Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Jordan Peterson Is Everything He Criticizes (And Can't Read)" video.

@satuhogosha Logical fallacy there buddy. Drinking =/= being an alcoholic. Let's try that again: >A drinker says drinking is bad >Drinks So either drinking is bad and he's a bad role model, or drinking isn't bad and he's a liar. Either way, hypocrisy is not a good look for Lobster Man.
24
It's all about luck and marketing baby
22
@Noximien She's an interviewer, not a zoologist. Mentioning the urine coming out of the eyes highlighted the vast anatomical differences between them and humans- and that extends (as the brain is a part of anatomy) to the social structure. Even bonobos, extremely close to us in evolutionary terms, have an entirely different way of initializing intraspecies interactions, which has affected their entire developmental history. Imagine that, but underwater and you're prey instead. Oh and you have a mating season, and your brain is much less functional. Of course the outcome would be different; egalitarianism would get you killed. Not so with humans, once they evolved the ability to sweat, eat meat, and create tools. Lobsters do not have the same social structure as humans, period. It is fallacious to conclude that hierarchies should be encouraged because lobsters happen to have them. It's a fallacy and completely unsupported by science.
8
He would get a ticket? The C-16 bill only lists transgenders as protected under hate speech or threat of genocide; mislabeling pronouns doesn't fall into that at all. Has he even read the bill?
7
@dnciskkk9037 How does replying to a YouTube comment make me angry? You can't infer emotions from typing, so please stop making assumptions. I'm angry? You're the one who responded with 2 paragraphs lmao Wolff and Peterson are both influential socio-political voices. If Peterson is a clinical psychologist, why is he doing debates about religion and the existence of God? Or whether or not the Third Reich would have won? If you want people to stick to their fields, tell him that. "He debated Matt on religion, that is different". How exactly? Peterson was debating on something he had no experience with, just like a Wolff and Peterson debate would be. But you millions of people watched the first example I gave, what would make them not want to watch the second? "What do you want?" I want to see them debate, and I'd like you to acknowledge that you didn't have an response to the statement "He also didn't want to debate Marxist Richard Wolff" and said 'yea but it would be stupid anyway' fucking lol Just admit that Peterson doesn't want to debate anyone who could actually beat him... or don't. I simply stated what I want.
4
@dnciskkk9037 Avoiding the issue. You respond to questions with answers, not other questions. In any case, "we" (Wolff fans) would certainly watch. If it would be such a knockout for Peterson, why doesn't he just do it and prove all these leftists wrong? If I had to guess, I'd say he 'learned his lesson' from debating Dillahunty, and doesn't want to be challenged again. Losing could affect book sales!!
3
@dnciskkk9037 Leftists do not debate, that is a generalization. Even if that were "true", you haven't defined what you're terming "leftists". They can be socially or economically leftist, they can be 'classic' leftists or modern leftists; you're being very lazy right now. You also included a slew of metaphors which news flash! aren't actual evidence to your claim. Let's debate that, okay? Debate me on this. I'm all ears. What is your evidence that, your words, "leftists do not debate"? I'm waiting.
3
@dnciskkk9037 Oh my god, learn to spell. If you're the average type of person Peterson attracts, then I have even less respect for him as an 'intellectual'. Your argument is silly, you could extend it to whatever you want-- "JP believes in Jung, Mihály Csikszentmihályi (Personality Psychologist) doesn't, they disagree, that is it. What is this?" If you think nothing matters, then nobody should debate anybody, right? Why are you acting apathetic about it now? Lots of people think they know the final answer to the question "Does God exist?" That's why the debate sold out! Faith is belief without evidence. The debate was not about faith, it was about facts. Peterson was trying to prove, directly or indirectly, that the supernatural exists, that's what the whole debate was about. Otherwise he would have said "My faith can't be changed by facts!" and left. Don't be silly here. You know a Wolff-Peterson debate would matter, and make them lots of money, but he doesn't want to. Think about why he (not you) doesn't want to.
3
Well, if you explain the cause as though human action had nothing to do with it, you're also kind of absolving the people that led to its rise of responsibility for what happened.
3
@dnciskkk9037 Muslims and Marxists are fundamentally opposite. Islam compels one to submit, whereas the other advocates for Revolution. Marx even said "religion is the opiate of the people." Marxism is against Islam; you can't be both. You're wrong, sorry bud!
1