Gun Control

And that makes everyone a communist? Which is what he's rambling about.

Besides on the school where I work, most children at 10 or 11 already know what anal is because these days everyones runing around with a smart phone and youporn on it. Considering the fact that I had the pleasure to deal with 12 year old drug dealers, children geting neglected and beaten by their parents, I have to say if they knew about anal sex trough school is the least of our problem in education - no clue how it is for Canada.

Part of the problem I have is, that people never get tired to blame the left, marxists, communists what ever, for each and every social change, while ignoring the real elephants in the room. Stuff that I worked with on a daily basis for the last 2 years while educating children and doing some charity work. But I totally understand that higher taxes for a few wealthy people are like a national crysis.



To think that I was once a 'fan' of Perterson ... but recently he's only releasing a lot of hot air.

Well I did see he was only partially right. I would agree a lot of the left is headed towards Marxism, weather as a socialist or communist which are different sides of the same coin with socialism working to convince you its a good idea and communism just telling you they are right. Another problem I see with your school complaints is when do they have a chance to be children. Instead of teaching our kids about anal sex due and other stuff they are not emotional mature enough for yet (12 seems like a better age to start getting into the whole details of sex ed), we should maybe as a society start to encourage parents to restrict what there child sees. Why the hell does a 12 year old need a cell phone, or constant internet connectivity. To me it seems we as adults are trying to force our children to grow up faster, to mature faster then they actually can. We seem to think that as a society we are progressing but it some ways this progress has failed and that is evident in 12 year olds dealing drugs or thinking that a 6 year old knows about gender diversity and can decide that they are trans. And maybe they are but, it seems that when you look at their parents this might be a pushed choice.

But this may be a better topic for the political thread and not the gun control one.
 

Wow, Peterson's going full McCarthy here.

"Postmodernists and Nihlists ARE all Marxists! Every Idea I don't like gets consigned to the rubbish bin of history"

lmao, this guy is ridiculous.

Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of rallying against indoctrination, while at the same time demanding colleges "Transmit western values throughout the generations". Or the hypocrisy of rallying against English courses not teaching Shakespeare while simultaneously demanding they don't teach Marx.

So a country where more than 70% of industry is privately owned is the best example FakeInternetUniversity can come up with for socialism?, lmao
 
Last edited:
Wow, Peterson's going full McCarthy here.

"Postmodernists and Nihlists ARE all Marxists! Every Idea I don't like gets consigned to the rubbish bin of history"

lmao, this guy is ridiculous.

Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of rallying against indoctrination, while at the same time demanding colleges "Transmit western values throughout the generations". Or the hypocrisy of rallying against English courses not teaching Shakespeare while simultaneously demanding they don't teach Marx.
I'll be honest, this is the point where I stopped reading. But I'm not going to make assumptions on what you say after this point. I'll respond to what you say here.

First of all, Postmodernism is basically Nihilism but dumber. Nihilism says nothing matters, Postmodernism says we're too modern to keep pretending things matter. These are worthless loser-ideologies for pathetic losers. But these postmodernist marxists, who believe the west is evil and can only be made better if it's brought down from within and a communist dictatorship is raised in its place... These people are also pathetic losers.

You know what else is a pathetic loser ideology? Cultural Marxism, the delusion that no culture is better than another and it's icky and sexisty and bigoty and wrongthinky to think otherwise. Say what you will about how much American "Cheesburger freedom guns!" culture pisses you off and makes your skin crawl and turns your stomach, but hey, at least it's a better culture than the culture in the middle east where gay people are thrown off rooftops for being gay. And hey, it's a nicer culture than some of the human sacrifice-practicing cultures this world used to have.

Cultural Marxism... Postmodernism... Nihilism... What's the problem with these three worthless loser-ideologies?

Is it that their followers are terrible human beings? Well sure, they are, but that isn't the problem here.

The problem here is, those pathetic losers are being paid to be college teachers, and they aren't being college teachers. They aren't upholding the values and virtues of the western world, they're lying and calling those virtues evil things that a communist society is better off for not having. They are wasting time and money propagandizing children and college students instead of teaching them facts, criticial thinking skills, and a well-rounded education.

