Peterkin

Peterson's position seems to be that, since life is unfair, people shouldn't be fair or expected to obey laws that force them to be fair. Me, I don't consider that a good political idea. I think that, once humans came up with the concept of fairness, they should try to apply it, to make up for some of nature's injustices. After all, we try to make up for nature's lapses in medicine and technology.

What I actually wrote was: And if you will note the efforts currently, and for some time now, under way in various countries, they are not altogether successful. Meanwhile, in some other places, including part of the US, laws have recently been passed that make family planning, access to birth control and sex education more difficult. In fact, the efforts of people far more powerful and influential than you are have fallen short of their aspiration, for all the reasons that I've previously outlined. Changing attitudes is not fast or easy; when there is powerful opposition, it becomes even more difficult. "The will" does not materialize on demand, or uniformly, or globally. The reasons you deny do exist and won't disappear because you have this "idea".

Why do you think nobody tried? You really are not the very first person ever to think of this!

IF. And that's the whole thing in a nutshell. IF the will, then economic prosperity. IF the will, then no more tribal wars or colonial oppression. IF the will, then liberation of minorities, empowerment of women, birth control, universal literacy, comprehensive vaccination and perinatal health-care.... IF

They look as if the two parts go either side of a wall with a tiny hole in it. Securing clamps for a glass lampshade on a brass base? Only, there should be three.

Please present the ones that have not yet been discussed.

Which people talk this way? Expand You do. Over and over. I have shown, with numerous citations, what does affect the birth rate. There is nothing 'inhuman' about raising the standard of living or giving women social and economic autonomy. You don't have to follow the links or read the reports, but denying their existence is .... unproductive. I think it's impossible for you to change other people's - particularly heads of state and religious bodies - attitudes and persuade them to implement the measures you propose. Show us.

There are several reasons, both political and religious. Who makes these demands on whom? On what basis? How is the edict enforced?

You have no means of measuring that so you either have to comply with my ridiculous request or face consequences of not adhering to your own rules. Consequence = 0 Demanding to be addressed in the singular/familiar/condescending* form of the same pronoun to which we are accustomed is not a point of grammatical correctness in this case - since you don't seem to able to give a reason in terms of English usage. Nor can it be a statement of identity, since you have not - and thou hast not - articulated a reason for the reduction in status. (*The familiar 'thou' - in French, tu - was used for close friends and family, children and social inferiors. The proper form for peers and superiors is second person plural: you - or vous - and for the exalted, such as high-ranking priests and aristocracy, the formal third persons, thus: "Does Your Eminence deign to sit at one's humble table?" ) Even more to the point, there can be no discrimination, substantial or social harm to an internet construct, as it has no human rights. Was there something to discuss that has not yet been amply covered three or four times? If that's preachment, I wish all priests were as succinct. Indeed, I wish Dr. Peterson were as succinct.

How else would you protest what you believe to be unjust treatment of your sdaughter ( son ) ? Daughter. He doesn't acknowledge the child's right to be a boy. The "unjust treatment" is to give him what he asked for and the mother approved. How else [other than blabbing the child's private problem to the tabloids, which helped nobody] you might protest a medical procedure of which you disapprove is to talk to the patient's doctor(s). One clinical child psychologist, afaik, and presumably some medical practitioners. With whom the father did not speak. I thought you knew. He used to be a university professor, a researcher in some whole other field of psychology, a writer of self-help books and is more recently an overpriced inspirational speaker at right-wing rallies. I'm reasonably sure the ex-wife of a mailman couldn't afford to consult him, even if she'd wanted to. Why did you think this was relevant?To what do you think this is relevant? Who gives a ...... ....?

Most people have trouble getting the corresponding verb tenses right, and those who are comfortable with Elizabethan English, methinks are but faint inclined to exchange pleasantries with the likes of thee.

That will be difficult. For one thing, you don't want to know. For another, it's messy, and very badly reported, because the 'concerned father' publicized his child's situation to just the kind of outlets who distort stories to push their own agenda. He's not a single parent; there is a perfectly functional mother in the picture, and the boy is in Grade 9. He doesn't just have "certain ideas"; he has been convinced of his incorrect gender assignment since 5th grade and that is why he sought help. Typically, gender dysphoria presents before age 10, before the the mis-assigned child has heard any 'ideas' on the subject or been exposed to any "ideology". The father seemed entirely unconcerned with the child's emotional distress. So unconcerned as to refuse the mother's repeated pleas to meet with the health team; instead he went to court against his child. The child won. The unconcerned father was so distraught by this defeat that he set his child up as a target for hate-mongers. His precious right to his precious opinion outweighs his child's welfare? The court disagreed.

