quote> wait, you weren't trolling about Peterson?</quote> Not at all. He's a genius and I immediately assume you're a clown if you disagree.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 12/09/17 10:49:20 AM #31:	nicklebro posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men. wait, you weren't trolling about Peterson? Not at all. He's a genius and I immediately assume you're a clown if you disagree. it's not a matter of disagreement - last I checked, he was making $30 000 a month on patreon because he... refused to use gender neutral pronouns I'm sure he must be smart about something, but all I've heard him talk about is free speech, which he badly misunderstands; transgender issues, which he doesn't have a clue about; and communism, which he alsy doesn't have a clue about --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:891881425] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men.</quote> wait, you weren't trolling about Peterson?</quote> Not at all. He's a genius and I immediately assume you're a clown if you disagree.</quote> it's not a matter of disagreement - last I checked, he was making $30 000 a month on patreon because he... refused to use gender neutral pronouns I'm sure he must be smart about something, but all I've heard him talk about is free speech, which he badly misunderstands; transgender issues, which he doesn't have a clue about; and communism, which he alsy doesn't have a clue about</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 11:56:53 AM #32:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men. wait, you weren't trolling about Peterson? Not at all. He's a genius and I immediately assume you're a clown if you disagree. it's not a matter of disagreement - last I checked, he was making $30 000 a month on patreon because he... refused to use gender neutral pronouns I'm sure he must be smart about something, but all I've heard him talk about is free speech, which he badly misunderstands; transgender issues, which he doesn't have a clue about; and communism, which he alsy doesn't have a clue about Lol seriously,.you think he's getting paid simply for not using gender neutral pronouns? Why even bother saying anything if you're going to just spout nonsense that everyone can tell isn't true? Tons of people aren't using those pronouns, they aren't making that kinda cash on patreon. Lol then again you actually said that as if making money on patreon is somehow something that harms his credibility rather than bolstering it, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously. You have absolutely no idea what the man stands for but feel comfortable claiming he "doesn't have a clue" about multiple things. It's so hard to see you as anything other than an ignorant hater. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to see you actually put forth an argument defending those statements with actual substance so I can refute them and show you just how ignorant you truly are. But like most Peterson haters, I'm sure you'll refuse and instead either resort in trolling or just disappear. Because you know you can't actually win this debate. Jordan Peterson is a very accomplished academic and has taught at Harvard and the University of Toronto. He knows more than you on just about every topic imaginable. So please prove me wrong and actually try to back up the absolute bullshit you just spewed. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891884361] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>it's hard to avoid trolls and people who aren't intelligent or mature enough to be interested in these two great men.</quote> wait, you weren't trolling about Peterson?</quote> Not at all. He's a genius and I immediately assume you're a clown if you disagree.</quote> it's not a matter of disagreement - last I checked, he was making $30 000 a month on patreon because he... refused to use gender neutral pronouns I'm sure he must be smart about something, but all I've heard him talk about is free speech, which he badly misunderstands; transgender issues, which he doesn't have a clue about; and communism, which he alsy doesn't have a clue about</quote> Lol seriously,.you think he's getting paid simply for not using gender neutral pronouns? Why even bother saying anything if you're going to just spout nonsense that everyone can tell isn't true? Tons of people aren't using those pronouns, they aren't making that kinda cash on patreon. Lol then again you actually said that as if making money on patreon is somehow something that harms his credibility rather than bolstering it, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously. You have absolutely no idea what the man stands for but feel comfortable claiming he "doesn't have a clue" about multiple things. It's so hard to see you as anything other than an ignorant hater. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to see you actually put forth an argument defending those statements with actual substance so I can refute them and show you just how ignorant you truly are. But like most Peterson haters, I'm sure you'll refuse and instead either resort in trolling or just disappear. Because you know you can't actually win this debate. Jordan Peterson is a very accomplished academic and has taught at Harvard and the University of Toronto. He knows more than you on just about every topic imaginable. So please prove me wrong and actually try to back up the absolute bullshit you just spewed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 12:08:23 PM #33:	And he was never heard from again. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891884888] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>And he was never heard from again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 12/09/17 1:17:10 PM #34:	I'm a liberal Independent and I have my own alt-center movement. Our key principles include siding with sjws just to troll and trigger the right, turning on sjws if/when they become annoying, sometimes pretending to be alt-right to mock alt-right, hating on both christianity and islam, and believing that no lives matter. I am very happy as this, as indicted by the semi that I got whilst typing this post. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:891888476] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>I'm a liberal Independent and I have my own alt-center movement. Our key principles include siding with sjws just to troll and trigger the right, turning on sjws if/when they become annoying, sometimes pretending to be alt-right to mock alt-right, hating on both christianity and islam, and believing that no lives matter. I am very happy as this, as indicted by the semi that I got whilst typing this post.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 1:20:25 PM #35:	FigureOfSpeech posted... I'm a liberal Independent and I have my own alt-center movement. Our key principles include siding with sjws just to troll and trigger the right, turning on sjws if/when they become annoying, sometimes pretending to be alt-right to mock alt-right, hating on both christianity and islam, and believing that no lives matter. I am very happy as this, as indicted by the semi that I got whilst typing this post. Lmao alt center, thats pretty damn clever. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891888616] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote>I'm a liberal Independent and I have my own alt-center movement. Our key principles include siding with sjws just to troll and trigger the right, turning on sjws if/when they become annoying, sometimes pretending to be alt-right to mock alt-right, hating on both christianity and islam, and believing that no lives matter. I am very happy as this, as indicted by the semi that I got whilst typing this post.</quote> Lmao alt center, thats pretty damn clever.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 12/09/17 1:23:28 PM #36:	sigh Peterson's initial complaint - the one that made him famous - was with Bill C16, the Transgender Protection Bill. https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence. He appears not to have read it, because he somehow interpreted that as an infringement on his free speech. I don't remember his exact words, but it was something along the lines of "they're forcing us to use their language", which is objectively false and has nothing to do with the bill His point about free speech as a concept would also carry a lot more weight if he had actually faced any consequences for his speech. But he didn't - he is still employed by University of Toronto, still spouts his ignorant drivel, and is making a ton of money via Patreon because of it. Second, on transgender issues: sex is more complicated than Male/Female, and it's disingenuous and ignorant to pretend otherwise. There's plenty of information here about that: https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 Gender is even more complicated than Sex, and he clearly does not understand this. Third, on communism: his invocation of No True Scotsman is extremely misplaced. He thinks that when someone says "the Soviet Union wasn't communist", they mean "I could have done better in Stalin's stead." This is false - No True Scotsman is only applicable in the absence of a concrete definition of what constitutes a "Scotsman." There is a concrete definition of Communism, and the Soviet Union did not fit it. That's why it wasn't communist. China did not fit it either. Cuba doesn't fit it now, nor did it ever. @nicklebro --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:891888756] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>sigh Peterson's initial complaint - the one that made him famous - was with Bill C16, the Transgender Protection Bill. https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ <quote>This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.</quote> He appears not to have read it, because he somehow interpreted that as an infringement on his free speech. I don't remember his exact words, but it was something along the lines of "they're forcing us to use their language", which is objectively false and has nothing to do with the bill His point about free speech as a concept would also carry a lot more weight if he had actually faced any consequences for his speech. But he didn't - he is still employed by University of Toronto, still spouts his ignorant drivel, and is making a ton of money via Patreon because of it. Second, on transgender issues: sex is more complicated than Male/Female, and it's disingenuous and ignorant to pretend otherwise. There's plenty of information here about that: https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 Gender is even more complicated than Sex, and he clearly does not understand this. Third, on communism: his invocation of No True Scotsman is extremely misplaced. He thinks that when someone says "the Soviet Union wasn't communist", they mean "I could have done better in Stalin's stead." This is false - No True Scotsman is only applicable in the absence of a concrete definition of what constitutes a "Scotsman." There is a concrete definition of Communism, and the Soviet Union did not fit it. That's why it wasn't communist. China did not fit it either. Cuba doesn't fit it now, nor did it ever. @nicklebro</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 1:53:59 PM #37:	averagejoel posted... He appears not to have read it, because he somehow interpreted that as an infringement on his free speech. I don't remember his exact words, but it was something along the lines of "they're forcing us to use their language", which is objectively false and has nothing to do with the bill Lol remember when I asked for substance? You're just claiming he's wrong and that I should take your word for it. And of you actually had a up what you were talking about, you'd know that Peterson is arguing this could lead to compelled speech because the legislation is so poorly constructed. Not to mention it's already a lawn in new York. Google it. But this is all irrelevant to your initial claims anyways. JP is a