Criticism of Jordan Peterson thread v3

Is Jordan Peterson a genius?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 24.4%
  • No

    Votes: 17 41.5%
  • I think he's a genius is in his field and in key areas but I object to views he has outside it

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • I think he's a genius and right on most issues I care about and can overlook imperfections.

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • He's an idiot in every area, even in psychology, and clearly was not deserving of being his position

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I think he's intellectually capable and is problematic because of what he does with his capabilities

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • There are select issues I vehemently disagree on but he's of very high intellect in most arenas

    Votes: 9 22.0%
  • He has no scholarly/intellectual capabilities and only appears to have any if you're jsut stupid

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • He's just a man going through life the best he can, but he often has no idea what he's talking about

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • He's genuinely smart but not truly a genius

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe, although he has been slipping in relevance before Peterson came to the scene, I think. I can't recall him being invited to any "mainstream shows", or being made articles of, in quite a while.



Obviously. Still, it's a valid enough point that he raises (even if he has to bullshit his way through it). The problem is that he thinks that Peterson is a sign of intellectual corrosion, even though that corrosion has happened long before Peterson. Peterson represents a return to normalcy, more like..

He calls him a charlatan, I don't think that was an endorsement of his intellectual capacity. I don't think he would call it intellectual corrosion if he doesn't accept that the other person is an intellectual.

He might have flaws (although the article doesn't really do a honest job of portraying his flaws), but he is still an academic who knows something. It's the "know-nothings" who have had their say for the past few years. I get the sense that , through all the bullshit, the article's writer would actually prefer a David Duke or a Richard Spencer in charge of "right-wing intellectualism", rather than somebody who actually tries to remain somewhat objective, and compromise when proven to be wrong.

He doesn't strike me as the sort of person who believes that anyone not on his side of the political spectrum has any redeeming qualities.

A lot of people seem to actually want Peterson to be the women-hating, rape-apologizing, secretly racist, fascist, sexist, religiously zealous monster that they claim to despise, because it's easier to live with your ideological rivals being irrational and illogical and thoroughly immoral, who can be discredited from a moral high horse, compared to actually having to debate them on a factual basis.

I get that. This guy took the long way around the "you're dumb" argument and lied to get there. I don't really see that argument as having any merit.
 
You started your interaction with me by telling me that you didn't bother reading my entire statement. I took you at your word, and decided not to respond to the question you asked.

I think that was an appropriate response. If you tell me that you corrected yourself, read the entire statement, and you still have questions, only then would I be compelled to answer questions specific to the topic of discussion.

Don't be disingenuous and then proceed to make me out to be "the town idiot." You told you were not interested in what I had to say (by admitting to have not read my full statement), so why should I answer your question?
Lol. Good stuff.

Your statement began with a lie. I asked you to clarify, you acted offended and admitted you don't believe the statement to be true. I'm not making you out to be anything. It's all there in your posts for everyone to read.

Why should you answer my questions on a specific point in a forum all about making points and counterpoints while trying to win debates, or in pursuit of truths? I'll let you try to figure that one out on your own. Also, asking for clarification on specifics is an indicator of interest in the opinion that was asked to be clarified. Otherwise I would have dismissed your post, and clearly that's exactly what I should have done.
 
LOL I thought you agreed with me that JP is actually being at least somewhat prescriptive when he described enforced monogamy rather than just restating status quo?

It more fair to say that Peterson makes suggestions. Peterson has said on multiple occasions that many of the problems the world faces are extremely difficult to solve, nobody really knows how to solve them and we should not be hasty when it comes to attempting to solve the world's problems. That does not mean we should not think of things and make suggestions. He is the last person who would want to see the state enforce anything. One of the reasons his popularity grew is because he was fighting against what he considered state-legislated pronoun use which he strongly opposes.

I have a hard time seeing Jordan Peterson lobbying the state to legislate enforced monogamy. Suggesting something is far different than trying to forcefully impose it on others.
 
Just noting the comic irony, so I might be, if I ever watched his program.

I'm usually texting from a marine vessel using satellite because of not being in range of cell towers inspite of a booster. Everything is abbreviated for obvious reasons. Rdg for Rodger, bin for been ect . They pay big so I have to laugh at some dweeb making comments when their not doing shite except shooting their mouth off in the wr.
 
