Jordan Peterson and Bill Maher...

[SomeRandom]

There's a story of Jesus walking with the Apostles, and they came across a man cussing up a storm while trying to pull his donkey out of a muddy ditch, and he asked Jesus "Could you help me with this?", and Jesus obliged.

Further down the road they came across another man with the same problem who was on his knees praying and asking God to get his donkey out, but Jesus just walked on by with the Twelve. In bewilderment, they asked him why he didn't help the latter man but did the first one, and Jesus said: "The first man was willing to help me, whereas the second man wanted me to do all the work".

Hmm my mother (Hindu) always emphasised to me that
“God helps those who help themselves.”
I guess that teaching is more universal than I thought lol

 

[icehorse]

@Debater Slayer isn’t derailing the conversation here - rather you might check yourself.

I'd ask you to zoom out and see the bigger context.

I'd admit that "in this moment of this thread" I've taken us on a detour. But I'm making a broader point and I'm using this moment as an example. Not only does this current detour apply to earlier in this thread, it applies to many threads.

thank you for your consideration

 

[anna.]

I'd ask you to zoom out and see the bigger context.

I'd admit that "in this moment of this thread" I've taken us on a detour. But I'm making a broader point and I'm using this moment as an example. Not only does this current detour apply to earlier in this thread, it applies to many threads.

thank you for your consideration

Okay. When I zoom out, I see your first post in this thread, which was aimed directly at posters in the thread:

I first heard of Peterson when he was talking about bill C-16. I thought his ideas ON THAT TOPIC, were spot on. Since then, I think he's mostly lost the thread. I find that SOMETIMES Maher is spot on, other times, not so much.

Last I checked, this is a DEBATE forum. As I understand it, debates are about ideas, not the leanings of the speakers.

But I knew when I saw the title of this thread, that no matter what, sooner rather than later, the "debate" would veer off from ideas into criticism of the speakers.

sigh.

So in your first post, you criticized one of the speakers (Peterson) by saying "he's mostly lost the thread," and then you went on to criticize the posters in this thread for criticizing the speakers in the OP, seemingly without realizing you were actually doing the same thing.

The way I see it, and I'm open to correction, is that public speakers should expect scrutiny. I see no problem at all in scrutinizing any public figure, particularly those who knowingly and intentionally insert themselves into the culture and political wars. The idea of arguing ideas without (hopefully) resorting to ad homs is between posters, not between posters and public figures.

 

[icehorse]

Okay. When I zoom out, I see your first post in this thread, which was aimed directly at posters in the thread:



So in your first post, you criticized one of the speakers (Peterson) by saying "he's mostly lost the thread," and then you went on to criticize the posters in this thread for criticizing the speakers in the OP, seemingly without realizing you were actually doing the same thing.

The way I see it, and I'm open to correction, is that public speakers should expect scrutiny. I see no problem at all in scrutinizing any public figure, particularly those who knowingly and intentionally insert themselves into the culture and political wars. The idea of arguing ideas without (hopefully) resorting to ad homs is between posters, not between posters and public figures.

Hmmm, it's useful / interesting to hear that you took it that way.

What I was trying to say was that - regardless of anyone's take on the speakers in the video - here on RF, we should try to stick to debating the ideas, not the messengers of those ideas.

Does that make sense?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Hmmm, it's useful / interesting to hear that you took it that way.

What I was trying to say was that - regardless of anyone's take on the speakers in the video - here on RF, we should try to stick to debating the ideas, not the messengers of those ideas.

Does that make sense?

It does, but I will admit that at times, you have a different idea on what debate and ad hominem is than me and others, and when you press the issue about debate, it's almost like a silence for those of us, some of which are some pretty skilled debaters and may have our own ideas, some of which documented, on debates.

 

[anna.]

Hmmm, it's useful / interesting to hear that you took it that way.

What I was trying to say was that - regardless of anyone's take on the speakers in the video - here on RF, we should try to stick to debating the ideas, not the messengers of those ideas.

Does that make sense?