Commie bastards... Are abusing their positions of power they have over children and young adults. Positions of power they were allowed to get by the west. I hope you aren't too far gone to understand why that's a bad thing.

Why did the west let them rise up through the ranks of so many institutions and ruin them? Because the west still believes there's some good in everyone, even the commies. The West will see the good in you, or believe there must still be some good left in you, even if you're a bitter failure who burns flags and stabs people and hates America and wants its people to die. The West has so many virtues, but when bitter loser commies look at the west, all they see is a big fat lazy enemy to destroy and steal from.

Jordan does not DEMAND that colleges not teach Marxism. Jordan does not DEMAND that colleges fire worthless marxist prppagandist pseudo-teachers. Jordan is pissed that Marxists are lying to kids and telling them Marxism is the best and America is the worst.

He's annoyed that Colleges, a western invention designed to be a place of open idea discussion and higher learning, have been subverted by subhuman commie scum (He uses nicer terms to describe them than I feel like using right now) who don't want to teach maths or english or political science or anything real, but instead want to lie constantly and shill for marxism and push white philosophers and white writers out of college courses for being white.

To put it another way... Colleges are there to EXEMPLIFY the virtues of the west by being good places where smart kids can learn stuff. Losers have turned colleges into propaganda centers because they're losers and you can only buy into their ideology if you're brainwashed into thinking 2+2=5, 9=3, and all cultures are equal but some are more equal than others.

He has legitimate reasons to be mad about what the cultural-marxist nihilist losers have turned western colleges into. You do not have legitimate reasons to literally strawman him like this, in an attempt to misrepresent him as some kind of evil god-fearing commie-hating hypocrite who wants western colleges to indoctrinate kids with his own culture's values instead of your culture's values.

You are wrong to pretend Jordan Peterson is a slimy dishonest hypocritical prat with inherently wrong reasons for feeling the way he does about bad things your side has done.

Stop acting like Cathy Newman.

 
The nazis were nihilist so I guess by peterson's logic the nazis were people who believed that everyone was equal or something
No. Don't. You're wrong and dishonest.

First of all, respond to what he says. Don't start with this "By your logic, what you're really saying is X! So you're saying, women shouldn't vote?" Cathy Newman bullshit.

Just don't, please. It's dishonest, it's annoying, and it wastes everyone's time. It does not contribute to the discussion, all this bullshit arguing-over-what-you-wish-he-said bullshit wastes time.

Secondly, Cultural Marxism is a sham. If you can tell the difference between "We must sacrifice people on the big altar so the sun doesn't go out!" and "I don't touch alcohol or gambling or Pokemon because I love my christian wife and two kids too much to let Satan tempt me!" culture, you're smart enough to see why Cultural Marxism, like all forms of Marxism, is a sham. If you're not, then you're not.

Thirdly, the Nazis weren't nihilist, they were Nazis. You know, Nazis. "Ein der vei mein feeegelhein! BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. eis veis weiss! BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM, wooonderweiss! BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM". You know, Nazis, from world war 2. "Springtime for hitler and germany! Doytchland is happy and gay! Rhineland is mine-land now!". Those guys, with the Swastikas and the gas chambers who killed six gorrillion jews. Nazis. NatSoc followers. You know, National Socialists. They're Socialists, except instead of viewing the world as a hellzone where classes oppress each other and the rich are evil(Classic marxism) or a hellzone where races oppress each other and whites are evil(Modern marxism), they viewed the world as a hellzone where nations oppress each other and jews are evil.

Hitler was a failed liberal art student who blamed his problems on an ethnicity he deemed priveleged. He pandered to people by telling them they were being oppressed by a priveleged ethnicity who owed them. He told his people to rise up and smash the 1%, the "eeeevil rich money-hoarding monsters". He used violence and intimidation to intimidate critics into not speaking out, and he would frequently say "This group is on my side!" about groups like workers and soldiers and stuff to try and convince the greater whole of German society to accept violence against dissidents who stand in the way of the National Socialist state Hitler wanted to turn Germany into.