While missing points is my superpower, I didn't miss this one. The UK population is not separate from the world, with its own "natural" and "artificial" trends. It's part of the world and subject to the same influences as every other country. Immigrants are not artificial: they are a natural outcome of having had a big empire, and once in the UK, they become part of the UK population, contributing to its natural trends. The natural trend is downward in certain conditions and upward in other conditions. Which is why it's not the same in all countries at any given time. Nothing, except death - no, not even taxes - is inevitable. Which people talk this way? Oh, well, if that's all.... Full employment in an era of accelerating automation, given the relative turnover time of a generation of humans vs a generation of robots, is unlikely. And, afaic, unnecessary. If growth capitalism is the wrong way to go, its institutions and infrastructure are also the wrong way to build societies. China is learning that - or starting to. Africa may be learning it in little patches.

Except he wasn't prosecuted for his views; he was prosecuted for flouting a gag order and blabbing very private matters to the media, and for harassing the poor kid whom he wanted to be his little girl but who experienced himself as a boy. No, the issue on which they disagree is what for. There is a fair amount of other bias in that article, as well.

That's from a conservative new York-based magazine. https://www.city-journal.org/magazine?issue=344 this is Global news - Canadian mainstream (conservative) network. Slightly different point of view.

And? How does this affect world population growth? We have already seen that by the second generation, the birth rate of immigrants, from less to more prosperous nations levels off to match the rest of the population. The immigrants themselves are having the very same babies they would have had somewhere else (true, more of those babies survive than they might have in the country of origin, but many, both adults and children, are lost in transition); their children have fewer babies than they would have had in their native land and their grandchildren have fewer still. Overall, it makes no difference to the current world population and reduces future increase. A rise in the standard of living invariably decreases population increase.

So... um... does Professor Peterson actually have any political ideas? That's just another of the myriad matters on which I am unclear. Whining, yes. Ranting, yes. Posturing, yes - oh, plenty of that! Snapping at students, check. Baiting opponents, often. Ideas...? I didn't see any.

Shingles doesn't care.

The operative word is "persistent". Once is a slip; twice is rude; every day for a year is harassment. One joke about one priest is disrespectful; two jokes about the same aspect of the same priest is mean; putting his picture on the internet is harassment. Insisting that a person sit in the gallery with the women, because you think he looks as if he might be able to bear children, even if he experiences himself as male is discrimination. Lobsters don't have this problem. Peterson does.

Not Comrade Instructor? You were lucky! Yes, various political regimes have made some silly forms of address, collective nouns, offices, ranks and titles. Also many private corporations and schools; also social organizations and government agencies, police and merchant marine, road crews and medical institutions. Not even to mention religions and armed forces! And somehow, the people who joined those organizations or were coerced to abide by those protocols managed to navigate their complexity and use the right word at the right time. What you can do under duress, you can probably do voluntarily, when somebody asks nicely. Also untrue. As Peterson knows and pretends not to.

I know that religious beliefs are protected. I also know there is nothing in the bill that prevents me finding a priest's costume amusing. Nowhere have I referred to "them all" or attributed any particular behaviour, either good or bad, to "them all" . I'm reasonably sure my tiny jest, as hypocritical and inapproriate as it may be, doesn't compare in scope, scale or intent with the burning of houses of of worship.

In fact, that sort of top-down action has proven the lest effective in the long term, as people find ways, sometimes not very smart ones, around it. Imposed on ancient cultures, it can be disaster. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/too-many-men/ What government needs to do: level off extreme disparity and thus eliminate extreme poverty, curb the legal power of organized religion, liberate the women from economic and legal bondage, and provide access to perinatal care and birth control. When infant mortality declines, so does the birth rate.

I wonder.... If the sensitive and insensitive people of the world were to battle it out for dominance, once and for all, and the insensitive won, would this become a better, freer, more honest world?

Plus he dresses funny, in public yet! Heaven knows (oh, It does!) what he gets up to in the closet.

It isn't. You're not. You're only being asked to respect them (optional) and forbidden to discriminate against them (legal). I sincerely doubt that. The holy Inquisition, in Spain and elsewhere, was extremely successful at preventing non-mainstream, proscribed-by-dogma identities from being expressed for +/-600 years. The dogma lived on beyond its official disbanding, in bodies of civil and criminal law, and lives on still in the more benighted ridings/electoral districts. That's why people who vociferously oppose the right to self- or group- identification for non-them-type people are so popular on the far right.