psychologist, not a lawyer, which is why he said he was worried about this being the eventual outcome. Oh and the lawyers at UofT agreed with him and sent him two letters demanding he stop saying that he won't use made up pronouns. averagejoel posted... His point about free speech as a concept would also carry a lot more weight if he had actually faced any consequences for his speech. But he didn't - he is still employed by University of Toronto, still spouts his ignorant drivel, and is making a ton of money via Patreon because of it. You obviously have never been to his patreon page since it has nothing to do with the nonsense you're bringing up, but thats what happens when you blah about things you don't have a clue about. Anyways, if bill c 16 does in fact end up forcing compelled speech, then it will have effectively infringed on his free speech. Which Canada doesnt guarantee it's citizens. And why would he have been fired? He hasn't broken any laws yet, tho they did send him those two letters I already mentioned. See Are you ever going to actually start backing up any of the bullshit you spouted earlier? All you've said so far is that his initial concerns haven't fully manifested themselves yet, and again, he's not lawyer, he was a professor who voiced some concerns and was then attacked by a bunch of ignorant SJWs like you. Where exactly am I supposed to find fault with his words? averagejoel posted... Second, on transgender issues: sex is more complicated than Male/Female, and it's disingenuous and ignorant to pretend otherwise. There's plenty of information here about that: https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 What's your point? He said he's not going to use made up pronouns...lol he never claimed trans people don't exist... Soaveragejoel posted... Gender is even more complicated than Sex, and he clearly does not understand this. LMAO I knew it, you truly do have absolutely nonclue what Peterson's stance on transgender people is, let alone anything he's actually said! Lol I could smell the ignorance.on you from a mile away. Peterson has forgotten more about gender than you will ever know in your sad little life. You literally think you know more About the differences in gender than Peterson does? Lol this totally proves that you didn't even listen to what he had to say and the formed your own opinion, you got some bad info from some other morning and are now treating it as gospel lol. How embarrassing. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891890302] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote> He appears not to have read it, because he somehow interpreted that as an infringement on his free speech. I don't remember his exact words, but it was something along the lines of "they're forcing us to use their language", which is objectively false and has nothing to do with the bill</quote> Lol remember when I asked for substance? You're just claiming he's wrong and that I should take your word for it. And of you actually had a up what you were talking about, you'd know that Peterson is arguing this could lead to compelled speech because the legislation is so poorly constructed. Not to mention it's already a lawn in new York. Google it. But this is all irrelevant to your initial claims anyways. JP is a psychologist, not a lawyer, which is why he said he was worried about this being the eventual outcome. Oh and the lawyers at UofT agreed with him and sent him two letters demanding he stop saying that he won't use made up pronouns. <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote> His point about free speech as a concept would also carry a lot more weight if he had actually faced any consequences for his speech. But he didn't - he is still employed by University of Toronto, still spouts his ignorant drivel, and is making a ton of money via Patreon because of it.</quote> You obviously have never been to his patreon page since it has nothing to do with the nonsense you're bringing up, but thats what happens when you blah about things you don't have a clue about. Anyways, if bill c 16 does in fact end up forcing compelled speech, then it will have effectively infringed on his free speech. Which Canada doesnt guarantee it's citizens. And why would he have been fired? He hasn't broken any laws yet, tho they did send him those two letters I already mentioned. See Are you ever going to actually start backing up any of the bullshit you spouted earlier? All you've said so far is that his initial concerns haven't fully manifested themselves yet, and again, he's not lawyer, he was a professor who voiced some concerns and was then attacked by a bunch of ignorant SJWs like you. Where exactly am I supposed to find fault with his words? <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote> Second, on transgender issues: sex is more complicated than Male/Female, and it's disingenuous and ignorant to pretend otherwise. There's plenty of information here about that: https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943</quote> What's your point? He said he's not going to use made up pronouns...lol he never claimed trans people don't exist... So<cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote> Gender is even more complicated than Sex, and he clearly does not understand this.