Hitler was a Nazi, a big fascist national-socialist. And just like the founder of Nazism (Giovanni Gentile) and the founder of Socialism (Carl Marx), he was a liberal.

So remember, when you see people say "Fascism and Nazism are two sides of the same coin", they're right, but not for the reasons they might expect. Fascism and Nazism are two sides of the same radicalized-libtardism coin. And when people say "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is The Alt-Right, a word we made up to describe evil far-right views like Nazism!", they're repeating lies. Really dumb lies anyone with a decent knowledge of history can debunk in the same way anyone with a decent knowledge of planet shit can debunk flat-earther lies.
 
I am always a bit carefull when people suddenly start to blame all and eveything negative around them on some 'hidden' leftist agenda and seeing communists everywhere, like our little delusional individual here that's posting a video every page.

I know some people will think this is just 'snubbish' but I really hate this kind of discussions where people always assume something without actually reading the source materials. That's like talking about Hitler without even reading a single biography about the subject. There are many words trown around here, and I am not sure if the people using the words actually took their time to educate them self about it. Some things, actually work only in a historical context and some stuff is even, well contradictory - like Cultural Marxism, which I thought was a thing till I educated my self and looked up from where it's actually coming from, in short it's a buzzword like alt-left.

So far for example, only Hassknecht actually took his time to differentiate between Communism, Socialism and Marxism and that made him already a 'target' here, even though he's actually in favour of guns.

To me it seems we as adults are trying to force our children to grow up faster, to mature faster then they actually can. We seem to think that as a society we are progressing but it some ways this progress has failed and that is evident in 12 year olds dealing drugs or thinking that a 6 year old knows about gender diversity and can decide that they are trans. And maybe they are but, it seems that when you look at their parents this might be a pushed choice.

But this may be a better topic for the political thread and not the gun control one.

And what has this to do with leftism?

If there is some leftist or marxist ideology to blame for it all trying to brainwash people into it, then it should be easy to point it out. But it turns out it isn't, and there is a simply reason for it. There is no real leftist policy behind it that's trying to 'guide' everyone or educate everyone, as something like that would be even possible. You often hear people throwing post-modernism and cultural marxism around, but they can never give you a clear definition. For example, if we would be talking about the influence of Neoliberalism on policy and politics, you could name the Mont Pelerin Society which activelly tried to convince the public of the idea of free markets and liberal/neo-liberal ideas as benefit for everyone, and they opened schools and various think-tanks to do that, to educate people and influene policy in what they see as positve. One great example of this would be trickle down economy during the Reagan years in the 1980s, many of Reagans advicors in economic issues followed concepts from Milton Friedman and Friedrich Heyek which they worked out during the 1950 and 60s and some of it can be still seen trough Clintons and Obamas terms. - And then people want to explain to me how America has become 'left'.

However if you're trying the same with cultural marxism or postmodernist neo-marxism, where it comes from and trying to find something about post-modernist influences, it becomes very difficult to find anything substantial, there isn't even a real definition on where postmodernism started.

I Quote:

>>Jordan Peterson has succeeded largely by drawing in audiences with fairly popular oppinions: Political Correctness often feels stiflying, student activists are sometimes politicaly inarticulate and overreactive; angry transexuals are telling me what words to use and I don't like it! But once he draws you in with these inviting preludes, he leads you to a pretty weird place. His central political message is that leftist professors, student activists, campus diversity initiatives, corporate HR departments are collectively following the philosphy of post-modern neo-marxism to destroy the western civilisation and sink us all into totalitarianism nightmare.
Now there is no avoiding that this idea is actually pretty similar to the cultural marxism or cultural bolshevism theory (...)
Is it true that postermodern neo-marxist is out there to destroy us all? Why don't we analyze the concept of postmodern neo-marxism? We all know what Marxism is, the idea that society should be understood as a class struggle between workers and capitalists, and that workers will eventually revolt. Some college Prfessors definetly do believe that, but 0% of HR departments do.
So what is post-modernism? It's the vaguest word in the english language. Some people try to explain it by listing all the things that are called postmodern and trying to guess what they have in common. (...)
I don't think there is a common thread linking all the things called postmodern. Basically postmodernism is everything that happend after 1945 that seemed new at the time. But when Jordan Peterson says postmodernism he's not talking about Andy Warhol or Quentin Tarantino. He's talking about postmodern philosophy. So what's that? Well basically it's a kind of scepticism. Not Youtube scepticism, but actuall scepticism like having doubts about whatever humans can really know things about the world. Now scepticism is obviously not a new idea, that goes way back to ancient times but more specifically postmodernism is scepticism about modernism. So what's modernism? First there is early modernism. Early modernism is the philosophy developed in 18th century [...] which says that we can form universal theories about the world trough observation and reasoning, also known as the scientific method. Now that turns out to work pretty well for whatever questions you have about plants and crystials and how to medically reconfigure human genitals but it has some limits, which was pointed out by David Hume. Hume argued that from a strict empirical perspective you can't really know much about important things like morality, causation and the self, because those aren't the kinds you can observe. Anyway the late modernists came along and they said fucke Hume we're gonna do science about those things anyway. So the late modernists [...] tried to discover universal scientific truths about humans. So for example you have psychoanalysis which said human nature can be understood in terms of unconcious drives [...]. And you got Marxism with it's analysis of bourgeoisie and proletariat, you got early sociology and anthropology which started out with racist social evolutionism and progressed to a kind of we're-all-the-same universalism.
Jordan Peterson is right at home with the late modernists. His first book maps of meaning is an attempt to describe how humans make sense of the world and create order out of chaos trough universal myths archetypes, which he claims are a product of our species' evolutionary past.

Post Modernism is scepticism about modernism. So where as modernism is trying to create eternal and universal theories about reality, history and humanity, postmodernists actually say, no that's not possible. For example the French postmodernist Michele Foucault wrote intellectual histories of subjects like psychiatry, medicine and criminal justice in which he argued that we should not understand these histories as straightforward progression towards liberty and scientific truth but rather as mere shifts in the way that power orders our institutions and populations. Richard Rorty [...] advocates an attitude towards knowledge he calls "ironism", (Ironism: Continious, radical doubt about one's way of understanding the world) irony being the skeptical with which we should regard our own beliefs in our awareness that our vocabulary for describing and and understanding the world is not the final or best vocabulary.

So we've got all the pieces on the table, now we just need to put the puzzle together. On the one hand we have Marxism, a fundamentally modernist worldview that theorizes the human condition in economic terms. On the other hand we have mostmodernism, a sceptical worldview that denies our capacity to know any universal truths about anything. On the face of it, it would seem these two ideas are not compatible. And there is an extensive history of dispute between them, which for instance Marxist Satre calling Foucault "The last barricade of bourgeoisie can errect against Marx.". And of course as we all know when Foucault died capitalism did end forever. So where doees Peterson get off talking about "postmodern neo-marxism.". Well it's true that a lot of postmodernists were in some ways influenced by Marxism, so the phrase could just refer to that continuity. But that's not what Peterson means. It's clear from the way he uses the term that the concept is even more jumbled and nonsensical than it initially appears. Peterson uses the term postmodern neo-Marxism to not only include postmodern intellectuals and Marxist intellectuals, but also liberal politicans, academic administrators and corporate HR departments that care about diversity, and so called identity politics activists, including feminists LGBT, and civil rights activists. Basically it's the entirety of the modern left.
<<

This is one of the reasons for example, why it seems that so many groups are giving out conflicting messages, like feminism for example where you have feminist activists and feminists postmodernsits which are at ods to each other, or marxists and identity politics. When you often see some speakers or people in short interviews giving their opinion on some specific issue, they are often far to generalized. - Which for example also happens here a lot, if I say I am a leftist some immediately assume I want to take guns away, cuz some other liberal leftist wienner said he's doing it!