I'm usually texting from a marine vessel using satellite because of not being in range of cell towers inspite of a booster. Everything is abbreviated for obvious reasons. Rdg for Rodger, bin for been ect . They pay big so I have to laugh at some dweeb making comments when their not doing shite except shooting their mouth off in the wr.
<Waaah>

LOL
I was commenting on your use of "dumb donwned", as in "so dumb downed watching the likes of Bill Maher and company and responding like clapping seals they don't even recognized when their talking absolute rubish and have been totally destroyed with logic..." Point is, you don't get to call anyone else "dumb downed".
 
As I've said, Peterson hit pieces have become a genre unto themselves, but this one in the "progressive" Jewish outlet Forward has to take the cake:
Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred?
https://forward.com/news/national/400597/is-jordan-peterson-enabling-jew-hatred/


Apparently it's been edited a LOT since it came out last week, it was that bad. Here was the initial picture at the top of the article:

UXrVN98-



I like the subtlety. But apparently they've also edited out a bunch of stuff where they showed examples white supremacists sarcastically giving props to Peterson but acting as if it were genuine. Peterson is overall hated by white supremacists that I've seen online, they deride him as a "radical centrist", because he speaks out against identity politics in all its forms including their shitty ideology. But this is still a tendentious pile of crap, apparently Peterson answering a question about Jewish intelligence was the catalyst for this hit piece.

Peterson’s willingness to answer questions about “Jewish success” and his interest in IQ literature is “suspicious” said Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of history at Emory University and author of “Denying the Holocaust,” who won a libel case in Britain against prominent Holocaust denier David Irving.

Lipstadt, who said she has not read Peterson’s work, said that Peterson’s statements on Jewish intelligence reminded her of Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology who the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as “the neo-Nazi movement’s favorite academic.” MacDonald has written several books criticizing Jewish intellectual culture. (Peterson links to a critique of one of MacDonald’s books at the end of his blog post on Jewish intelligence.) Lipstadt said that MacDonald’s academic language obscures the anti-Semitism behind his opinions. She worries the same is true of Peterson.

“It’s not [Holocaust] denial, but when people start asking questions like that, I begin to get leery,” Lipstadt said. “The question is, is he a self-help guru who find the Holocaust a convenient way of attracting attention, or is there serious thought going on here?”

Apparently they edited in that line about her never reading Peterson after the fact. Freakin hilarious, guilt by association is bad enough, but now it's guilt by someone who's never heard of him drawing a parallel to someone he has no association at all with? Apparently what really pissed these Jews off is that Peterson constantly discusses the Holocaust from the psychological angle, how could otherwise normal people be driven to commit acts like this? When so many Jews seem to want to pretend like such a genocide could never happen to any other group besides them, and any discussion that doesn't begin and end with antisemitism is bigoted.

To their credit they published a response to this, although curiously it's in the opinion section whereas the hit piece was filed under "news":

https://forward.com/opinion/401008/no-jordan-peterson-is-not-an-anti-semite/

I'd be interested to read the original, unedited hit piece. My fiance had read it and told me about it, and said it was laughably bad. I think that they may have even edited in this final part to try and atone for how misleading the original was:

Peterson has repeatedly said that instead of being suspicious of Jews, the world should be grateful that there are so many Jewish geniuses.

“They’re a resource you don’t want to squander,” he said.
 
There will always be unwanted men and women but society should, through social norms and not the law, try to reduce their numbers. Peterson probably didn't have the kind of arranged marriage I described earlier in mind, his idea was likely at a wider level and not at the level of an insular community, but the effect is similar in that men and women, should they meet a certain minimum standard concerning things like education, get paired together regardless of their social skills so that's an example.

And here policy can help and unfortunately I think Peterson wouldn't be so quick to admit that and suggest the kinds of policy solutions that could alleviate this issue given his appeal to libertarians. I've always believed that parents should get a whole host of benefits that would allow them to go back to school so as to make starting a family before the commitment to an education more viable. Stuff like sole access to favorable loans and grants, housing, admission etc.