</quote> LMAO I knew it, you truly do have absolutely nonclue what Peterson's stance on transgender people is, let alone anything he's actually said! Lol I could smell the ignorance.on you from a mile away. Peterson has forgotten more about gender than you will ever know in your sad little life. You literally think you know more About the differences in gender than Peterson does? Lol this totally proves that you didn't even listen to what he had to say and the formed your own opinion, you got some bad info from some other morning and are now treating it as gospel lol. How embarrassing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 2:03:45 PM #38:	averagejoel posted... Third, on communism: his invocation of No True Scotsman is extremely misplaced. He thinks that when someone says "the Soviet Union wasn't communist", they mean "I could have done better in Stalin's stead." This is false - No True Scotsman is only applicable in the absence of a concrete definition of what constitutes a "Scotsman." There is a concrete definition of Communism, and the Soviet Union did not fit it. That's why it wasn't communist. China did not fit it either. Cuba doesn't fit it now, nor did it ever. Once again, you're just saying he's wrong and that I should just believe you. There's a reason why I made sure to challenge you to come up with an argument with actual substance. I knew you wouldn't be able to. Lol and you finish by literally defending communism, my God no wonder you hate the man, he's demolished your entire world view! Now that we've established you have never even listened to him speak, which explains why you were so woefully ignorant of any of his actual beliefs, why don't you try again by actually refuting things he's actually said. And by refute I don't mean "claim he's wrong and leave it at that" Find actual arguments and things he actually says and PROVE them wrong, don't just tell me you disagree with them, because you're some ignorant nobody and he's a highly accomplished academic whos taught at the most prestigious schools in the world. So you disagreeing with him means less than nothing to me. Give me something to actually respond to instead of you just ignorantly misrepresenting his arguments or just flat out lying about his beliefs. Remember, actual substance! Otherwise you're just spewing your ignorant opinion that no one cares about. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891890821] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote> Third, on communism: his invocation of No True Scotsman is extremely misplaced. He thinks that when someone says "the Soviet Union wasn't communist", they mean "I could have done better in Stalin's stead." This is false - No True Scotsman is only applicable in the absence of a concrete definition of what constitutes a "Scotsman." There is a concrete definition of Communism, and the Soviet Union did not fit it. That's why it wasn't communist. China did not fit it either. Cuba doesn't fit it now, nor did it ever.</quote> Once again, you're just saying he's wrong and that I should just believe you. There's a reason why I made sure to challenge you to come up with an argument with actual substance. I knew you wouldn't be able to. Lol and you finish by literally defending communism, my God no wonder you hate the man, he's demolished your entire world view! Now that we've established you have never even listened to him speak, which explains why you were so woefully ignorant of any of his actual beliefs, why don't you try again by actually refuting things he's actually said. And by refute I don't mean "claim he's wrong and leave it at that" Find actual arguments and things he actually says and PROVE them wrong, don't just tell me you disagree with them, because you're some ignorant nobody and he's a highly accomplished academic whos taught at the most prestigious schools in the world. So you disagreeing with him means less than nothing to me. Give me something to actually respond to instead of you just ignorantly misrepresenting his arguments or just flat out lying about his beliefs. Remember, actual substance! Otherwise you're just spewing your ignorant opinion that no one cares about.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 12/09/17 2:05:09 PM #39:	nicklebro posted... Lol remember when I asked for substance? You're just claiming he's wrong and that I should take your word for it. And of you actually had a up what you were talking about, you'd know that Peterson is arguing this could lead to compelled speech because the legislation is so poorly constructed. Not to mention it's already a lawn in new York. Google it. But this is all irrelevant to your initial claims anyways. JP is a psychologist, not a lawyer, which is why he said he was worried about this being the eventual outcome. Oh and the lawyers at UofT agreed with him and sent him two letters demanding he stop saying that he won't use made up pronouns. would you like some vinaigrette for that word salad? nicklebro posted... You obviously have never been to his patreon page since it has nothing to do with the nonsense you're bringing up, but thats what happens when you blah about things you don't have a clue about. I made no claims about the content of his patreon. I said that his patreon is successful because of his fame, which is a direct result of his refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns. Anyways, if bill c 16 does in fact end up forcing compelled speech, then it will have effectively infringed on his free speech. then it's a good thing that there's no valid indication that it will, and any attempts to say otherwise have been nothing more than transphobic fear-mongering And why would he have been fired? He hasn't broken any laws yet, tho they did send him those two letters I already mentioned. See I said that his point about free speech might have held some water if he had faced any consequences. Which he hasn't. Are you ever going to actually start backing up any of the bullshit you spouted earlier? All you've said so far is that his initial concerns haven't fully manifested themselves yet, and again, he's not lawyer, he was a professor who voiced some concerns and was then attacked by a bunch of ignorant SJWs like you. Where exactly am I supposed to find fault with his words? a second helping of word salad --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:891890895] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Lol remember when I asked for substance? You're just claiming he's wrong and that I should take your word for it. And of you actually had a up what you were talking about, you'd know that Peterson is arguing this could lead to compelled speech because the legislation is so poorly constructed. Not to mention it's already a lawn in new York. Google it. But