Part of the problem really is, that hardly anyone here is actually reading any of the source material.
 
No. Don't. You're wrong and dishonest.

First of all, respond to what he says. Don't start with this "By your logic, what you're really saying is X! So you're saying, women shouldn't vote?" Cathy Newman bullshit.

Just don't, please. It's dishonest, it's annoying, and it wastes everyone's time. It does not contribute to the discussion, all this bullshit arguing-over-what-you-wish-he-said bullshit wastes time.

The nazis were hardcore nihilists

[
Secondly, Cultural Marxism is a sham. If you can tell the difference between "We must sacrifice people on the big altar so the sun doesn't go out!" and "I don't touch alcohol or gambling or Pokemon because I love my christian wife and two kids too much to let Satan tempt me!" culture, you're smart enough to see why Cultural Marxism, like all forms of Marxism, is a sham. If you're not, then you're not.

I don't get why you started talking about aztec rituals.

Thirdly, the Nazis weren't nihilist, they were Nazis. You know, Nazis. "Ein der vei mein feeegelhein! BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. eis veis weiss! BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM, wooonderweiss! BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM". You know, Nazis, from world war 2. "Springtime for hitler and germany! Doytchland is happy and gay! Rhineland is mine-land now!". Those guys, with the Swastikas and the gas chambers who killed six gorrillion jews. Nazis. NatSoc followers. You know, National Socialists. They're Socialists, except instead of viewing the world as a hellzone where classes oppress each other and the rich are evil(Classic marxism) or a hellzone where races oppress each other and whites are evil(Modern marxism), they viewed the world as a hellzone where nations oppress each other and jews are evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

his aesthetic affirmation of existence in response to the "death of God" and the profound crisis of nihilism;[8] his notion of the Apollonian and Dionysian; and his characterization of the human subject as the expression of competing wills, collectively understood as the will to power.[18] He also developed influential concepts such as the Übermensch and the doctrine of eternal return.[19][20] In his later work, he became increasingly preoccupied with the creative powers of the individual to overcome social, cultural and moral contexts in pursuit of new values and aesthetic health.[11] After his death, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche became the curator and editor of her brother's manuscripts. She reworked Nietzsche's unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism;[21] 20th century scholars contested this interpretation of his work and corrected editions of his writings were soon made available. Nietzsche's thought enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1960s and his ideas have since had a profound impact on 20th and early-21st century thinkers across philosophy—especially in schools of continental philosophy such as existentialism, postmodernism and post-structuralism—as well as art, literature, psychology, politics and popular culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

Goodrick-Clarke notes that, "Evola sets up the ideal of the 'active nihilist' who is prepared to act with violence against modern decadence."



No. Don't. You're wrong and dishonest.Hitler was a Nazi, a big fascist national-socialist. And just like the founder of Nazism (Giovanni Gentile) and the founder of Socialism (Carl Marx), he was a liberal.

socialism was created by Plato

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Republic

Goodrick-Clarke notes that, "Evola sets up the ideal of the 'active nihilist' who is prepared to act with violence against modern decadence."

So remember, when you see people say "Fascism and Nazism are two sides of the same coin", they're right, but not for the reasons they might expect. Fascism and Nazism are two sides of the same radicalized-libtardism coin. And when people say "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is The Alt-Right, a word we made up to describe evil far-right views like Nazism!", they're repeating lies. Really dumb lies anyone with a decent knowledge of history can debunk in the same way anyone with a decent knowledge of planet shit can debunk flat-earther lies.

Hitler was liberal?
 
First of all, Postmodernism is basically Nihilism but dumber. Nihilism says nothing matters, Postmodernism says we're too modern to keep pretending things matter.
Lmao, what?

No Postmodernism says we should reject overarching narratives that claim to apply to everything, and acknowledge that some ideas are shaped by power relations rather than objective truths. It doesn't claim nothing matters.

"We're too modern to keep pretending things matter" said literally no postmodernist ever.

