Smithereens

Brain dead people are dead people. Do you mean comatose people? 

I've had 5 experimental drugs tested on me to date, and I'll be having a 6th tested soon. I also support the use of animals in the name of science so Idk WTF you're trying to say.

That's not how science works. You're presenting it as an issue of rationalism vs empiricism where Peterson is on the rationalist side and thinks he can discredit expert consensus on the basis of a priori reasoning. You can't do this, you actually need empirical evidence to support your proposition. Whatever Peterson says, this is simply something he doesn't do. However it is something that is done by the academics he attacks. Empiricism > Rationalism.

For example, I don't believe that a wage gap is indicative of sexism against women, but I don't doubt that women tend to get paid less than men for the same jobs. I think there are many reasons that explain why this happens. When Peterson outright dismisses the wage gap as a myth, he's arguing against empirical observations of the gap, without using empirical observations of his own. This is going to be highly convincing to someone who already believes a priori that the wage gap is a myth, but not someone who has observed that women do indeed make less money within the same fields as men, again, no comment from me as to why this happens.

When Galileo discovered the moons of jupiter using this telescope, Francesco Sizi did exactly what Peterson does today, he attempted to refute Galileo's direct observations using a priori reasoning: 

there is no substitute for empirical studies. If you claim that expert consensus is wrong, unless you have a greater volume of evidence to back up your claim, you are wrong. Any attitude that places rationalism over empiricism is anti-science, and this is what Peterson is guilty of. My criticism is valid because he does do this, and your rebuttal to my criticism is basically that 'he doesn't always do this, there can be simple problems.' I don't intend to claim absolutes, that Peterson always simplifies, as that's a complete simplification of my argument. The irony continues.

On my phone I use chrome and the home page has a bunch of quick access sites, one of which is this one. The Icon for it is the D and the A you see in the title at the top and bottom of your screen now.

I smell it coming already...

I don't think Juggle is particularly responsive to Airmax even.

This site calls itself DA on it's icon, which shows up on my phone so I call it DA.

I've never heard of the place. If you happen to have contact with them, do invite them over. Science debaters are rather valuable lol

you must be quite the narcissist if your feelings are hurt by someone you're calling a "kid." The fact of the matter is that most self professing religious individuals here are completely irreligious. Christianity is a form of entertainment, where you go to church to see rock bands perform on stage. These are the style of churches that are big in Australia: https://hillsong.com/

you don't appear to know anything of the culture, and it's not relevant to you in the first place. You taking offense shows you have the maturity of a toddler, and the fact you can't defend your own ideas but only interject your opinions into conversations you weren't invited to gives me the impression of an edgy teen trying to grab my attention. You've had the opportunity for my attention when you were asked to defend your views on mind reading. You aren't worth my time if you can't commit to discussion so kindly read up on religion in Australia and defend your childlike fantasies of mind reading in the thread you were engaged in like a grown up.

there's the thing, the membership there has been dwindling steadily for the past 6 years I've been there and now it's basically dead. Here is alive so while I still check in every now and again, I'm probably going to be mostly here from now on.

Also there's an active developer working on this site so...

well we have heard from him. He said he might join later.

Those that oppose animal research should immediately be volunteered for phase 1 clinical trials. To oppose the use of animals in research while simultaneously enjoying the luxuries said research has afforded us is plain hypocritical to the truest definition of the word.

No, the impression that australia is religious is false and I don't want Ethang to get the idea that is implied by the survey data. You're absolute incorrect if you think otherwise. That you would take away what you did from that reply tells me more about you and your ego than anything else. 

Still awaiting your explanation for mind reading too. You did assert quite vehemently that it was real so...

Antifa leaders + organisers should be held legally responsible for the violence and damages of antifa at their rallies.

most people are religious because their parents were religious.

I can tell you've never been to Australia otherwise you would be aware of the fact that people who identify with a religion here typically don't believe it. 8% of the population actually go to church, the rest who don't are happy to call themselves christians even though by a biblical definition they are not. It's a culture of identities that stems from roots. I'd call myself a christian because I grew up a christian even if I didn't believe in christianity. That's the culture we have. By technicality, I'm very wrong, most people here call themselves religious. Very few people actually believe the bible or attend church however, so for the context of discussion I'm going to tell ethang the reality and not the statistic.

source: https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/blogarchive/church-attendance-in-australia-infographic/

Furthermore, I seem to recall asking you to defend your assertion that mind reading is something more than a fantasy, but you don't seem to be capable of either that or admitting it's not possible. If it's because you've become quite emotional about (which I sense from your tone) then that's fair and I'll stop asking, as some people can be quite sensitive and need the extra consideration.