this is all irrelevant to your initial claims anyways. JP is a psychologist, not a lawyer, which is why he said he was worried about this being the eventual outcome. Oh and the lawyers at UofT agreed with him and sent him two letters demanding he stop saying that he won't use made up pronouns. </quote> would you like some vinaigrette for that word salad? <cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>You obviously have never been to his patreon page since it has nothing to do with the nonsense you're bringing up, but thats what happens when you blah about things you don't have a clue about. </quote> I made no claims about the content of his patreon. I said that his patreon is successful because of his fame, which is a direct result of his refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns. <quote>Anyways, if bill c 16 does in fact end up forcing compelled speech, then it will have effectively infringed on his free speech.</quote> then it's a good thing that there's no valid indication that it will, and any attempts to say otherwise have been nothing more than transphobic fear-mongering <quote>And why would he have been fired? He hasn't broken any laws yet, tho they did send him those two letters I already mentioned. See</quote> I said that his point about free speech might have held some water if he had faced any consequences. Which he hasn't. <quote>Are you ever going to actually start backing up any of the bullshit you spouted earlier? All you've said so far is that his initial concerns haven't fully manifested themselves yet, and again, he's not lawyer, he was a professor who voiced some concerns and was then attacked by a bunch of ignorant SJWs like you. Where exactly am I supposed to find fault with his words?</quote> a second helping of word salad</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 12/09/17 2:08:10 PM #40:	nicklebro posted... Once again, you're just saying he's wrong and that I should just believe you. There's a reason why I made sure to challenge you to come up with an argument with actual substance. I knew you wouldn't be able to. Lol and you finish by literally defending communism, my God no wonder you hate the man, he's demolished your entire world view! there is a concrete definition of communism, and the Soviet Union did not fit it. Therefore, Jordan Peterson's framing of the "The Soviet Union wasn't communist" argument is incorrect Now that we've established you have never even listened to him speak, which explains why you were so woefully ignorant of any of his actual beliefs, why don't you try again by actually refuting things he's actually said. And by refute I don't mean "claim he's wrong and leave it at that" I did. You just didn't listen Find actual arguments and things he actually says and PROVE them wrong. I did. You just didn't listen Give me something to actually respond to instead of you just ignorantly misrepresenting his arguments or just flat out lying about his beliefs. Remember, actual substance! Otherwise you're just spewing your ignorant opinion that no one cares about. I did. Not my fault you didn't respond to it --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:891891052] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Once again, you're just saying he's wrong and that I should just believe you. There's a reason why I made sure to challenge you to come up with an argument with actual substance. I knew you wouldn't be able to. Lol and you finish by literally defending communism, my God no wonder you hate the man, he's demolished your entire world view!</quote> there is a concrete definition of communism, and the Soviet Union did not fit it. Therefore, Jordan Peterson's framing of the "The Soviet Union wasn't communist" argument is incorrect <quote>Now that we've established you have never even listened to him speak, which explains why you were so woefully ignorant of any of his actual beliefs, why don't you try again by actually refuting things he's actually said. And by refute I don't mean "claim he's wrong and leave it at that"</quote> I did. You just didn't listen <quote>Find actual arguments and things he actually says and PROVE them wrong.</quote> I did. You just didn't listen <quote>Give me something to actually respond to instead of you just ignorantly misrepresenting his arguments or just flat out lying about his beliefs. Remember, actual substance! Otherwise you're just spewing your ignorant opinion that no one cares about.</quote> I did. Not my fault you didn't respond to it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 2:14:13 PM #41:	https://tinyurl.com/yav6zydo Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination. Hmmm, maybe he did read it, and you were talking out your ass! Really man, even if it doesn't actually come to pass and the legislation is altered to avoid this, you're saying he's wrong for being concerned? And since you're probably ignorant of this fact I'll let you know, Peterson never said he wouldn't call a trans woman "she" or a trans man "he", he said he wouldn't use made up words like Zim and Xi and all this other phony nonsense. This is because he understands gender far better than you ever will, and while it isn't just two strict labels, it isn't a spectrum either. It's a bimodal distribution. I'll give you time to educate yourself on all this nonsense you got wrong. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891891372] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>https://tinyurl.com/yav6zydo <quote>Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination.</quote> Hmmm, maybe he did read it, and you were talking out your ass! Really man, even if it doesn't actually come to pass and the legislation is altered to avoid this, you're saying he's wrong for being concerned? And since you're probably ignorant of this fact I'll let you know, Peterson never said he wouldn't call a trans woman "she" or a trans man "he", he said he wouldn't use made up words like Zim and Xi and all this other phony nonsense. This is because he understands gender far better than you ever will, and while it isn't just two strict labels, it isn't a spectrum either. It's a bimodal distribution. I'll give you time to educate yourself on all this nonsense you got wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PesticideDream 12/09/17 2:18:51 PM #42:	I know this is a troll post but I think by definition, liberal Democrats are never happy. Every one I've seen on forums, they're liberal because they're either depressed, get bullied, gladly to be cucked and disrespected, are poor more because it's their "right" to buy new iPhones over food than because of actual unchangeable life circumstances, and have constant identity crises and defined more by how many liberal buzzwords they can be than by actual character. Plus, they're generally slackers who do bare minimum work, so they isolate themselves and have way too much free time to be mad at anything and everything that even slightly makes them feel bad. <cite>PesticideDream posted [p:891891578] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>I know this is a troll post but I think by definition, liberal Democrats are never happy. Every one I've seen on forums, they're liberal because they're either depressed, get bullied, gladly to be cucked and disrespected, are poor more because it's their "right" to buy new iPhones over food than because of actual unchangeable life circumstances, and have constant identity crises and defined more by how many liberal buzzwords they can be than by actual character. Plus, they're generally slackers who do bare minimum work, so they isolate themselves and have way too much free time to be mad at anything and everything that even slightly makes them feel bad.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 12/09/17 2:20:11 PM #43:	PesticideDream posted... I know this is a troll post Thanks for warning us ahead of time --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:891891632] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>PesticideDream posted...</cite> <quote>I know this is a troll post</quote> Thanks for warning us ahead of time</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 12/09/17 2:29:35 PM #44:	nicklebro posted... https://tinyurl.com/yav6zydo Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination. Hmmm, maybe he did read it, and you were talking out your ass! Really man, even if it doesn't actually come to pass and the legislation is altered to avoid this, you're saying he's wrong for being concerned? And since you're probably ignorant of this fact I'll let you know, Peterson never said he wouldn't call a trans woman "she" or a trans man "he", he said he wouldn't use made up words like Zim and Xi and all this other phony nonsense. This is because he understands gender far better than you ever will, and while it isn't just two strict labels, it isn't a spectrum either. It's a bimodal distribution. I'll give you time to educate yourself on all this nonsense you got wrong. that article is baseless fear-mongering I'm absolutely saying that he's wrong for being concerned. Nonbinary people exist. Gender-nonconforming people exist. I've worked with many of them, and they've always been perfectly content with "they" as a pronoun. Even if someone did want to use different gender-neutral pronouns, is that such a difficult thing to learn? It's like three new words. And I don't particularly care whether people think gender is a spectrum or a bimodal distribution. the fact is that people exist who feel that a pronoun other than "he" or "she" describes them, and they should be respected too edit: also, I assume this means you're conceding the other points. so, thank you for that. --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:891892074] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>https://tinyurl.com/yav6zydo <quote>Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination.</quote> Hmmm, maybe he did read it, and you were talking out your ass! Really man, even if it doesn't actually come to pass and the legislation is altered to avoid this, you're saying he's wrong for being concerned? And since you're probably ignorant of this fact I'll let you know, Peterson never said he wouldn't call a trans woman "she" or a trans man "he", he said he wouldn't use made up words like Zim and Xi and all this other phony nonsense. This is because he understands gender far better than you ever will, and while it isn't just two strict labels, it isn't a spectrum either. It's a bimodal distribution. I'll give you time to educate yourself on all this nonsense you got wrong.</quote> that article is baseless fear-mongering I'm absolutely saying that he's wrong for being concerned. Nonbinary people exist. Gender-nonconforming people exist. I've worked with many of them, and they've always been perfectly content with "they" as a pronoun. Even if someone did want to use different gender-neutral pronouns, is that such a difficult thing to learn? It's like three new words. And I don't particularly care whether people think gender is a spectrum or a bimodal distribution. the fact is that people exist who feel that a pronoun other than "he" or "she" describes them, and they should be respected too edit: also, I assume this means you're conceding the other points. so, thank you for that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 2:32:20 PM #45:	averagejoel posted... would you like some vinaigrette for that word salad? So you can't respond? didn't think so. averagejoel posted... I made no claims about the content of his patreon. I said that his patreon is successful because of his fame, which is a direct result of his refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns. And you base this on pure speculation. His patreon page wouldn't be popular without actual substance behind it, something you are obviously completely clueless of. averagejoel posted... then it's a good thing that there's no valid indication that it will, and any attempts to say otherwise have been nothing more than transphobic fear-mongering