Seriously, actually read some Foucault or Derrida before making ridiculous claims about postmodernism which you clearly don't understand.
These are worthless loser-ideologies for pathetic losers.
Or intellectually honest ways of seeing the world, since existentially nothing does matter in the grand scheme of things.
You know what else is a pathetic loser ideology? Cultural Marxism, the delusion that no culture is better than another and it's icky and sexisty and bigoty and wrongthinky to think otherwise.
"Cultural Marxism" literally doesn't exist. It's a conspiracy theory.

Nobody calls themselves a cultural marxist, nobody is trying to advocate for what people label as "Cultural Marxism". It's just a buzzword far-righters came up with to rally against. There is no such group as cultural marxists.

BTW, do you know where the term Cultural Marxist originated from? Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism
And hey, it's a nicer culture than some of the human sacrifice-practicing cultures this world used to have.
I love how people use human sacrifice to try and paint indigenous cultures as savages

Failing of course to mention that early European settlers enslaved en masse, forcibly conquered nations and intentionally spread illnesses to kill off native peoples.

This whole argument of "Some cultures used to perform human sacrifices therefore they were savages" falls apart when you realise that the Westerners of that age were equally as savage as the cultures they denigrated, and thus to call Aztec society savage but not call the western societies that existed in the same time period of Aztec society savage is a ridiculous double standard used only to justify imperialism.
The problem here is, those pathetic losers are being paid to be college teachers, and they aren't being college teachers. They aren't upholding the values and virtues of the western world,
"Values/Virtues of the western world", yet more buzzwords.

There is no shared values or virtues in the western world. We are all individuals with our own ideas and values.

Demanding everyone uphold your certain values or lose their position in academia is McCarthyist nonsense.
Jordan does not DEMAND that colleges not teach Marxism. Jordan does not DEMAND that colleges fire worthless marxist prppagandist pseudo-teachers. Jordan is pissed that Marxists are lying to kids and telling them Marxism is the best and America is the worst.
If you really think there are marxist college professors indoctrinating kids, you are probably a moron. That simply doesn't happen in the real world, it's fearmongering over nothing.

Also, lying is intentional deceit. Even if this was happening(It's not), it wouldn't be lying, it would be people teaching what they believe to be true.
and push white philosophers and white writers out of college courses for being white.
Again, literally not happening. That's delusional nonsense.

Believe me I've studied philosophy at a degree level. 90% of the philosopher we learned about were rich white men.
You are wrong to pretend Jordan Peterson is a slimy dishonest hypocritical prat with inherently wrong reasons for feeling the way he does about bad things your side has done.
He literally said colleges should be "Transmitting western values through the generations"(AKA indoctrination in to a set of values) in a video warning against college professors indoctrinating the youth.

He literally demanded ideas be "Consigned to the rubbish bin of history" in the same video he complains about Shakespeare supposedly being removed from English courses(Again, many english courses still teach shakespare. Some have different syllabuses and don't. Fear-mongering about this is blatant lying) for being old.

I'm not pretending. There is blatant hypocrisy in his words
 
Last edited:
A brony calls other people's ideologies loser ideologies.
O brave, new world that has such people's in't!
 
OMG I'm in love with that. My dream to custom-make the perfect Evil Dead style weapon has been revamped :lmao:

Also to jump back into this argument (and possibly provide something to get it back on track), what people (i.e. gungrabbers) like to forget is that along with the automobile the handgun made the American economy. It's what the US did "better than anyone else" (I use quotes cause I'm a peacefag who believes in every culture having something of their own to contribute to society). To ban the handgun (I believe) would cause an even bigger uproar than banning assault weapons, despite the fact that most shootings are done with handguns, because the handgun is, to use a cliché term, as American as apple pie (even though I'm pretty sure apple pie was originally a German thing that immigrants brought to the US).
 
Last edited:
Being the last modern nation to own and trade slaves, dropping tea into the ocean and killing Indians were also pretty AmericanTM, but I jest. Albeit there is a point to be made in that there's aspects in every culture that wouldn't hurt to change at least to a extent.