He is prescriptive but not at the level of policy. He'd like to see a change in our culture not unlike what I described before, where marriage and parenthood are considered rites of passage for a normal, balanced adult life instead of optional, personal choices. No one would technically force men and women to get married but they'd have these norms internalized. Its socially and implicitly enforced monogamy, not legal and explicitly enforced monogamy as was implied in the NYT article.

Not much I can disagree with here. And to be clear I did hold out the possibility that Peterson was talking about the softer form of enforced monogamy you described above. What I thought was BS was the idea that he was only describing why we have anti polygamist laws now. He is certainly taken it at least a little bit further. I am still not sold on it him at all, for the reasons I mentioned, but respect your view here.
 
It more fair to say that Peterson makes suggestions. Peterson has said on multiple occasions that many of the problems the world faces are extremely difficult to solve, nobody really knows how to solve them and we should not be hasty when it comes to attempting to solve the world's problems. That does not mean we should not think of things and make suggestions. He is the last person who would want to see the state enforce anything. One of the reasons his popularity grew is because he was fighting against what he considered state-legislated pronoun use which he strongly opposes.

I have a hard time seeing Jordan Peterson lobbying the state to legislate enforced monogamy. Suggesting something is far different than trying to forcefully impose it on others.

Sure that's possible I am just saying he is suggesting something, he is being prescriptive. You would have to go back and re read the whole argument I was having over an economist article on why polygamy causes wars to get the context of my point.
 
<Waaah>

LOL
I was commenting on your use of "dumb donwned", as in "so dumb downed watching the likes of Bill Maher and company and responding like clapping seals they don't even recognized when their talking absolute rubish and have been totally destroyed with logic..." Point is, you don't get to call anyone else "dumb downed".
Actually I do but this is getting boring so ..
 
Not much I can disagree with here. And to be clear I did hold out the possibility that Peterson was talking about the softer form of enforced monogamy you described above. What I thought was BS was the idea that he was only describing why we have anti polygamist laws now. He is certainly taken it at least a little bit further. I am still not sold on it him at all, for the reasons I mentioned, but respect your view here.
No disagreement there, that is much is clear.
 
Monogamy is all over the New Testament. Jesus talks about the immorality of divorce and Paul talks at great length about chastity, monogamy and marriage.

Here is one instance of Paul talking about marriage:

Teaching on Marriage

1 Corinthians 7:1-7


1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

http://biblehub.com/context/1_corinthians/7-1.htm

no you are wrong it was made up by beta males and the men in power in the catholic church and other institutions as literally means of enforced monogamy so the lower level men could reproduce. Which if you think about is a very anti libertarian, anti capitalist, anti darwin thing because it means men who probably would not or should not pass on genes are now passing on genes and making life hell for women who would rather hold out sex from the lowest status men. Also below it uses the word ´polygamy´ but they really mean polygyny becaue women are never allowed more than 1 husband.

The most common argument for it is here´but again jesus contradicts himself a lot just look it up as do his followers and the books! and on top of that there is no prohibition of it so it depends how you interpret that saying. IF IT WAS REALLY BAD wouldnt GOD make sure it was written down in the new testament?

´´
One flesh[edit]
Although the New Testament is largely silent on the issue, some point to Jesus' repetition of the earlier scriptures, noting that a man and a wife "shall become one flesh."[16] However, some look to Paul's writings to the Corinthians: "Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh.'" Supporters of polygamy claim this indicates that the term refers to a physical, rather than spiritual, union.[17]

Cleave to wife[edit]
Most Christian theologians argue that in Matthew 19:3–9 and referring to Genesis 2:24 Jesus explicitly states a man should have only one wife:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Polygamists do not dispute that in marriage "two shall be one flesh", they only disagree with the idea that a married man can only be "one flesh" with one woman. Assuming the man is married, the fact that a man can even be "one flesh" with a harlot apparently does not negate his being "one flesh" with his wife.[18] Further, if a man is married, he and his wife are "one flesh." To add another wife would mean that the new wife becomes "one flesh" with the man and his current wife.´´

It is also literally a joke to believe the founders of the religion most close to God are allowed to do it and God does not say they cannot (and allows it) but then that God changes his mind but he doesnt force it into writing so that all know he changes his mind instead you get conflicting and contradicting texts and NO prohibition against it. Which is why this issue was all over the place for 1000 years and even today in some christians sects.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/darwin-eternity/201109/why-we-think-monogamy-is-normal

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-...e-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#One_flesh

and lastly


Polygamy in the New Testament:

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"


There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy. Let us look at the following:

1 Corinthians 7
10 I instruct married couples to stay together, and this is exactly what the Lord himself taught. A wife who leaves her husband
11 should either stay single or go back to her husband. And a husband should not leave his wife.