lol already proved this wrong: https://tinyurl.com/yav6zydo Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination. averagejoel posted... I said that his point about free speech might have held some water if he had faced any consequences. Which he hasn't. So your argument is compelled speech isn't infringing on free speech? Again, what is your actual point here? averagejoel posted... there is a concrete definition of communism, and the Soviet Union did not fit it. Therefore, Jordan Peterson's framing of the "The Soviet Union wasn't communist" argument is incorrect Once again proving that you're getting your info second hand. Regardless, this is finally your chance to add some substance to one of your abortions of a post, go ahead, nitpick at a semantics and act as if that means a damn thing. Really man, what point do you think you're making here? Lol or are you literally trying to argue that Peterson labeling the USSR as communist despite there being minor differences between it and the "concrete definition" proves he "doesn't have a clue about communism" I'm ignoring the substanceless troll parts, there's no reason to entertain your immaturity. Lol now please, leave your opinion at the door this time. No one cares what you think. Come back with facts. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891892207] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>would you like some vinaigrette for that word salad? </quote> So you can't respond? didn't think so. <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>I made no claims about the content of his patreon. I said that his patreon is successful because of his fame, which is a direct result of his refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns. </quote> And you base this on pure speculation. His patreon page wouldn't be popular without actual substance behind it, something you are obviously completely clueless of. <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>then it's a good thing that there's no valid indication that it will, and any attempts to say otherwise have been nothing more than transphobic fear-mongering </quote> lol already proved this wrong: https://tinyurl.com/yav6zydo <quote>Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination.</quote> <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>I said that his point about free speech might have held some water if he had faced any consequences. Which he hasn't. </quote> So your argument is compelled speech isn't infringing on free speech? Again, what is your actual point here? <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>there is a concrete definition of communism, and the Soviet Union did not fit it. Therefore, Jordan Peterson's framing of the "The Soviet Union wasn't communist" argument is incorrect </quote> Once again proving that you're getting your info second hand. Regardless, this is finally your chance to add some substance to one of your abortions of a post, go ahead, nitpick at a semantics and act as if that means a damn thing. Really man, what point do you think you're making here? Lol or are you literally trying to argue that Peterson labeling the USSR as communist despite there being minor differences between it and the "concrete definition" proves he "doesn't have a clue about communism" I'm ignoring the substanceless troll parts, there's no reason to entertain your immaturity. Lol now please, leave your opinion at the door this time. No one cares what you think. Come back with facts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_Goggalor_ 12/09/17 2:33:59 PM #46:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... https://tinyurl.com/yav6zydo Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination. Hmmm, maybe he did read it, and you were talking out your ass! Really man, even if it doesn't actually come to pass and the legislation is altered to avoid this, you're saying he's wrong for being concerned? And since you're probably ignorant of this fact I'll let you know, Peterson never said he wouldn't call a trans woman "she" or a trans man "he", he said he wouldn't use made up words like Zim and Xi and all this other phony nonsense. This is because he understands gender far better than you ever will, and while it isn't just two strict labels, it isn't a spectrum either. It's a bimodal distribution. I'll give you time to educate yourself on all this nonsense you got wrong. that article is baseless fear-mongering I'm absolutely saying that he's wrong for being concerned. Nonbinary people exist. Gender-nonconforming people exist. I've worked with many of them, and they've always been perfectly content with "they" as a pronoun. Even if someone did want to use different gender-neutral pronouns, is that such a difficult thing to learn? It's like three new words. And I don't particularly care whether people think gender is a spectrum or a bimodal distribution. the fact is that people exist who feel that a pronoun other than "he" or "she" describes them, and they should be respected too edit: also, I assume this means you're conceding the other points. so, thank you for that. No. No they shouldn't. We used to ridicule people that were weird or thought they were special. --- Now playing: Destroy All Humans <cite>_Goggalor_ posted [p:891892282] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>https://tinyurl.com/yav6zydo <quote>Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination.</quote> Hmmm, maybe he did read it, and you were talking out your ass! Really man, even if it doesn't actually come to pass and the legislation is altered to avoid this, you're saying he's wrong for being concerned? And since you're probably ignorant of this fact I'll let you know, Peterson never said he wouldn't call a trans woman "she" or a trans man "he", he said he wouldn't use made up words like Zim and Xi and all this other phony nonsense. This is because he understands gender far better than you ever will, and while it isn't just two strict labels, it isn't a spectrum either. It's a bimodal distribution. I'll give you time to educate yourself on all this nonsense you got wrong.