Did you criticize Peterson in your opening post? And then did you criticize the posters in this thread for criticizing Peterson? It seems to me that's actually what you did, not just the way I "took it." N.B. you did criticize us indirectly, so there's a layer of plausible deniability there.

I'm not trying to be unfriendly, but I do note when people seem to place themselves above the fray while actually wading into the fray.

I personally will not shy from attacking Peterson's motives for standing with racists and bigots, misogynists and incels.

 

[icehorse]

It does, but I will admit that at times, you have a different idea on what debate and ad hominem is than me and others, and when you press the issue about debate, it's almost like a silence for those of us, some of which are some pretty skilled debaters and may have our own ideas, some of which documented, on debates.

I appreciate that feedback. Speaking only for myself, I'm here to learn about and debate ideas. I'm not here to "win debates". That might make me overly-picky about some debating tactics? I guess it seems to me that sometimes posters aren't as interested in actually grappling with the ideas, they're more interested in winning debates?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I appreciate that feedback. Speaking only for myself, I'm here to learn about and debate ideas. I'm not here to "win debates". That might make me overly-picky about some debating tactics? I guess it seems to me that sometimes posters aren't as interested in actually grappling with the ideas, they're more interested in winning debates?

I am willing to believe that some are focused on winning. But, since it's the crowd and not the other debater who determines who won in debates, it might provide some reassurance that if a person is being dishonest in a debate sense, that the crowd will pick up on it and not take all of their ideas to heart in the erroneous way they are presented.

 

[anna.]

I appreciate that feedback. Speaking only for myself, I'm here to learn about and debate ideas. I'm not here to "win debates". That might make me overly-picky about some debating tactics? I guess it seems to me that sometimes posters aren't as interested in actually grappling with the ideas, they're more interested in winning debates?

It seems to me that you may be talking down to those posters who don't meet your standards for debate. I don't believe, as you do, that others aren't here to "grapple with ideas" but only here to "win debates." I don't think that of them that way at all. And it would take a lot of hubris to try.

 

[icehorse]

Did you criticize Peterson in your opening post? And then did you criticize the posters in this thread for criticizing Peterson?

I think it's a little more nuanced than that...

First, a poster criticized both speakers, but NOT for the ideas in the OP video. That happened BEFORE I said anything.

Then I said - more or less - "while I'm not a huge fan of the speakers, shouldn't we stick to debating the ideas".

Can you see the difference?

 

[anna.]

I think it's a little more nuanced than that...

First, a poster criticized both speakers, but NOT for the ideas in the OP video. That happened BEFORE I said anything.

Then I said - more or less - "while I'm not a huge fan of the speakers, shouldn't we stick to debating the ideas".

Can you see the difference?

No. I read your intent clearly, I believe. The fact that someone else did it FIRST matters not.

Not much more for me to say on it.

 

[icehorse]

I am willing to believe that some are focused on winning. But, since it's the crowd and not the other debater who determines who won in debates, it might provide some reassurance that if a person is being dishonest in a debate sense, that the crowd will pick up on it and not take all of their ideas to heart in the erroneous way they are presented.

Agreed, to a point.

But the problem I have with this is that we're often debating very consequential issues. It would be much more useful if we could minimize the amount of de-railing that goes on.

 

[icehorse]

No. I read your intent clearly, I believe. The fact that someone else did it FIRST matters not.

Not much more for me to say on it.

This is a sincere request, could you try steelmanning my first post in this thread?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Agreed, to a point.

But the problem I have with this is that we're often debating very consequential issues. It would be much more useful if we could minimize the amount of de-railing that goes on.

I see. Well, it's actually pretty hard to prevent derailing on an internet forum. That being said, my recommendation would be to pay a little less attention to what everyone else is doing, and focus on presenting a strong side. One of the reasons I say that, is that presenting a strong argument often works better at convincing people than refereeing, but that's just my opinion. So I guess what I'm saying is that, even though there are of course merits to agreeing on debate rules with the other side - I sometimes see the (mostly invisible, but sometimes there) crowd as partial referees.

