Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Jordan Peterson's Illogical Homophobia On Gay Parenting" video.

  1. I've also noticed that when answering this sort of "difficult" question he often uses the expression "the devil's in the details." But I don't think he knows what that means. Also, the uncomfortable look is probably half him actually trying to thread the needle between that sweet Patreon lucre and not being an outright fascy fuckwit. The other half—posturing to look smart, like he's really considering the topic (apparently, always for the first time).
    7
  2. Just like Jordan Peterson, you managed to spew a lot of words and yet not say anything. Congratulations?
    6
  3. Juan Cabildo Obviously gay people are like coupons. Even if you have two, only one of them counts.
    4
  4. Chaa, and as I think Sam pointed out, being married or single could just be a correlation when really it's something like income that is causing the effect. So, JP's 0 for 2.
    3
  5. I didn't know I needed this!
    2
  6. "painting someone as evil just because they aren't jumping up and down for everything gay." What does that even mean?
    2
  7. Einstein, however, was the socialists' Einstein.
    1
  8. He's at the very least ambiguous about his support for gay rights. By most definitions of the word, that's homophobic. Most research on the topic has shown that children of gay parents are at no disadvantage when compared to children of heterosexual parents. I think there was a big meta-analysis done a few years ago, and out of 70-some studies over several decades, only a few were negative. There have been a few high profile studies concluding that children do not do as well with gay parents, but those have major methodological problems. Instead of cocking his head and pretending to be thoughtful, Peterson could—you know, use Google. At the very least. He's a trained psychologist, so he probably has access to great resources, peer reviewed journals, colleagues, conferences. He could easily find this information. If he wanted to seek it out. If he were as serious as he acts. But he's a poseur spouting conservative ideas dressed up in really the most flimsy intellectualism. It's embarrassing and at this point I feel embarrassed for anyone who defends him.
    1