Notice, no command for the husband to "remain single". This is because he can ma
rry another single woman at any time.


Matthew 5:31-32
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

A man can marry multiple women, while the woman can only marry one man. Here Jesus warns that unlawful divorces will cause women to commit adultery, because they would still be married to their first husbands.


Matthew 19:1-12 "1. When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to
the other side of the Jordan.
2. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4. "Haven't you read," he (Jesus) replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'
5. and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?
6. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7. "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8. Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Below, I've amply proven that this verse here, Matthew 19:9, is either a punishment or a restriction for an unauthorized divorce. It is not a general Law that applies to all believing men as the other sayings from Jesus clearly prove. Jesus also explained this verse, Matthew 19:9, much better in:
Matthew 5:31-32
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

A man can marry multiple women, while the woman can only marry one man. Here Jesus warns that unlawful divorces will cause women to commit adultery, because they would still be married to their first husbands.

10. The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11. Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
12. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


In the above verses, we see that Jesus was approached with a question about whether or not it is allowed for a man to divorce his wife in Matthew 19:3. Jesus immediately referred to the Old Testament for the answer in Matthew 19:4. He referred to Adam and Eve, one man and one woman. The Old Testament does talk about the story of Adam and Eve as one husband and one wife. However, the Old Testament which Jesus had referred to in Matthew 19:3 does allow polygamy.Also, when a man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6, this doesn't mean that the man can't be one flesh with another woman. He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife and so on. Polygamy in not a sin:


  • 2 Samuel 12:8
    8. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

    GOD Almighty here supposedly says that He gave to David Saul's wives, and GOD would have even given him more wives if he (David) wanted.

To further prove this point, let us look at the following from the New Testament:

Matthew 22:23-32"23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27. Finally, the woman died.
28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,
32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

In Matthew 22:24-28, the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman's husband dies, and she didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not. When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband's brother, even if here were already married. Instead, Jesus replied to them by saying that we do not marry at the resurrection (before Judgment), and we will be like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).



http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm

So New but not Old?

I find the religious conversations in the WR all over the place with selective references to Old vs. New T. ideology based on the non-religious preference of the speaker. I'm not denying the New T references btw.

best source here proving the delusion is here.

So next time some Christian says polygyny is a sin show them this. It is contradicted and never prohibited. Now women taking more than 1 man is and homosexual stuff is but that is another story.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm

christianity is an illogical religion. It was way different and more jewish for its first 200 years then for the next 500 years less jewish entirely but way more different then before catholicism and then during the middle ages and until protestantism and protestant reformation it was way different. Not even mentioning the catholic split into roman catholics and then eastern orthodox which found its place in the byzantine empire and then the Russian empire and former yugoslav countries as the base for eastern orthodoxy. What people like Devout will do either out of ignorance or to spew their agenda is they will cherry pick. Paul also said all the old laws held and was hardcore but that gets ignored. Literally google it. There is so much in the short and illogical contradicting new testament that it has divided christians for over 1000 years and still does!!

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-...e-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/darwin-eternity/201109/why-we-think-monogamy-is-normal

it was made up by beta males and the men in power in the catholic church and other institutions as literally means of enforced monogamy so the lower level men could reproduce. Which if you think about is a very anti libertarian, anti capitalist, anti darwin thing because it means men who probably would not or should not pass on genes are now passing on genes and making life hell for women who would rather hold out sex from the lowest status men.

The most common argument for it is here´but again jesus contradicts himself a lot just look it up as do his followers and the books! and on top of that there is no prohibition of it so it depends how you interpret that saying. IF IT WAS REALLY BAD wouldnt GOD make sure it was written down in the new testament?