Anyway, once again. We're talking Gun Control. Not Ban. The basic idea is to generally reduce the surplus and quality of what merchandise may ultimately become unregulated and used unlawfully. That's pretty much it. All I can think about regulating handguns would be more universal, mainly license and acquisition wise. Albeit it could be argued if the standard, most "low tier" firearm shouldn't be handguns but rather rifles, as the latter does the job for which they're the most useful for just fine, being used for hunting and general self defense on one own's property especially if it's an isolated area. Handguns/small arms meanwhile being a lot more versatile. I don't know, it'd be very specific if it was a real regulation, I guess.
 
He literally said colleges should be "Transmitting western values through the generations"(AKA indoctrination in to a set of values) in a video warning against college professors indoctrinating the youth.

He literally demanded ideas be "Consigned to the rubbish bin of history" in the same video he complains about Shakespeare supposedly being removed from English courses(Again, many english courses still teach shakespare. Some have different syllabuses and don't. Fear-mongering about this is blatant lying) for being old.

I'm not pretending. There is blatant hypocrisy in his words
You should see some of Petersons videos on atheism, if you havn't got an aneurism now, you certainly will after he comes up with his 'logic' of 'there are no true atheists' bullshit-fallacy. Yeah, the good atheists with morals are just believers who convinced them selfs to be atheists ...
 
You should see some of Petersons videos on atheism, if you havn't got an aneurism now, you certainly will after he comes up with his 'logic' of 'there are no true atheists' bullshit-fallacy. Yeah, the good atheists with morals are just believers who convinced them selfs to be atheists ...
I've seen enough leftists use this old bullshit to know what argument you're misrepesenting maliciously, even though I haven't seen the video in question. Because I've heard liberals lie that often in the last few years, even though Gamergate was my introduction to the political world.

Man... how long ago was that? It seems like only yesterday the liberals were saying "Don't be sexist, gamers, there is no feminist media control" instead of "Don't be racist, americans, there is no liberal media control".

Anyway, I'm going to explain this complicated subject in simple terms, and you're not going to accept it, but that's ok. Someone more honest than you will read this, and the damage you're trying to do to Peterson's reputation so people won't agree with him about how shit leftists have made colleges will be undone. In this thread about why Gun Control doesn't work, why leftists are losers for insisting it does, why leftists are losers for saying it's racist sexist antisemetic paranoidist nazist to dislike leftism, and why you're a loser for cherry-picking and being this bad at it, you will be embarassed once again. I'll try and be gentle, since anyone here can look back a few pages and laugh at that time you tried to use my pony avatar against me, only to be BTFOd by a video of singing ponies. You've embarassed yourself enough, I reckon.

Now, back to the video this leftist is lying about.

Christianity is the foundation of modern western morality. We can look back on it and call it old-fashioned because we progressed as a culture beyond that stepping stone. If it wasn't for christianity, selfish cunts would not have been duped into being good people and helping good people during the ages when the world was full of selfish cunts, and western civilization would not have endured for so long. Lesser cultures never got to that stage. You'll rarely see someone from lesser cultures say "Lol, our old stories and morality tales and fairy tales were so dumb", and you'll rarely see followers of other religions say "Lol, this religion's dumb sometimes".

I'm Atheist. And I've put my "I'm a better person for being Atheist, fuck all religions equally but fuck christianity harder!" phase long behind me. That's a phase because Atheists who "Choose to be good people despite not believing in god" often forget that without western morality and its roots in christianity, we would not have a clear idea of what a good person is or what it means to be one. Western society as a whole would also not see being a good person as a good thing in the way the west does. We would, like amoral savages, see the kindness and virtue and self-sacrifice of others as weaknesses and opportunities to exploit. Christian values are so inherent to western society that it often seems christianity is just an old-fashioned earlier version of our OS, so to speak. Whether athiests call their Christian-ish values Christian or "Part of my personal religion of humanism" or "The virtues of Atheism Plus" doesn't really matter.