</quote> that article is baseless fear-mongering I'm absolutely saying that he's wrong for being concerned. Nonbinary people exist. Gender-nonconforming people exist. I've worked with many of them, and they've always been perfectly content with "they" as a pronoun. Even if someone did want to use different gender-neutral pronouns, is that such a difficult thing to learn? It's like three new words. And I don't particularly care whether people think gender is a spectrum or a bimodal distribution. the fact is that people exist who feel that a pronoun other than "he" or "she" describes them, and they should be respected too edit: also, I assume this means you're conceding the other points. so, thank you for that.</quote> No. No they shouldn't. We used to ridicule people that were weird or thought they were special.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krojen 12/09/17 2:34:33 PM #47:	Orange you happy ur a conservative republican? ~~get it? jajaja~~ --- http://i.imgur.com/hI4hAMb.jpg <cite>Krojen posted [p:891892319] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>Orange you happy ur a conservative republican? get it? jajaja</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 2:38:34 PM #48:	averagejoel posted... that article is baseless fear-mongering LMAO averagejoel posted... I'm absolutely saying that he's wrong for being concerned. Nonbinary people exist. Gender-nonconforming people exist. I've worked with many of them, and they've always been perfectly content with "they" as a pronoun. and if they aren't? and Jordan Peterson has already addressed this anyways, you'd know that if you weren't completely ignorant on the subject. averagejoel posted... Even if someone did want to use different gender-neutral pronouns, is that such a difficult thing to learn? It's like three new words. LOL 3 huh? once again proving you don't have a clue what you're talking about. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_protologisms/third_person_singular_gender_neutral_pronouns its a little more than 3 lmao. Jordan Peterson knew this. You didn't. averagejoel posted... And I don't particularly care whether people think gender is a spectrum or a bimodal distribution. the fact is that people exist who feel that a pronoun other than "he" or "she" describes them, and they should be respected too Respect is earned. If we respect everyone right off the bat, then it means nothing. And it doesn't matter what you think describes you, we don't base pronouns on what people feel like. averagejoel posted... edit: also, I assume this means you're conceding the other points. so, thank you for that. Seeing as how you failed to make even one point I don't see what you're thanking me for. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891892544] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>that article is baseless fear-mongering </quote> LMAO <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>I'm absolutely saying that he's wrong for being concerned. Nonbinary people exist. Gender-nonconforming people exist. I've worked with many of them, and they've always been perfectly content with "they" as a pronoun. </quote> and if they aren't? and Jordan Peterson has already addressed this anyways, you'd know that if you weren't completely ignorant on the subject. <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>Even if someone did want to use different gender-neutral pronouns, is that such a difficult thing to learn? It's like three new words. </quote> LOL 3 huh? once again proving you don't have a clue what you're talking about. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_protologisms/third_person_singular_gender_neutral_pronouns its a little more than 3 lmao. Jordan Peterson knew this. You didn't. <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>And I don't particularly care whether people think gender is a spectrum or a bimodal distribution. the fact is that people exist who feel that a pronoun other than "he" or "she" describes them, and they should be respected too </quote> Respect is earned. If we respect everyone right off the bat, then it means nothing. And it doesn't matter what you think describes you, we don't base pronouns on what people feel like. <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>edit: also, I assume this means you're conceding the other points. so, thank you for that. </quote> Seeing as how you failed to make even one point I don't see what you're thanking me for.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/09/17 2:39:51 PM #49:	PesticideDream posted... I know this is a troll post but I think by definition, liberal Democrats are never happy. Oh you're wrong, I'm a liberal and usually vote Democrat, I'm happy quite a bit. Way happier than any conservative I've ever met. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:891892606] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote><cite>PesticideDream posted...</cite> <quote>I know this is a troll post but I think by definition, liberal Democrats are never happy.</quote> Oh you're wrong, I'm a liberal and usually vote Democrat, I'm happy quite a bit. Way happier than any conservative I've ever met.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 12/09/17 2:40:57 PM #50:	nicklebro, you're not listening to me. you think you're refuting what I'm saying, but it's not an argument - it's me educating you and occasionally refuting one of your misinformed opinions --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:891892666] in Aren't you... [t:76077525]...</cite> <quote>nicklebro, you're not listening to me. you think you're refuting what I'm saying, but it's not an argument - it's me educating you and occasionally refuting one of your misinformed opinions</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > Aren't you happy that you're a liberal Democrat? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Aren't you happy that you're a liberal Democrat?