dr peterson is a professor of psychology at university of toronto,and former harvard professor.

i like him but often disagree with some of his criticisms,but he does source all his claims on his website and his books.

though his book "maps of meaning" is a bit of a slog.

one thing i admire about peterson is his careful use of words,which is where the interviewer was getting tripped up.

she was not really listening,and was instead reacting based on assumptions,rather than his actual words.which is why she kept with the "so what you're saying.."

the extreme left has labeled peterson an "alt-right" demagogue and a "transphobe" but both of these allegations are patently ridiculous with even a tertiary examination of what peterson is saying.

you don't have to agree with him,but as this interviewer found out,presume at your own risk.

he will may you pay for your presumptions and arrogance.

i find both dr peterson and dr haidt invaluable in understanding the psychology of human societies.peterson is an evolutionary psychologist while haidt focuses on moral psychology.

but what do i know..i am just a ghetto white trash kid from the burbs.
still interesting.

I have a friend whose friend left her 16 year old cat off at the Humane Society (no kill) and I lost a ton of respect for her. Actually I don't feel like I've fully resolved my feelings about it because I don't want to think about it.

What BS
You are implying that 80% of trees are gone. The # is more like 45%. Still enough to clean the air from any man activities.

50 billion farm animals really? the humane society puts it at 4.9 billion for 2016.
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/resources/research/stats_slaughter_totals.html

If not these eatable things then what ? lions tiger and bears?

Man made has trashed the planet ( plastics) sure but not one bit is attributable to global warming..

You are buying the Kool Aid of the left. The left want to TAX pollution . Its one big TAX Scheme!

There, and also we differ in the fact that I would never post a distressing video like that without a strong warning that it starts off with a camel who's just had it's throat sliced open brutally and obviously with no thought for it's pain or fear, and I certainly would never title it in a way that implies you'll see the opposite...a healthy camel almost beheading (really just tossing by the head) a man...that's another place we differ.


When I'm tricked into thinking I'll see a video of a camel assaulting a human, and instead I'm assaulted with images of people being douchebag humans to animals, my patience goes right out the window. It's why the Humane Society will never get a dime from me, even though I think they do good work, they're douchebags that inflict intentional emotional distress in an effort to gain support. I'll rail against that every time I think I see it.

EDIT: How about just add "1/2 butchered" to the beginning of your title, that'll stop any further complaints I think.

There, and also we differ in the fact that I would never post a distressing video like that without a strong warning that it starts off with a camel who's just had it's throat sliced open brutally and obviously with no thought for it's pain or fear, and I certainly would never title it in a way that implies you'll see the opposite...a healthy camel almost beheading a man...that's another place we differ.


When I'm tricked into thinking I'll see a video of a camel assaulting a human, and instead I'm assaulted with images of people being douchebag humans to animals, my patience goes right out the window. It's why the Humane Society will never get a dime from me, even though I think they do good work, they're douchebags that inflict intentional emotional distress in an effort to gain support. I'll rail against that every time I think I see it.

EDIT: That's odd, I wonder why it went to your profile page instead of quoting you on the video page. Hmmm. I didn't mean that to happen.

With all respect, and much consideration towards your emotional disposition to the matter, your vehemence and near maleficence on the issue is not met with similar kind, and is not respected by me as a form of open discussion.

Although I may agree that the reporter does indeed present himself as an a*****e, obviously degrading whatever planned speech or agenda this student had, it is not worth the spew which you present...

I must agree, however, that the general western population does little to nothing towards the meaningful progression of Human society.

On the other hand, what you advocate is a pipe dream, the likes of which I cannot fathom working, even with my liberal UK perspective. Though I do believe in banks being controlled, so they don't become to large to fail, as well as re-distribution of wealth from the top "1%" classes, how could one, if caring for the safety of their nation, advocate the lessening of funds towards a strong military?

I must also put into perspective, as I am guessing you are an American, what you Americans have compared to the world. You want to throw away your rights to bear arms, not considering what you would do without them. Here in London, we have no way to defend ourselves against getting mugged, many times at gunpoint(handguns are banned here, get the picture?). You want to stop giving money to your military, and ISIS just killed over a hundred people in France. You have more control over your personal freedom than anyone else, not to mention the strongest nation in the world, and you want to abandon the practices which got you there... Brilliant.

