MigL

Thanks for clarifying, but how is that not force of law ? And since abuse and harassment are crimes of perception, by the 'victim', how do you defend against them ? In other words, keep your opinions to yourself, unless your opinions agree with the self-identifying oppressed, and the virtue signalers. I suppose, next you'll say the law doesn't affect deaf-mutes at all, so all's good. No one should have to be afraid of voicing their opinion. And you have every right to self-identify as anything you want; you DON"T have the right to force it on me. ( in a just society, not the one you seem to want ) Lack of a proper argument leads you to critique his fashion sense ?

As usual, I fail to understand your non sequitors. Your mind works in mysterious ways Dim, so you'll have to elaborate.

You can label it Political Correctness, or whatever you wish. The fact is that our Western societies are now almost at a point where the individual right nt to be offended, trumps society's right to free speech. And where your own personal, subjective reality can be forced, under threat of law, on the rest of society. If it was someone in authority doing this to society, you would all label him a despot, or dictator, or fascist. When it is anyone with a gripe against the rest of society, or a pretentious, virtue signalling university student, who has no clue what being underpriviliged really is, you guys all stand and cheer, while disparaging those who stand up against the nonsense, claiming they are out of their area of expertise, or just in it for popularity and money. You guys need to give your collective heads a shake !

You are far from typical, Loretta.

I would have rather you posted the ending, so I wouldn't have to read all that.

You can call them whatever you want. But they might not answer you.

It may be somewhat true, that the possibility of escalation to extremes is what keeps most people's face-to-face interactions civil, and why a lot of online interactions ( where that threat is removed ) emboldens some people to be as rude as possible. ( not you guys 🙂 ) That seems pretty judgemental for a tolerant, enlightened, progressive. Ahh well, we all have opinions.

Ahh, but they are equivalent ( except for 'special' effects ). Acceleration is due to a force acting on a 'free' mass, and weight is due to a force ( gravitational ) acting on a 'fixed' mass. That is part of the Equivalence Principle.

I, on the other hand, thought he was the only one who actually addresses the topic. And he did t in a nice, polite way; unlike some of the other participants. If a crazy person comes at you, intending to do you harm, you have a spectrum of responses, from civil discourse, all the way to breaking his arm so that he can't. If that person is crazy enough, he will harm you no matter how civil you are, because he is long past respecting civility. I have no problem dealing with crazy,violent men, who have made that choice. How do you deal with crazy, violent women ?

You have been. Thank goodness for the ground forcing you to stay in place.

No, Dr Kaku is an actual Physicist. I just make up stuff as I go along.

Thanks for the elaboration Eise. But it does sort of prove the point about free will. Quantum Mechanics has multiple interpretations also, but, of a single, well defined, mathematical model. Free will only has multiple interpretations.

So you have evolved past instinct and hard-wired brain function, Dim ? Try to stop breathing. Or involuntarily kick when your knee is tapped. Or yawning when you see someone do the same. Or recoiling after touching something hot. Or ... J Peterson is being criticised for comparing one ( or more ) human traits to that of lobsters. Meanwhile Dim thinks comparisons to amoebas to prove his point, are acceptable. Oh, the hypocrisy ! Of course he is. I have stated that numerous times already. He has been able to quit a tenured professorship and a clinical practice because of the amounts of money he is earning from his notoriety. He has that other instinct we all possess; greed. But I was talking about OUR discussion, when you said you ween't a fan, and I replied it isn't a popularity contest. You don't have to like the man to agree with some of his views.

I'm sure J P is disappointed, and I'm sure it isn't a popularity contest. Sometimes honest opinion and facts, can be hurtful, offensive and come across as 'snide'. Wait a minute, J P has said that also !

