Comments by "m w" (@mw-pl5rg) on "Rationality Rules" channel.

  1. eqsrt sergt Actually he isn't a conservative. Those on the right who support him do so out of respect for freedom of speech in large part. There are things I agree with in Peterson and there are things I disagree with. I support his freedom to express his views. Women's studies maybe popular to some but most of us see it for what is. Neomarxists horse shit that wouldn't pass a critical examination of true peer review. Most women studies papers are written with anecdotal narratives with no statistics, no scientific facts etc. That isn't demonizing that is criticism that is valid. Face it he's right about the so called post modern university studies electives women studies, queer studies, African studies, what do they have in common? Their papers and evidence are all anecdotal. Just food for thought. Have a nice day!
    9
  2. Well I'm not sayig he is above criticism. If you find a flaw in his logic and his arguments feel free to critique it. Though I dont think he's all that interested in climate change to make a comment and If you watch his interview on Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin he doesn't defend or go against the idea of gay marriage. I think his view is more libertarian in regards to that. You can do what you want in your own life but dont force it on others attitude. By the way who says you have to have an opinion on climate change or even gay marriage to make your arguments on things you do have an opinion on? If that where the case then none of us would be able to express an opinion on any subject at all. The question is does the criticism of a topic one logical and reasonable? two does the evidence that you bring have context and merit? three what is your solution to the lapse in view another holds? Arguments are judged by their veracity and merit after all. Also I'm a Christian but I dont want a government that is theocratic but secular. The reason for this is that the founders where wise in wanting the government not to establish a religion nor able to ban the free exercise there of. What if the government decided to ban my religious sect? What if they set up a religion that forced others to convert under penalty of law? What if the government decided to ban all religious belief. In any of these extremes it takes away the individuals right to believe, disbelieve or honor what they believe in. In other words choice is denied the individual. No matter how much I wish for another to come to my belief system it ultimately is their choice. I can only convince or persuade that is the only thing I'm allowed to do. To do more is to impose on others what I believe is totalitarian and tyranical. If I wish to be left in peace to adhere to my faith and beliefs then I should do under others the same. That doesn't mean we cant debate or contest in the market place of ideas but we both agree we try to persuade or convince the proposition. Not try to use force at all. If my views are worthy then they can survive testing and if my beliefs are moral they will prove to be so by action. I prefer a neutral secular government that applies laws with a justice for all attitude. If laws do not provide equal protection for all then those laws would be unjust. Sorry I may have went on a bit of a tangent but to be a religious believer doesn't mean you will disregard law. Render to the world what you must to live in it and unto God the things required by him. The only time I would defy a law is if a law required me to kill, steal, lie and bear false witness against my fellow human being. Also if the law required me to renounce my faith. I do believe you also would feel the same if the law required you to renounce your core values you also would refuse. At least I hope you would. Laws that victimize your conscience to me are immoral laws.
    2