Both of which are retellings of Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, as are the many that came before them. I still prefer the Vincent Price version of the story, The Last Man on Earth. Though Charleton Heston was pretty good in the mutant apocalypse version called Omega Man.

It's the lone human survivor realizing he has become the villain of an emerging post-human society. The Fallout video game series and Mad Max movie series have also paid homage to this.

Aaaaand... you may hate it, but Waterworld is a special entry in this lineage, in that the anti-hero is a post-human in a human dominated world apocalypse. In that way, District 9 and State Zero are sort of in Waterworld's direct lineage -- or, rather, the joining of forces between the human anti-hero and the post-human hero.

@dannym3141

It just felt like a bait and switch. They feed you in with in fact very plausible concepts of time dilation and black holes as we best know it, then hit you with a deux ex machinima so implausible that it makes my brain hurt.

I mean, we're meant to believe that future humans, in order to effect their continued existence create an eloborate, highly risky and convoluted system like this 'tesseract library' thing, with the completely unfounded apparent knowledge that Mcconaughey's character will both willingly jump into it and somehow know how to use it to communicate with his daughter, who will pick up on highly cryptic and unlikely signals, and know how to interpret them?

And then Mcconaughey's character also gets saved. Obviously. Why not just convey the information in a far more direct way? And by the way, I will say that the argument that there is a paradox (future humans save themselves in the past) that the video makes is not strictly true given Hathaway's team survives and it's plausible that while Earth perishes, their team eventually redevelops human society.

To me the way that the story suddenly becomes ridiculous at the end when the first half is so rooted in real actual science makes it pretty clear what happened. Some producer decided to overule the script writers and insert in an ending that is happy, sees the characters reunited lest they offend the crucial female demographic.

I used to think like this, but then I finished high school.

Seriously, anarchy is a lovely ideal. Everyone lives in peace and harmony and no-one is tramping anyone elses rights. When a job needs doing, we find someone willing to do it and compensate them (preferably with a barter system or something).

One minor problem though..

IT

DOESN'T

FUCKING

WORK.

We don't live in some kind of post-scarcity utopia. I wish we did, but that is simply not the reality of human society or history. Anarchists and libertarians seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them loves government and simply can't wait to pour their hard earned money in a military industrial complex.

I don't know anyone like that. I don't like my government, and I sure as hell don't like yours. I don't mind paying for hospitals and roads and welfare (and yeah, I don't even really give a fuck about "welfare queens" or "dole bludgers" or other mythical right wing beasties), but I fucking hate the idea that my money goes to fund the pointless "war on drugs" or on mass surveillance.

But I recognise that for all its ills, the system (for the most part) works. People today have a higher standard of living, live longer, and have more rights than at any other time in history. Some of that is down to science; some of it is because of private innovation and some of it is simply that we have changed the way our societies run through elections, etc.

What I do know is that when government becomes beholden to private interests (lobbyists in the USA) shit goes bad. But the solution to that is not to allow powerful people even more leeway to fuck over the weak.

yeah........
ill upvote for discussion purposes and to bring to light that climate is not a one dimensional argument.

so when i see these very targeted and one dimensional arguments using people with credentials (usually NOT in the field they are commenting on) sounding very reasonable...my alarms start going off.something is not quite right.

i call it the apathy argument,which is not really an argument at all but rather a political strategy.they dont actually have to WIN the argument,they just have to sound reasonable enough to make you think "well..maybe" and now you are a neutralized participant.

the gruber incident is now getting some serious airplay lately and everybody is sooo offended.
i am offended as well,but for different reasons.
calling the american voter "stupid" or any other human society stupid is an inaccurate term.

they are ignorant in most cases,and that is by design.

to deny that there are immensely powerful monied institutional forces attempting to muddy the argument for their own,specific interests and goals,while the fate of humanity can go fuck itself...now THAT...is stupid.

political arguments dressed up as as science really piss me off.

It bothers me when people sum up human nature like they have all the answers. They don't, humans have seemingly endless capacities and they're quite unpredictable. We're not even close to being able to understand exactly why a bee acts in the way that it does, so why would we think we could easily analyze a human, or a whole human society?

Sometimes being heinously dumb is the correct response. I defy you to find a more adequate response to sports news.

Seriously.

The validity of a pastime requires only itself as fulfillment, which is entirely subjective. Whether you mechanically understand statistics to marvel your peers or get shit faced and punish your public image on live television for the amusement of your peers, I don't see any moral implications that don't already implicate the entirety of sporting events and human society as a whole.