It is also literally a joke to believe the founders of the religion closets to God are allowed to do it and God does not say they cannot but then that God changes his mind but he doesnt force it into writing so that all know he changes his mind instead you get conflicting and contradicting texts and NO prohibition against it. Which is why this issue was all over the place for 1000 years and even today in some christians sects.

´´
One flesh[edit]
Although the New Testament is largely silent on the issue, some point to Jesus' repetition of the earlier scriptures, noting that a man and a wife "shall become one flesh."[16] However, some look to Paul's writings to the Corinthians: "Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh.'" Supporters of polygamy claim this indicates that the term refers to a physical, rather than spiritual, union.[17]

Cleave to wife[edit]
Most Christian theologians argue that in Matthew 19:3–9 and referring to Genesis 2:24 Jesus explicitly states a man should have only one wife:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Polygamists do not dispute that in marriage "two shall be one flesh", they only disagree with the idea that a married man can only be "one flesh" with one woman. Assuming the man is married, the fact that a man can even be "one flesh" with a harlot apparently does not negate his being "one flesh" with his wife.[18] Further, if a man is married, he and his wife are "one flesh." To add another wife would mean that the new wife becomes "one flesh" with the man and his current wife.´´

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#One_flesh

There is a reason there are so many denominations of Christianity. I think it is safe to say that almost all denominations believe in chastity, monogamy and marriage.

no they dont. Catholics made monogamy a thing and the stupid lie of not being able to divorce. Protestantism is also to them rightfully a wack abomination to original christianity anyways it further departed.
 
Last edited:
Polygamy in the New Testament:

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

I don't want to argue hermeneutics, nor am I saying this refutes your entire claim, but I do want to point out that this specific argument does not strengthen your claim.

Christ himself advocated against plenty of OT laws. Eye-for-an-eye punishment, keeping the Sabbath, forbidden food, etc. Obviously "not abolishing" the law is not synonymous with perfectly keeping the old practices.
 
I don't want to argue hermeneutics, nor am I saying this refutes your entire claim, but I do want to point out that this specific argument does not strengthen your claim.

Christ himself advocated against plenty of OT laws. Eye-for-an-eye punishment, keeping the Sabbath, forbidden food, etc. Obviously "not abolishing" the law is not synonymous with perfectly keeping the old practices.

okay you are just trolling or joking. I know nothing short of the apocalypse happening and no jesus returning will change your mind that you are wrong or could be wrong. But you literally did not check out the links or read any of the contradictions or nonsense and jesus saying the exact opposite shit. And no i wont fall for your sealioning stuff of asking me ´where is it´ when it is literally all over the internet and has been known for thousands of years and is in the links i attached and in the paragraphs.
 
As I've said, Peterson hit pieces have become a genre unto themselves, but this one in the "progressive" Jewish outlet Forward has to take the cake:
Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred?
https://forward.com/news/national/400597/is-jordan-peterson-enabling-jew-hatred/


Apparently it's been edited a LOT since it came out last week, it was that bad. Here was the initial picture at the top of the article:

UXrVN98-



I like the subtlety. But apparently they've also edited out a bunch of stuff where they showed examples white supremacists sarcastically giving props to Peterson but acting as if it were genuine. Peterson is overall hated by white supremacists that I've seen online, they deride him as a "radical centrist", because he speaks out against identity politics in all its forms including their shitty ideology. But this is still a tendentious pile of crap, apparently Peterson answering a question about Jewish intelligence was the catalyst for this hit piece.



Apparently they edited in that line about her never reading Peterson after the fact. Freakin hilarious, guilt by association is bad enough, but now it's guilt by someone who's never heard of him drawing a parallel to someone he has no association at all with? Apparently what really pissed these Jews off is that Peterson constantly discusses the Holocaust from the psychological angle, how could otherwise normal people be driven to commit acts like this? When so many Jews seem to want to pretend like such a genocide could never happen to any other group besides them, and any discussion that doesn't begin and end with antisemitism is bigoted.

