Intoscience

I rinse my gym bottle out pretty much as stated so far. I do on occasion rinse it with boiling water, the down side being that the plastic goes soft and I have to hold the bottle using a towel. Not sure whether this has any benefit? On the odd occasion I let it soak in detergent for a day or two then give it a thorough rinse out, same not sure if this has any benefit?

No big deal then, it seems people who insist on the ridiculous are doing the same, no? You are kidding right? So I should now be expected to refrain from calling a black berry what it is and has always been referred to, just in case it may offend someone? This is the sort of ridiculous clap trap that fuels people to come up with more and more excuses to point the finger at those that dare speak out, rather than those shying away in fear of being offensive, which has nothing to do with courtesy by the way, but rather, cowardice. Curtesy works both ways, along with respect, equality and acceptance. At least in this thread, we agree on something +1

There is no difference, however your example is not reflective of the point being made. The professor in your example has clear intent. Intent on being subtly racist, purposefully demeaning, until Paul complains (absolutely rightly so!) it may not appear that obvious, which was also the intent. I was focusing more on things that have or originally had, no intent towards harassment, racism or discrimination, but are made to appear to be by the extreme activists. For example - I over heard just the other day in a conversation that someone had made a comment that "black berries" should be re-named as the current term is racist. Should we seriously consider this?

This was the focus of the points I was trying to convey earlier in the thread, though not as obvious and bluntly as you have expressed it. When I have listened to JP this attitude seems to be the vein in which he debates such ideas. However, the argument made against this is, who are we to judge who is delusional, nutbars etc... and what is ridiculous or petty.

My father beat me with his belt strap because I'd swore at my mother. She nursed my sores and swellings better. I never swore at/or in front of either of my parents ever again, or since. At the time I thought my father was very strict and harsh, maybe (at least compared with modern times) he was. As I grew older and then had children myself I slowly realised and discovered that my father was actually a very caring and loving person. I never laid a finger on my own children as punishment, I did however allow them to get "burned" once and a while. I love and respect both my parents and learnt a lot about life from both angles.

Why does there have to be a purpose? Which by I mean - a fundamental purpose. Purposes can be assigned and not necessarily intrinsic to existence. But if we insist on assigning a purpose to life then, My favourite idea is that, the ultimate purpose of life is to evolve so that the universe can experience and wonder on itself.

I don't think we have much different views in reality. I think I probably air on the side of tough over soft and you the other way. But I think we both agree on the end goal, just slightly different paths to it. I can't say if my life experiences are any worse or less than others, including your good self. I don't consider myself to have suffered really bad, I'm alive, I'm generally healthy, I have good friends and a loving family, I earn a decent enough living to get me by and a roof over my head. Regardless of my struggles and adversity through the years gone by, compared to most I see myself as very fortunate . In my mind this is just the way the cookie crumbles and I (hope) have learned from my past experiences good and bad, and appreciate my position in this life. Thank you for an informed and interesting post. I have no comment to make, other than I enjoyed reading this and found your personal experiences interesting. This is one of the things that does irritate me about internet forums. Its easy to form an opinion and then judge a person by how and what they post from which is often mis-interpreted, whether that be due to culture differences or the difficulty in expressing emotion through just words or writing style. I'm very often guilty of all this and then realise afterwards I have fallen into the very trap I try to avoid. However I do enjoy these types of discussions, I like to read and try to understand other people's points of view and experiences. Hopefully I can be educated from this and learn to write better. I don't intend to be either offensive or irritating during these debates.

No not necessarily, I think you ned to experience some pain, like I said its about balance. I don't think we disagree with each other on wanting to improve society and acceptance, I just think we share different views on how to go about it. I think this is also the problem with JP in general. Like I have said previously I don't agree with everything JP states, however I don't think he as any particular agenda other than trying to make society better through education, I guess from his own perspective. Yes it may have evolved into "preaching" or at least the perception of such. But I think this is partly down to the media, his new found fame and other influences (maybe financial). You are quite correct, my empathy runs limited, certainly for what in my opinion is over sensitivity. (yes opinions are like ass holes...) You have formed an opinion on my personality however, based on just a few posts on a thread subject that we share slightly different ideas on. Yet you have no idea of my own personal experiences and why I have such a stance. Though its not arrogance, this is a mis-interpretation, maybe I'm to blame for this, due to the style in which I post.