If you're too blinded by specific anti-Christian hatred and propaganda to understand this thing everyone past the phase you're stuck in already understands, then I'm sorry, but I don't think I can do anything for you on this. Either you quote Family Guy to feel smart while buying into that "All cultures all religions equally dumb but christianity and america is the worst of all, me smart for repeating this" lie, or you get why religion existed in the first place. We of the west can look back on our religion and admit it was pretty dumb quite often. But it was still an important stepping stone in our cultural development, and to deny that is to deny history.

Now sure, this isn't really that important an issue, it's just something minor you're trying to create confusion over, to distract people from the fact that Liberals are wrong about Gun Control, and you are wrong to be Liberal because Liberals have abandoned every single value they claim to fight for.
 
Last edited:
If Christianity is the foundation of "western culture" and no meaningful progress was possible without it, how did Greece and Rome, some of the most important civilizations in history, as well as many other peoples, ever come to be exactly?

Spoiler: Tribes ripping off Egypt then another tribe ripping them off.
 
I've seen enough leftists use this old bullshit to know what argument you're misrepesenting maliciously, even though I haven't seen the video in question. Because I've heard liberals lie that often in the last few years, even though Gamergate was my introduction to the political world.
Yes, all this lying ... by all those leftists ... again ... oh boy!



But I am not sure if you will watch this, so have this:

Why does Peterson assume that (extreme) Atheistst have no morals or are held back by 'western' standards? What ever that is, since Peterson is, like usually, extremly vague in defining the things he's talking about as long he's not talking about a clear scientific field and then he claims people missrepresent his points when they criticise him. There are Atheists in many cultures, not just the western ones, you can find Atheists among Hindus, Buddhists, definetly among Muslims, and all sorts of Nations, be it in African nations or Asian ones and not all of them are murders or psychopaths, infact alot of Atheists are persecuted by religious fundamentalists. But why are most atheists not psychopaths? Because psychopaths are a medical condition, which can also happen to religious believers, like christians and it's usually something that only applies to a very small percentage of people and most sane humans don't usually kill each other as how Peterson claims by quoting Dostoevskys story Crime and Punishment, where it's (maybe) reasonable to kill an neighbour everyone hates if no one knows about the crime. The stupid thing is, that we atheists have also something called self conscience, just like everyone else, which can serve as the basis for our morals and beliefs outside of any religious or supernatural context. For example over the years I have also become an absolute pacifist. And simply calling those 'peacefull' atheists not 'true' atheists is one of the oldest fallacies in the atheism-vs-theism book.


Christianity is the foundation of modern western morality. We can look back on it and call it old-fashioned because we progressed as a culture beyond that stepping stone. If it wasn't for christianity, selfish cunts would not have been duped into being good people and helping good people during the ages when the world was full of selfish cunts, and western civilization would not have endured for so long. Lesser cultures never got to that stage. You'll rarely see someone from lesser cultures say "Lol, our old stories and morality tales and fairy tales were so dumb", and you'll rarely see followers of other religions say "Lol, this religion's dumb sometimes".
Yeah, those crussades, witch hunts, tortures and supression of knowledge sure has helped to shape our morals, glad you forgot the whole age of Enlightenment which was nothing but one gigantic struggle to push religion, particularly christian religion back. Humanism, rationality, or ideals like I quote (...) liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.

You know, you might have a point if there was nothing else ever written and preached by christian than the Sermon on the Mount but, sadly there are also many more chapters within the Bible. And there have been a lot of people which took them seriously - and still do, like the Christians that export their fundametalism to Uganda, telling them that Homosexuals are bad and should be, well not treated well.

I'm Atheist. And I've put my "I'm a better person for being Atheist, fuck all religions equally but fuck christianity harder!" phase long behind me.
Good thing that this isn't the topic of the conversation then since we're not talking about who's the 'better' person as atheism for it self doesn't turn you in to a better person - or worse person.

*Edit and I find this funny, as you're claiming here to be this great person while we 'leftists' are ville and evil.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top