To their credit they published a response to this, although curiously it's in the opinion section whereas the hit piece was filed under "news":

https://forward.com/opinion/401008/no-jordan-peterson-is-not-an-anti-semite/

I'd be interested to read the original, unedited hit piece. My fiance had read it and told me about it, and said it was laughably bad. I think that they may have even edited in this final part to try and atone for how misleading the original was:

that is stupid.

the forced monogamy thing though is more disturbing. he says equality of outcomes is wrong but wants system were lower status and looks women basically have no choice but to go with lower status and looks men? not very fair to be but is equal. sounds like communism which i think his fans dislike.
 
okay you are just trolling or joking. I know nothing short of the apocalypse happening and no jesus returning will change your mind that you are wrong or could be wrong. But you literally did not check out the links or read any of the contradictions or nonsense and jesus saying the exact opposite shit. And no i wont fall for your sealioning stuff of asking me ´where is it´ when it is literally all over the internet and has been known for thousands of years and is in the links i attached and in the paragraphs.

I'm beginning to suspect that you know me but I don't know you.

Regardless, I specifically said I didn't want to argue hermeneutics because we would be here for days. I read your post, but no, I did not follow all your links and read them all because I am only arguing one single point which you can easily address here.

I'll reiterate my position with a little more detail. The verse where Jesus claims he did not come to abolish the law cannot mean that the law would remain the same because Jesus himself "changed" it.

One simple example is the adulteress woman who Jesus stopped from being stoned to death. Why did Jesus not obey the OT law if he came to fulfill it, as it clearly states that the punishment for such sins is death? The answer, which I suspect you'll be too stubborn to accept, is that fulfillment, in this context, does not mean the law remains the same, which, to any Bible scholars, is really a laughable claim that no one takes seriously because the entire NT is the new covenant which Christ ushered in. You know how Jews keep Kosher and Christians don't? It's because one followed Christ into the new covenant, while the other group did not.
 
I'm beginning to suspect that you know me but I don't know you.

Regardless, I specifically said I didn't want to argue hermeneutics because we would be here for days. I read your post, but no, I did not follow all your links and read them all because I am only arguing one single point which you can easily address here.

I'll reiterate my position with a little more detail. The verse where Jesus claims he did not come to abolish the law cannot mean that the law would remain the same because Jesus himself "changed" it.

One simple example is the adulteress woman who Jesus stopped from being stoned to death. Why did Jesus not obey the OT law if he came to fulfill it, as it clearly states that the punishment for such sins is death? The answer, which I suspect you'll be too stubborn to accept, is that fulfillment, in this context, does not mean the law remains the same, which, to any Bible scholars, is really a laughable claim that no one takes seriously because the entire NT is the new covenant which Christ ushered in. You know how Jews keep Kosher and Christians don't? It's because one followed Christ into the new covenant, while the other group did not.

good point which is why you should not even believe in the NT since it makes no fucking sense along with the myth of jesus. The common explanation is that he meant the other laws hold. he obviously changed the core of the religion before it by going against pharisees which became talmudic judaism and going against the whole tanakh and hebrew bible (ezikeel, first 5 books etc).

christians are basically lazy jews who bastardized the religion and turned it into something much twisted. Read about the split and see how illogical it is and then read about the first 100 to 200 years then the first 500 years of christianity and then the first 1000 years. You will see nothing is ever the same.

Some christians for quite some time did eat kosher but the Christians who won out and later created the roman catholic church among other similar institutions won out by persecuting the jewish christians and messianic jews. With that said then then went back and made up some shit about not eating certain foods during holiday or lent. Like how eastern orthodox give up meat before christmas or how they have christmas not on december 25th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRplit_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism

i actually know what i am talking about to a descent degree and know about the split.
 
Last edited:
good point which is why you should not even believe in the NT since it makes no fucking sense along with the myth of jesus. The common explanation is that he meant the other laws hold. he obviously changed the core of the religion before it by going against pharisees which became talmudic judaism and going against the whole tanakh and hebrew bible (ezikeel, first 5 books etc).

christians are basically lazy jews who bastardized the religion and turned it into something much more sick and twisted. Read about the split and see how illogical it is and then read about the first 100 to 200 years then the first 500 years of christianity and then the first 1000 years. You will see nothing is ever the same.