I was referring to your statement rather than the video - "we've all had our share", "some more than others". In other words life is not fair, but that's just the way it is I'm afraid. He used this phrase on me when he found me whining about something, a little reminder that as unfair as it may seem to me at the time, there is a good chance that's its even less fair for someone else somewhere in the world. Sometimes humility can be a useful lesson.

"Some more than others" as my old pappy used to say

Lessons are learnt from experience, this includes hardship and adversity.

I don't "believe" in God either. However, I would assume that if God does exist then why would/should we presume to know the details? A gold fish cannot and does not have the capacity to know, do... and experience all that we do yet we share a common ancestor. If God sits outside of our "reality" then how can we know anything about God?

No thanks, no need to do anything, they don't require advice from me or anyone. They have handled racism all their lives, faced adversity many times. They just don't waste time whining about it feeling sorry for themselves, they act in a productive way to attempt to educate or change people's views towards them. They are my good friends, decent honest hard working people. What makes me smile about this thread is that its been suggested that: thinking I'm perfect, insensitive, uncourteous... when all I'm suggesting is that there are some cases where people are whining about things to seek either attention or sympathy therefore have mental health issues that require addressing firstly. It's a bit like feeding an alcoholic more alcohol cause that makes them feel better. I have no problem with being kinder towards people. But if I interpret you correctly I think your balance is tipped opposite mine and maybe somewhere in the middle is about right. Depends on the preacher and the intent. Of course I'm perfect, aren't we all? You are correct, my courteousness extends only to the point just short of ridiculous, so it all depends on the request and how I feel about it. I don't believe this would be any different for anyone else either. If you say different I don't believe you and would assume you are an hypocrite. If James wants to be known as James and not Sally I'm good with that, I'll do my best to adhere, however if I slip up from time to time don't whine and make a big deal out of it. The world has bigger problems to solve.

And I think I don't "need" to be a bit more anything, this could be your opinion and as you stated "opinions are like buttholes..." I think in the cases I'm considering the vast majority of people (other than the extremists) would also consider the behaviour to be ridiculous. But, times are changing and I accept that moral standards and what is deemed acceptable changes with it, however - My personal stance is, I try to be courteous and considerate as and when possible, but if I get called out for something that in my "opinion" is ridiculous then I'm not going to back down just to be more "PC". I won't repeatedly intend to continue to offend someone, I will accept that we share different opinions and feelings so respectfully decline from further communication or discussions on the subject. But I won't accept that I should change my view to fit in or be accepted by someone just because the risk of offending them. All I'm saying is, where does it all end? When does it get to the stage where people are in fear of making any comment at risk of being branded offensive or a bigot? But life is unfair and tough, over sensitivity can breed weakness in people. A weakness to face up to hardships, facts and deal with issues, instead burying their heads in the sand then complaining that someone else should fix it. Like all good things moderation and balance is required. Tough love is often as productive as soft love (for want of a better term) The right balance between them is the key to success. I don't have names that you would be familiar with, my point was drawn from my own experience interacting with people within my community. I can give you an example. The company I work for produce a particular product, the product is designed to appeal to gender, age, genre... we had a large group of visitors come and as a gesture the company decided to have one product made for each member of the group. Our sales director ordered a quantity of pink hearts design and a quantity of blue star design. This in his mind was to satisfy the ladies and the men . He was called out on this for discrimination, and described as a sexist bigot by some colleagues. He re-considered his actions and decide that the easiest solution was to just offer the neutral design which is non gender specific. Now you may ask, why weren't the people offered the choice, I asked this, and at the time the gesture was meant to be a surprise gift, so asking them to choose was not an option. He realised that in the modern PC world sending the neutral design was the most appropriate thing to do. He had made an honest and reasonable mistake with a considerate original intention. Yet he is now labelled as a sexist bigot. That's just not true, On the contrary, in my experience it tends to be the middle class, white, normally abled, often privileged people who get "oversensitive" sometimes on matters that don't even concern them or affect them directly. I have a couple of friends who are from an Asian ethnic poor minority, living in a white majority area, who do experience racism and deal with it admirably without getting oversensitive.