I likely saw you debating in favour of prostitution or something at one point and assumed you were a left wing progressive. Funny how biases can stick around for years without me knowing.

where did you get this feminist BS from? I agree with the substance of (many of) the things he says, I simply criticise how he frames issues in a way that makes his point of view obvious. I can take any issue too and explain the social causes as being a basic story that supports my narrative. It doesn't take a doctorate of psychology to do that. He's received a lot of criticism from scholars for making assertions within their field that reflect his own opinion and not expert consensus. 

If you think my criticism of him was because I disagree with what he says, then I'm afraid you exemplify the sort of thinking he claims to disdain. You make a comment presuming I have a thing against white patriarchy on the basis of me criticising Jordan Peterson. Not only are you well off the mark, but that's exactly the sort of logic that Peterson stands as an antithesis to. The irony is not lost on me.

Good to see you around again. 

Well they haven't come up with 'god' stories is what I'm saying. They've come up with superstitions and 'gods' stories. Bunch of pagan nonsense. People came up with heathen and idolatrous beliefs because life was hard. 

also you're not as far left as I thought you were. What's your political alignment?

Often he speaks outside his field of expertise and deserves a lot of criticism for it. I think his existence stirs up a lot of valuable debate which I thank him for, but I don't like his extraordinary simplistic views of history and how society functions. Even a cursory glance at society will tell you that our history and social structures are profoundly complex and there's no way you're going to be able to claim that A is the sole cause of B and there's an easy fix for it.

he just wants us to see tiddies. May I suggest that a quote feature that allows you to quote things the post I'm replying to itself quoted? Like in this post it's not obvious that you didn't ask for the larger profile picture so that you could show off your boobs.

Yes we have the same neurotransmitters as everyone else 

That's deeply cultural. Supernatural stories are woven very strongly into most cultures, but where you'd be mistaken is with the term "god." Most primitive cultures are mystic, and most ancient cultures are polytheistic. Monotheism is relatively new compared to the old styles of paganism that came before. If you're suggesting that our pagan roots mean something other than the fact that we were primitive savages who now know better, I would likely disagree.

keep in mind you guys are talking to RM and if you haven't noticed, he's a bit funny up there.

posts should be unique

posts should be unique

posts should be unique

posts should be unique

posts should be unique

posts should be unique

posts should be unique

posts should be unique

posts should be unique

posts should be unique

what

what

ẖ̴̯͙͕͂͠e̴̝̓͊̈̄͗l̴̙̽͑͊̋͘l̸̡̡͙̓̓̆̕͜͜ǭ̴̱̩͖̲̉ ̵̡̨̭̻̜̂̾̽̽V̸̡͍̹̐̆̔͠͠O̵͍̙̐̈̇̀̋͜T̸̥̜̫͚̈́

whats your DDO name?

people living in poverty tend to believe in the supernatural. Quality of life negatively correlates with religiosity. Humanity has been getting more and more atheistic as people stop seeing the need for God. Previously cultures stood a lot to gain from believing in God. It provided a sense of security in a world that was merciless and unforgiving. Now technology has become humanities new 'god,' as it's steadily assuming the role of the provider of comforter.

You'll note the richer the country, the fastest they are moving towards total atheism.

That every culture has it's history tied to mysticism, doesn't mean that witchcraft is automatically valid. Popularity is not an indicator of validity. 

Adding comments to members profiles would be a nice feature.

Stay strong brother, the night is darkest before... uh.. it goes pitch black in all honesty.

I'm centrist apathetic. Change my mind.

See the thing is, 99% of students are completely normal, rational beings. They're not going to use their weapons for any reason other than self-defense. The 1% that do use their weapons are going to get eliminated in very short order. Thus America can bring the number of sane students from 99% to 100% via this policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkRDGwmRRHY

just let em know is enough. the old site is pretty much dead now so there's nobody to see a campaign. 

I wouldn't call Stalin right wing, but fascism is philosophical. Ultra-nationalism can be right wing supremacy. There's no checklist inherent in the definition. You can say Fascism is characterised by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, but you can't say that it has exactly these facets and no more or less. That's the problem with defining by exemplars, you can never really establish a platonic ideal. 

When something is characterised by something else, it means it's typified by those characteristics. Defining it as it's exemplars is the logical equivalent of saying a person from Africa must be black and no other colour. It's fallacious.

Fascism is authoritarian (there is authoritarian left and right) and it's nationalistic (which can also be left or right).