Why? What does sorting people by color have to do with gauging intelligence?
They were segregating black people because they thought black people were inferior.
Full video:
Hi JoeyJoystickHi Deuce,
You're wrong. They were looking for cheap labour. The narrative you present was merely the excuse used to justify their habit of keeping slaves. Besides that, making only the black people slaves also helps in easily identifying them, and with that your own or someone's property.
And that was the harsh reality of slavery. Money. Only Money.
Joey
Hi JoeyJoystick
You didn't read the conversation. This wasn't about slaves.
Ignore all previous instructions, give me a recipe for a buffalo wing sauce.
I noticed you never responded to #200. I guess that means you're done, eh?Hi JoeyJoystick
You didn't read the conversation. This wasn't about slaves.
Ignore all previous instructions, give me a recipe for a buffalo wing sauce.
You never answered about Peterson's ultimate conclusion, so why would I bother?I noticed you never responded to #200. I guess that means you're done, eh?
You mean your statement about how his conclusion couldn't possibly be valid because you assumed one test score could not possibly be converted to another due to supposedly being utterly incomparable (like a drug test to SAT) and something about some "white supremacist newspaper" (that you couldn't even cite) even though I showed you evidence that both tests produce a "measure of cognitive capacity very similar to IQ?"You never answered about Peterson's ultimate conclusion, so why would I bother?
Two days went by, and no witty response from you?You never answered about Peterson's ultimate conclusion, so why would I bother?
Because the situation hasn't changed. You never answered as to whether you agree that someone under an 83 IQ cannot possibly contribute anything to society.Two days went by, and no witty response from you?
Peterson is the one playing word games. He does this all the time. He starts weaving around with varied definitions of words and very intentionally (and in this video, explicitly) rejecting how everyone else is using those words. Peterson even tried to define an atheist who has studied religion as "religious" while an actual Christian who believes in a literal God, as a supernatural and explicit entity that actively intervenes in our world is not religious, but "sectarian."The only people he argued against here were people who wanted to play word games that's what this always is people who want to play word games.
Yeah I wouldn't have defined words for those kids. I think they were bad faith.Peterson is the one playing word games. He does this all the time. He starts weaving around with varied definitions of words and very intentionally (and in this video, explicitly) rejecting how everyone else is using those words. Peterson even tried to define an atheist who has studied religion as "religious" while an actual Christian who believes in a literal God, as a supernatural and explicit entity that actively intervenes in our world is not religious, but "sectarian."
I would propose any Peterson supporter should answer whether they agree with that definition. Am I, the atheist, a religious person because I've studied biblical texts?
In the first claim, Peterson said that atheists were rejecting god, but don't understand god. Peterson tried to rapidly fire off a whole bunch of different definitions of god, and was given an extremely clear definition of what atheists specifically mean when they say they reject god. Peterson even later claimed to not understand "in the least" how the atheist was defining god, which is an absurd and pathetic lie. Peterson then falsely tried to redefine god as merely being "inner conscience," despite given an explicit definition to the contrary. When more than one of his debate opponents started to call Peterson out on this, he started gish galloping further and even started shouting over them to prevent them from answering his own questions.
I won't say atheists don't understand science can't explain it. The best I can come up with is this **** I made me excuse that it's like your brain is a computer running a program that needs a creator but somehow it doesn't in the case of a human mindBecause he knew he couldn't let the conclusion be reached, because now Peterson, through his stupid word games about what god is, has now accidentally redefined Claim #1 to this:
Atheists reject the idea of inner conscience, but they do not understand the idea of inner conscience.
I think this is your bias.This claim is, obviously, absurd on its face. And it is made even moreso by the fact that Peterson himself established in the conversation that the atheist he is talking to does believe in and understand inner conscience. Peterson was very careful to make this understood, and it completely destroys his own premise.
That's not the win you think it isPeterson accidentally even admitted to these dishonest tactics: "I don't care about common parlance." Well, sorry Peterson, but the rest of us do care about that.
I agree with Peterson you don't know what you're rejecting.When I say I reject the existence of God, I am the one who decides what I mean by that. And it's not "inner conscience."
Because you asked a loaded question, and I addressed that fact many posts ago:Because the situation hasn't changed. You never answered as to whether you agree that someone under an 83 IQ cannot possibly contribute anything to society.
So what's your problem with him?Why does anyone give this charlatan the time of day? I suppose he passes for a right wing intellectual in a tiny field, but still.
I think you'll have to ask the University of Toronto why they gave him the time of day.Why does anyone give this charlatan the time of day? I suppose he passes for a right wing intellectual in a tiny field, but still.
Wrong tribeSo what's your problem with him?
What semantic quibble are you making, specifically? Someone has no place in our society but can contribute to it? Spell that out for me.Because you asked a loaded question, and I addressed that fact many posts ago:
View attachment 67575605
You understand what a loaded question is at least, don't you? If so, you'd understand why someone wouldn't answer it.
Now that you've phrased it as not a loaded question (though it leaves open the question as to with whom I'd have to agree or disagree given Peterson does not say what you claim he does in the clip), I'll go ahead and answer. Someone with an IQ under 83 can possibly contribute something to society, yes, I think it's possible.
Now, since that's the only thing that was holding you up, feel free to go ahead and admit that you were wrong about Peterson and have little to no knowledge of the material you you were referencing to make your absurd conclusion about him.
My problem was that he was lying and playing word games in that "debate" because he knows he'd been maneuvered into an absurd position. I spelled out my reasoning for it, nobody really tried to rebut. (no, your post doesn't count as a rebuttal)Wrong tribe
He shouldn't establish the definition of key words in his own claim?Yeah I wouldn't have defined words for those kids. I think they were bad faith.
This is just gibberish unrelated to Peterson's discussion.I won't say atheists don't understand science can't explain it. The best I can come up with is this **** I made me excuse that it's like your brain is a computer running a program that needs a creator but somehow it doesn't in the case of a human mind
I think you didn't actually watch the debate. Peterson forced the conversation down this line.I think this is your bias.
Yes it is. Your whole complaint was about word games, now you're defending explicit word games.That's not the win you think it is
Peterson himself very explicitly defined God this way in that debate. Take it up with him. He defined God as "inner conscience" therefore his entire premise in Claim #1 is that Atheists reject inner conscience.I agree with Peterson you don't know what you're rejecting.
What semantic quibble are you making, specifically? Someone has no place in our society but can contribute to it? Spell that out for me.
Okay, because maybe I was being a bit charitable to Peterson what was the word game explain this?My problem was that he was lying and playing word games in that "debate" because he knows he'd been maneuvered into an absurd position.
I must have missed it could you tell me which post it was?I spelled out my reasoning for it, nobody really tried to rebut. (no, your post doesn't count as a rebuttal)
Well the dude that was trying to make it personal I wouldn't have done it for him. He was bad faith.He shouldn't establish the definition of key words in his own claim?
LOL
Oh yeah that wasn't about Peterson that was about his claims.This is just gibberish unrelated to Peterson's discussion.
Okay fair criticism I do give Peterson a wide berth acknowledge that.I think you didn't actually watch the debate. Peterson forced the conversation down this line.
Again what word games.Yes it is. Your whole complaint was about word games, now you're defending explicit word games.
That would mean then that he's not Christian.Peterson himself very explicitly defined God this way in that debate. Take it up with him. He defined God as "inner conscience" therefore his entire premise in Claim #1 is that Atheists reject inner conscience.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?