It's no problem and neither should it be. But if you made a mistake and said "while there HE bought food and supplies. I told HIM it would've been better to wait..." Which is a natural unconscious statement with no intent to offend, then why would Migl be offended?, courtesy works both ways. If Migl felt so strongly about how he is to be identified then he should kindly remind you of this and you would I'm sure show him the courtesy of doing so. However you may find yourself slipping accidentally back back mistake and unconsciously refer to Migl as HIM or HE again. It's this sort of thing that gets my back up, and what my point is aimed at. The world has gone overly PC in my opinion and people are now been called out for all sorts of ridiculous things. No, its weak to sling it around and then blame others I agree that there are people who intentionally offend then claim it to be "just a bit of fun / it was just a joke". But I think in general most people spot this. There is a difference between scientific objectivity and social objectivity. In a court of law scientific objectivity is paramount because personal opinion and interpretation is (should be) irrelevant. In a court the aim is to deal with facts, yet even in such areas, people's interpretations, feelings and context are taken into account. So though not always intentional subjectivity does exist even in courts of law. Where as, there is no place for subjectivity in the scientific method. The problem with taking the stance of total objectivity in a social aspect, is that people can become overly supressed into not speaking their thoughts or opinions in fear of offending. This doesn't mean people should not be courteous and considerate to others, of course they should, we are a civilised (one hopes) society. But how far do we go? I thought freedom of speech is a constitutional right? I don't want to be afraid of calling an apple and apple in fear that the apple actually wants to be identified as an orange. I would like to think I would be courteous to the apple and refer to it as an orange if it chose, however, the apple should not then accuse me of being discriminative or offensive if I slip up occasionally when we are taught in my culture and society that an apple is an apple. So my point is/was that the world has much bigger problems that need politically addressing. People who are (in my opinion) overly sensitive and then dramatize/blow out of context the use of grammar, are either attention/sympathy seeking or/have mental health issues that require professional attention.

I'm not angry concerned or offended, I'm not that sensitive. I don't have a problem with people being sensitive towards others, I advocate such. My issue (thus my point) lies with people being unnecessarily over sensitive and then making a big song and dance out of it, when it is perfectly clear and accepted that the person doing the alleged offending had no intention to do so, or the comment/s made was taken out of context and sensationalised either for attention seeking or sympathy. People should be considerate and sometimes sensitive towards others, but over sensitivity, especially over petty issues, promotes and encourages weakness in people. This is one aspect where the "nanny" state mentality can arise from. Yet another point of view that JP and people who dare to speak out on get slated for.

Yes, perhaps, my point was mainly aimed at those that continually complain about petty PC. iNow replied mainly with examples of purposeful comments that were intentionally designed and aimed at being offensive, even though some appeared to be or attempted to be jokingly cloaked. My point was aimed at the minority who just take things completely out of context when it was evident that the allegation is totally unfounded. But this seems to have gone over everyone's head. So now I'm made out to be unsensitive (which I could take offense at) by not considering everyone's perspective, the irony. There are people dying all over the world from disease, starvation, wars... I'm saying some people need to get a grip and consider those poor people's feelings. JP often takes this approach and is slammed for his opinion, and many times people are offensive towards him. Whether you agree with his claims or not, right or wrong he maybe, considering his perspective and then discussing this can be productive, especially when the things he talks on are "sensitive" subjects.

No, I don't believe in God. However, I hope I'm wrong.

During my school years all the teachers just used our surnames when addressing us. Maybe it was a show of authority, I doubt there was any other particular underlining reason other than to gain respect for that authority. No big deal, and I'm sure it had no effect on anyone's wellbeing or state of mind then and now. People are far too sensitive these days and over react to such petty political correctness. Maybe if people focused more on real problems that require solving, which will have an actual positive impact on society rather than wasting time and effort over interpretation of the use of language, the world would be a better place for all of us.

I don't agree with the first sentence, though this maybe true for some women. However, in my experience the 2nd sentence is quite true. This is the reason books and films predominantly aimed at women, portray the "bad boy, but nice" type of guy as the hero. Women are attracted to powerful men who they can tame, and its not just about physical power, Beauty and the Beast is just a simple metaphor. JP is just pointing out a fact that is popular among a vast majority of women across many cultures. I don't agree with everything he says, and I'm not particularly a follower of his talks, I do think though he often speaks out about things others dare not, and this provokes the negative reactions. Some people are just afraid to discuss things in fear of not being PC.

You've lost me, what's an amoeba got to do with this discussion? It took billions of years for us to evolve from amoeba to humans. Modern humans have only been around 10's of thousands of years, so comparatively not really had that much time to evolve the basic instincts, wouldn't you say? Regardless, we haven't evolved past many of the natural instincts inherent thousands of years ago. Why would we assume we have suddenly evolved into any thing majorly different in modern times? Yes we can argue we are more civilised and more intelligent, or rather, better educated. But many of the basic natural instincts we still share with our long ago ancestors. So yeah - "boys will be boys", "men will be men", this is the point, isn't it?