 

[metis]

Hmm my mother (Hindu) always emphasised to me that
“God helps those who help themselves.”
I guess that teaching is more universal than I thought lol

My favorite is from Gandhi:
I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is ever changing, even dying, there is an underlying all that change is a living power that is changeless; that holds all together, that creates, dissolve and recreates. That informing Power or Spirit is God, and since nothing else that I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He alone Is.

And is this power or benevolent or malevolent? I think It is purely Benevolent, so I can see that in the midst of death, life persists; in the midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light persists. Hence, I gather that God is Life, Truth, light. He is Love. He is the Supreme Good.

 

[metis]

@Kenny

My post #106 wasn't meant to be taken as a joke as there's a rather serious teaching behind it, namely that if we want the good, we need to work on making it good and not expect God and/or Jesus to bail us out. I also know that this teaching runs across pretty much all the major religions and even some various forms of animism.

I think we're likely on the same page with this, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. Have a Most Blessed Lord's Day, my friend.

 

[Kenny]

@Kenny

My post #106 wasn't meant to be taken as a joke as there's a rather serious teaching behind it, namely that if we want the good, we need to work on making it good and not expect God and/or Jesus to bail us out. I also know that this teaching runs across pretty much all the major religions and even some various forms of animism.

I think we're likely on the same page with this, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. Have a Most Blessed Lord's Day, my friend.

Sometimes, the laughter coming from what seems to be a joke - comes from the reality that there was truth behind it. I laughed because, though it made me chuckle, the truth behind it was real. I didn't misunderstand its meaning...

Thank you for the blessing! Looking forward to a God encounter tomorrow with the body of Christ -- as I'm sure you will too!

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Speaking as someone who is nearly a free speech absolutist, I can tell you that your generalizations are incorrect. No doubt "some" absolutists feel the way you describe, but we don't all. So for example, "guarantee of a soapbox" is indeed a common misconception, but it's quite separate from absolutist thinking.

Then let me rephrase that. It's not a free soapbox that (perhaps "some") free speech absolutists desire so much as it is a free pulpit. That analogy alludes to the hypocrisy of which theists are often accused but which is particularly exemplified by Elon Musk, a self-described free speech absolutist.

Elon Musk is a man who proclaims to be a champion of free speech of every kind, yet when one of his Tesla employees (John Bernal) publicly (on his YouTube channel "AI Addict") aired his concerns about the safety of a Tesla autopilot function, Musk fired him. Elon Musk in fact has a history of firing employees not for incompetence, but merely for expressing speech that The Great Man finds disagreeable or personally disloyal.

Apparently, free speech for Elon Musk goes only as far as that which does not hurt his profits or his ego.

So it comes as no surprise that Musk has turned Twitter (re-labeled "X" by Musk and where Musk has effectively banned the use of the word "cisgender" because he considers it to be "a slur" -- how's that for "free speech"?) into a pulpit from which he and his many, many like-minded free speech absolutists may do their preaching.

 

[icehorse]

Then let me rephrase that. It's not a free soapbox that (perhaps "some") free speech absolutists desire so much as it is a free pulpit. That analogy alludes to the hypocrisy of which theists are often accused but which is particularly exemplified by Elon Musk, a self-described free speech absolutist.

View attachment 80613
Elon Musk is a man who proclaims to be a champion of free speech of every kind, yet when one of his Tesla employees (John Bernal) publicly (on his YouTube channel "AI Addict") aired his concerns about the safety of a Tesla autopilot function, Musk fired him. Elon Musk in fact has a history of firing employees not for incompetence, but merely for expressing speech that The Great Man finds disagreeable or personally disloyal.

Apparently, free speech for Elon Musk goes only as far as that which does not hurt his profits or his ego.

So it comes as no surprise that Musk has turned Twitter (re-labeled "X" by Musk and where Musk has effectively banned the use of the word "cisgender" because he considers it to be "a slur" -- how's that for "free speech"?) into a pulpit from which he and his many, many like-minded free speech absolutists may do their preaching.

We are in agreement concerning Musk's amazing hypocrisy

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

We are in agreement concerning Musk's amazing hypocrisy

Thank you. My point was also to state that Musk is not an anomaly, and that there are many like him who do their preaching at his virtual pulpit.