Some christians for quite some time did eat kosher but the Christians who won out and later created the roman catholic church among other similar institutions won out by persecuting the jewish christians and messianic jews. With that said then then went back and made up some shit about not eating certain foods during holiday or lent. Like how eastern orthodox give up meat before christmas or how they have christmas not on december 25th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRplit_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism

i actually know what i am talking about to a descent degree and know about the split.

Did you misunderstood me from the get-go? I was not arguing against polygamy, I was just saying that you can't simply point to the "fullfillment" passage and declare that the entire Old Law stands, since it's obvious that Christ "changed" a lot of the law so to speak.

Or maybe I misunderstood you, I don't know.
 
Did you misunderstood me from the get-go? I was not arguing against polygamy, I was just saying that you can't simply point to the "fullfillment" passage and declare that the entire Old Law stands, since it's obvious that Christ "changed" a lot of the law so to speak.

Or maybe I misunderstood you, I don't know.

you are. I am saying respectfully that you are not reading or really looking to coutner your view. I am saying the entire truth of the bible should be called into question given the contradictions in NT. And I am saying that real scholars who do not have a christian bias could answer your question about why eating Kosher became excluded from mainstream christian thought after it previously was not. I am saying that happened after the christians who were more liberal with regards to following OT law won out. Also there is not a hell in OT or for judaism but thank god christians created it!

by the way i respect many religions just not those that are so arrogant and end time and have hell for non believers and wacky set of morality.
 
you are. I am saying respectfully that you are not reading or really looking to coutner your view. I am saying the entire truth of the bible should be called into question given the contradictions in NT. And I am saying that real scholars who do not have a christian bias could answer your question about why eating Kosher became excluded from mainstream christian thought after it previously was not. I am saying that happened after the christians who were more liberal with regards to following OT law won out. Also there is not a hell in OT or for judaism but thank god christians created it!

by the way i respect many religions just not those that are so arrogant and end time and have hell for non believers and wacky set of morality.

You're not putting forth honest arguments. You can't point to a passage to make a point and then claim that the entire thing is full of contradictions when I make a counter argument using another passage. If it's full of contradictions then your original point is also moot.

I'm not arguing, despite what you imagine, that the Bible is true, that Christ is real, or whatever misconception you're carrying. I'm using your own logic against you and instead of conceding that the passage cannot be interpreted the way you intimated, you're choosing to flip the entire board over. You can't flip the board over and checkmate me. Choose one.
 
The Federalist features a decent piece on Jordan Peterson and the NYT's hit-piece:

The Left And The Right Aren’t Hearing The Same Jordan Peterson


Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has enjoyed a surge into fame over the past year, has become a bit like the Yanny and Laurel audio meme. People listen to what he has to say but disagree wildly about what they are hearing.

Some hear a man with important ideas that can help people live a more fulfilling life, others hear a dangerous misogynist who wants to set back the cause of liberated women, trans people, and the rest of the cast(e) of oppression.

When Peterson talks about changes in gender, sexuality, family, and work, he is exposing central contradictions, both evolutionary and social, that he believes are making people unhappy.

He is not suggesting that all women should aspire to be a 1950s Donna Reed housewife, but that on many levels some women do want something closer to that lifestyle. Part of the evidence for this is that since the sexual revolution the question of whether women can “have it all” has been so often on our tongues and pages. Peterson suggests the answer, in many cases, is no.

Peterson blames Bowles for not being familiar with the relevant literature, but “enforced monogamy,” is not a well-known term of art, and it does sound menacing. Bowles probably should have asked for clarification before presenting it as absurd, but Peterson also has to know and anticipate that these kinds of attacks are going to be leveled at him by people who may be ill-informed in anthropology, but nonetheless well-intentioned.

Bowles derides Peterson as a YouTube philosopher. Okay, cutting and demeaning, but so what? What important philosopher who scribbles with a quill is he being compared to? What scary things does he say? That marriage and monogamy are good for society?

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/the-left-and-the-right-arent-hearing-the-same-jordan-peterson/

...much of Peterson’s insistence that we listen to, and understand, our ancient myths, legends, and stories is not because they tell us how we should be, but because they tell us how we have been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top