My understanding is that J.P is arguing for nurture to combat nature. He recognises that we have genetic evolutionary traits that are inherent and instinctive, some that are negative within modern civilised society. the argument is that we should consider these traits and recognise that because they are natural instincts we should investigate ways in which nurturing them will help to control the negative ones in a positive manner. As apposed to relying solely on "intellect" and suppression, but to channel the instincts in a productive manner. For example, Some kid is aggressive and struggles with behaviour. He may have home or upbringing issues that require addressing, or he may to some degree, just be naturally aggressive. Rather than teaching him just right from wrong and persisting that he refrains from violent behaviour, or continuingly punishing him. Consider introducing him to a sport, maybe even a combat sport, where he can positively channel the aggression. This nurtures the natural instinct that he was born with, in a way that he can learn to control and positively channel his aggression, without the need to continually suppress it. Where without this nurture, even with good education, as he grows into an adult it may have an adverse effect, possibly leading to criminal or violent activities and a possible threat to society. Obviously this is not exclusive to children per say, and can be useful for adolescent and mature men who struggle with controlling aggression. The argument is, intelligence and education are only part of the solution, understanding the basic inherent instincts and dealing with them positively, both for society and also the wellbeing of that person, is also a major part of the solution and should not be ignored.

I never said he was being or should/shouldn't be ignored, I like, Peterson is saying that we should not ignore instinctual traits that date back thousands/millions of years of evolution when considering behavioural situations. In that, to be able to better control these inherent instincts, the ones especially bad for modern society, it pays well to consider them, what they are and where they come from, then work towards ways to control them in a positive manner. Suppression of these can be as harmful in the long run, as allowing them to act out in a negative way. Finding ways to control them without prejudice and suppression in an acceptable manner is a positive approach, in my humble opinion. Regardless of intelligence, we all bare our ancestral instincts some more or stronger than others, we all deal with them in our own way, some positive some negative. Anyone who ignores this fact is either lying or naïve. This is one thing which I agree with Peterson on. So who doesn't, if they have the opportunity? Every celebrity in the public eye does the same. Doesn't make them wrong or right, or any more or less an expert or professional in their field. Its down to the individual in the audience to decide on whether they agree, disagree or get convinced or even brainwashed into believing something or not. I watch and read many of the "pop" science books, YouTube videos and pod casts. I'm not naïve enough to fall into the trap of assuming everything is correct and also appreciate that many things are sensationalised or written in an analogous way to gain more interest or appeal to the layman.

Agreed, however some have "grown up" more than others and there still remains evolutionary traits that date back thousands of years. Evolution is a long slow process comparatively. So I don't disagree that humans are evolving, of course they are, more civilised for one we could argue. No, you completely mis-interpret and mis-represent what I'm saying. Myself, and I believe Peterson is saying that certain traits/instincts observed in males still exist that date back thousands of years and are likely inherent of the evolution process. No one, not even Peterson is saying that some of this behaviour is acceptable or uncontrollable. He is saying that to aid in controlling these urges/instincts understanding why they exist and what may trigger them is useful. On a recent thread about punishment, folk on here were advocating that rather than punishing criminals they should be either rehabilitated or efforts made towards prevention. Yet here we are slating a Phycologist for suggesting that some unacceptable behaviour is evolutionary, and should not be ignored, so that it can be addressed in a positive manner.

I don't believe this is true. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, in fact much of it is his own opinion which as we know is worthless. However I think he makes valid points on behavioural trends due to gender and evolution. I don't think he is saying that some male behaviour is ok or acceptable, just that he is pointing out that behavioural traits found common in men are due to evolution. Therefore when he says "men cannot really help themselves in being men" he is talking about the natural instinct to act in a certain way. This doesn't mean that some of this behaviour should be acted out or indeed be acceptable in society. What he is saying is that these urges to do certain things should be channelled in more productive ways so that men who suffer from strong urges, or at least difficulty in controlling them can be helped. For instance, men in particular through evolution have the tendency to be competitive, which can lead to aggression, sometimes uncontrollable aggression. So by channelling this competitiveness in a more acceptable productive manner can help reduce the tendency to act in a non acceptable manner. Ultimately modern society expects a certain level of behaviour (rightly so) which means that some males have to control or supress urges/instincts "men being men" that come natural to them them in order to maintain a safe and healthy society. This is my interpretation of what Peterson suggests.