Since we all seem to have differing interpretations of what J Peterson says, I shall present my interpretation. we have different methods of dealing with each other socially. For men dealing with men, these interactions span the range from civil discourse on one end, all the way to the physical on the other end. The 'physical' end of the interactions is usually limited to dealing with anti-social men. The 'crazy' men, if you will. In modern society, that end of the interaction spectrum is no longer available for men dealing with women, as anything even approaching the physical is severely frowned on. Since there are also anti-social women in this world, the 'crazy' women, if you will, the problem is then, how do you deal with them ? Having never been married, I cannot comment on what my reaction would be to a persistant/annoyingsuitor to my wife. As for girlfriends, I've always preferred very assertive women, who would quickly tell an unwanted suitor where to go, and i've only ever needed to step in if there was the threat of violence. But getting back to J Peterson, I especially liked this debate ... It is kind of long, but very interesting. I was particularly impressed by Stephen Fry, just an actor/director/comedian, but very sharp.

Sampling only that particular post, from your many excellent ones, informs me that you are a negative person, who sips gallons of sour milk. Do you see how 'sampling' a snippet of a conversation ( and out of context ) is not a good idea ? I'm glad that yu're proud of misunderstanding, and taking things out of context. I wouldn't be. Maybe you should find the whole interview, not just the particular section you misinterpreted.

I don't doubt that J P is using his new-found notoriety to increase the amount he can eat ( wealth ), Dim. So he is greedy, like the rest of us. That makes no difference to the argument being presented.

Quantum Mechanics is clearly defined and mathematically consistant. It somewhat difficult to understand, but, once you do, it is not strange or ambiguous at all. Free will ( and consciousness ), on the other hand, is not clearly defined, nor consistant. So which of the two is strange ?

El Salvador is the nly one I know of. El Salvador's world-first adoption of bitcoin endures bumpy first day | Reuters

My opinion is that your biases are showing. He says that when dealing with 'crazy' men or women, once civil discourse has come to an end, the next step is physical. And that can be done with 'crazy' men, but obviously not with 'crazy' women. Don't hear or see what isn't in the video. Well that explains things. I've never read his self-help book. ( being the Clint Eastwood type, I've never needed help ) And I hope I wasn't too rude when I asked about your area of expertse. It was rhetorical; I know full well what your expertise is. But I have to ask, if you wrote a book on genetic sequencing, meant for the general public, would you include some sensationalist elements to make it more 'interesting' for the lay-person ? Might you include a chapter on how similar human genetic structure is to a lobster ? And does that one specific similarity make us and lobsters the same ? Do you think a pop-sci book is equivalent to J P's actual research and expertise ? Do you also dismiss all of Michio Kaku, Brian Green, Stephen Hawking, and other's work, because they have written pop-sci books ? Again, don't get your information from pop sci books, or, snippets of interviews on YouTube, taken out of context.

And I can cite the bowling ball on a rubber sheet analogy from any elementary book on GR. An analogy is only useful in demonstrating one particular effect, and is meant for lay-people. But space-time is not a rubber sheet, and lobsters are not people. More specifically, where has J P said that male aggressive behaviour should be excused/tolerated because of its evolutionary nature ?

All fine and dandy. But I asked for proof that J P has actually said that, not an explanation of how the argument works ( or doesn't ).

I thought it was enough for a 'point' to be defined as dimensionless. If Conscious Energy wants to define something else, with physical extent, he should call it something else.

Getting back to J Peterson, somebody is going to have to post a clip where he says males are competitive and aggressive due to evolutionary factors, and their behaviour should be excused because they can't control themselves. Every interview/debate I've seen involving J Peterson, it is the people arguing against him who are aggressive, and tend to lose their shit, while he remains calm and collected.

So far, CharonY, all you've mentioned is that J Peterson gives Professors a bad name, and preaches nonsense as it is ouside his field of expertise. Yet I notice you haven't submitted any evidence opposing his ideas. Maybe you should be held to the same standards as J Peterson. What exactly is your field of expertise ? I don't know what J Peterson has to do with the attitude of Australian men that Beecee and Phi are carrying on about, but it seems to be related to something from another thread. As for Phi, I find this laughable ... That 'chock full of lawyers' association is chaired by the Honourable Bob Runciman, a provincial politician for about 30 years before being appointed to his Senate position. The very funny part is that B Runciman is a CONSERVATIVE. ( a canadian conservative, but nonetheless, conservative ) Does disagreeing with a conservative, now make you conservative ?? ( notice I used 'the Honourable' when addressing B Runciman; I didn't want to be charged under Bill c-16 )