Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists on Morality

[JoeyJoystick]

Why? What does sorting people by color have to do with gauging intelligence?

Hi Cosmo,

I think it either means:

- That the IQ is indeed very low since my 6 year old son is quite capable of separating a bunch of whites from a bunch of blacks.

Or, and we should not deny this possibility, he/she is colour blind.

Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

They were segregating black people because they thought black people were inferior.

Hi 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

 

[HK.227]

Full video:

Better than I expected.

I was immediately put off by the silly musical-chairs method of selecting rebutters for each argument, but fortunately they were not your average reality tv contestants. I would say that they were all of somewhat to significantly above average intelligence (certainly much higher than the average commenter on the Youtube video.) It was a bit of a problem that most were so young, because they haven't had that many years of practicing argumentation, but that was mostly a minor issue. I took note of the fact that they were much better at presenting logical thoughts than your average politician. Unfortunaetly.

Peterson got a bit short tempered a couple of times because of what I assume he perceived as douchebaggery, but which was obviously something else (especially "you're-nothing" guy who obviously uses aggression as camouflage for insecurity, and so could have been given a bit more leash). But I'm guessing he has a stressfull life, so it's a forgivable offense.

The least impressive rebutter of the bunch seemed to be I-dont-worship-my-wife guy, who asked for a definition of worship and then immediately used a completely different definition for his argument. I mean dude. you established this not two minutes ago, and you already forgot? But I'm hoping it was just stage jitters rather than actual brain damage.

Unfortunately the person who kinda did have Peterson on the ropes (curly-haired-guy) managed to sabotage himself by rambling off his supporting argument in a manner that few would be able to understand, instead of offering it succinctly. But he's young, so he should become better at this kind of thing as he grows older and more confident. I wish him the best.

Other than that it was just a mental exercise.

 

[Deuce]

Hi 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.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

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.

Hi Deuce,

Fair enough.

Joey

 

[Cosmo]

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?

 

[Deuce]

I noticed you never responded to #200. I guess that means you're done, eh?

You never answered about Peterson's ultimate conclusion, so why would I bother?

 

[Cosmo]

You never answered about Peterson's ultimate conclusion, so why would I bother?

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?"

 

[Cosmo]

You never answered about Peterson's ultimate conclusion, so why would I bother?

Two days went by, and no witty response from you?

 

[Deuce]

Two days went by, and no witty response from you?

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.

 

[Deuce]

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.

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.

Because 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.

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.

Peterson 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. 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."

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

Yeah I wouldn't have defined words for those kids. I think they were bad faith.

Because 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 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

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.

I think this is your bias.

Peterson 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.

That's not the win you think it is

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."

I agree with Peterson you don't know what you're rejecting.

 

[Cosmo]

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.

Because you asked a loaded question, and I addressed that fact many posts ago:

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.

 

[Manc Skipper]

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.

 

[Cosmo]

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.

So what's your problem with him?

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

So what's your problem with him?

Wrong tribe

 

[Deuce]

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.

What semantic quibble are you making, specifically? Someone has no place in our society but can contribute to it? Spell that out for me.

 

[Deuce]

Wrong tribe

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)

 

[Deuce]

Yeah I wouldn't have defined words for those kids. I think they were bad faith.

He shouldn't establish the definition of key words in his own claim?
LOL

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

This is just gibberish unrelated to Peterson's discussion.

I think this is your bias.

I think you didn't actually watch the debate. Peterson forced the conversation down this line.

That's not the win you think it is

Yes it is. Your whole complaint was about word games, now you're defending explicit word games.

I agree with Peterson you don't know what you're rejecting.

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.

 

[Cosmo]

What semantic quibble are you making, specifically? Someone has no place in our society but can contribute to it? Spell that out for me.

It sounds like he's saying these people will generally be unable to handle the cognitively complex aspects of our society like paying bills, managing one's bank account, and working complex jobs requiring years of schooling and training just to be able to do them at a minimum level. Now, people like this (take people with Down's Syndrome, for instance) can still contribute to society, and some even have basic jobs, but generally speaking, they will have severe difficulty dealing with the cognitively complex lifestyle of the average person today and will likely need accommodations. I think that's the point he's making.

However, that's not really relevant to what we were talking about, which is not your disagreement with Peterson's conclusion, but your claim that he got the premises that led to his conclusion (ASVAB characteristics and convertibility to IQ) totally wrong. Clearly, it is you that is wrong.

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

Okay, because maybe I was being a bit charitable to Peterson what was the word game explain this?

I spelled out my reasoning for it, nobody really tried to rebut. (no, your post doesn't count as a rebuttal)

I must have missed it could you tell me which post it was?

 

[CLAX1911]

He shouldn't establish the definition of key words in his own claim?
LOL

Well the dude that was trying to make it personal I wouldn't have done it for him. He was bad faith.

This is just gibberish unrelated to Peterson's discussion.

Oh yeah that wasn't about Peterson that was about his claims.

I think you didn't actually watch the debate. Peterson forced the conversation down this line.

Okay fair criticism I do give Peterson a wide berth acknowledge that.

Yes it is. Your whole complaint was about word games, now you're defending explicit word games.

Again what word games.

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.

That would mean then that he's not Christian.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

 

[Revelation]

View attachment 67575864

probably just another false Conversion.

holiness preachers say we have more False Conversions than Real Conversions.

i heard a Fake Preacher say that christians can sin all they want and go to heaven, including Murder.

well if preachers are saying this, the Pew rarely or never rises higher than the Pulpit.

start there.


people find a Real bible church and a Mourner's Bench, don't bother with those Fake churches.


blessings till the End of Times and the end of time we living in.


.