People lead.
People follow.

People like to revel in their intelligence.
People like to revel in their stupidity.

...roughly as can be kirmokum, given the language with which to describe the experience filtered through the individual perceptive apparatus. I like to think that the architect left these chemical triggers in the species with a view towards our acclimation to higher brain function and adaptation to chaotic internal and external stimuli, as well as a catalyst for the species continuing evolution.
After having experienced DMT as well as several other psychoactive substances, the very idea that a government, religion, or any such construct of human societies would seek to imprison someone for the personal use of the same should be an indicator to anyone who values free will and basic human rights as to the nefarious ends of that construct.
First, eliminate the constructs....then we find the contractors and hunt THEM down!

There are things that are not accepted by all but that just have to be tolerated as the alternatives are way worse. On abortion that means providing access to safe abortion cause if you don't, theyäll happen anyway.. And what then.. when a mother dies from illegal abortion, doesn't that mean we lost two lives instead of one. Personally don't consider fetus living, i'm teetering on whther it's the amount of brain capacity, heart pumping or is it simply the point when a child can be brought out of womb and it has some level of survivability, i don't know. That is not the point.

One things that is not discussed here is THE point of her talk: prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place. That doesn't mean abstinence but condoms, pills, counseling, info and abstinence (i do believe that not all youngsters should be having sex, abstinence is the BEST choice for those early year, no doubt in that. But instead of giving all single people, young, old or between, only ONE choice, and if that fails you have failed your life, why not give them access to the second best and so on.. Religion....

Keep religion out of this and just look at things in neutral manner. Some don't like gay sex but have no problem with gay marriage, just like some don't like carrots but have no problem other eating it.Banning either will not make them go away, if carrots were made illegal, people would still eat and grow them. So get out of that shell and try to look the big picture, ten try to look at things from the perspective of people who are actually going thru with it (most pro-lifers never had to do abortion, they have no clue on what's going on that persons head who makes such a choice; they have zero sympathy and are essentially sociopaths when dealing with this issue. No understanding, no caring, just pure judgement..

Plus human society has changed, we live healthier lives and longer so it only makes sense to have some variety when people want to procreate. The best possible time, place, resources, partner.. when all that falls in place wouldn't you think that is the best time to bring new people in? Not when your time is spent trying to gather those things, having a kid then might just slow that progress to a halt and we have yet another generation living in poverty and diminished options in life (we are talking USA here, where you have very limited social mobility, basically the more equal society, the less there are reasons for abortions... Most abortion occur simply because the mother can not provide a good life to a new human. More equal societies tend to take care of the societys main building blocks a lot better.

Hate to break this to you but @shatterdrose seems to have read his Marx while you seem to have watched too much FOX.

A 'Government' WILL ALWAYS EXIST in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY and WILL CONSIST OF THE POWERFUL (in modern parlance read: WEALTHY). This is true of towns in deep Africa, or nations, or in the future- planets of billions.

The idea that government is, of itself, fundamentally corrupt, or has any other predefining characteristic is a point of PHILOSOPHY and NOT THE ONE YOU ARE PUSHING.

The government is REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNED NEGOTIATING WITH THE POWERFUL.

The elimination of private property is an extreme reaction predicted by Marx and others AS A RESPONSE TO THE EVER INCREASING SHARE GOING TO THE OFFSPRING OF THE WEALTHY.

In theory, chinless entitled inheritees push the situation so much the people turn to violence to reset the system. As a comic side note, this has happened regularly and bloodily in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY WE HAVE A RECORD OF including the relatively comfortable European countries shortly before they gave birth to the US. (In fact the Puritans on the Mayflower executed the English King for corruption and briefly ruled but upon taking power banned parties, christmas presents, janet jacksons nipples etc and were rapidly kicked out with the monarchy reinstated..)

The modern social philosophers were contemplating how to avoid repeating history over and over. And by modern I mean the 195 year old man whose ideas you are publicly struggling with.

The size of government is IRRELEVANT. Its success or failure in negotiating on your behalf with THE POWERFUL WHO OWN YOU is all you should be concerned with.

Either you are a smart young Rockerfeller-Rothschild type playing clever PR, or the sort of loudmouth whose narcissism and stupidity has sold his family into neo-feudal servitude. Either way you should really shut up.