Reply With Quote
I think it's most likely better for society if we encourage monogamy.
What does compulsory mean, Nathan?
I think it's most likely better for society if we encourage monogamy.
That's not what Jordan Peterson said. He said it should be compulsory.
For reasons of public safety.
To prevent low status males from getting violent.
Do you agree or disagree with Jordan Peterson on this?
His own stance is crystal clear.
Quote what he says.
"Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships."
Why didn't she write Peterson instead of some?
What frkkn con man.
His Lobster stuff, 5-7 min is utter BS. He is another clueless debater who comes in with behavioral evolution and biochemical systems and completely gets it wrong. Hierarchical systems in animals vary wildly depending on their life history. What would he say about a deep sea anglerfish that is mostly solitary females with the male sex practically non existent about the size of a kidney bean that just grows into the large female? What about lizard species that are parthenogenetic females. He is clueless on heirarchy and sexual reproduction. And then the claim of this deep evolutionary commonness with lobsters? He is on fckn crack. This guy is a charlitan. Getting evolution massively WRONG to back up his patriarchal tendencies.
He totally screwed himself.
Glad this was bumped.
Ignoramus swallow it whole though. Twice as interesting since they're largely the same people that waive off any science that doesn't agree with them.
Did you write this after 2min section of video and think you had a great grasp of his perspective?
Why would you completely screw ANY argument with something so utterly wrong?
Why?
“That is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters’ evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.”
How do do your dominant female examples refute this?
Thats wrong as well.
Denying that sociocultural construction has nothing to do with evolutionary induced hierarchical structures is complete BS as well. It shows a complete lack of attention to the sexual biology of a species.
Just keep going.
So this guy would say the patriarchal structure of so many human societies has nothing to do with the male being larger and stronger? And now would you like to discuss why males being larger and stronger is the exception in the vast majority of animal species since you think you understand this guy?
Go ahead. Discuss.
Im no animal scientist but his lobster chapter does drive home the fact about don't be a or you'll continue to do stuff very well. Using it to relate to human tendencies makes it with much better.
Dude, if you wanna call Nathan out just use his name. Dont be a coward
In fairness I have not read the book obviously.
So why in the interview does he say I use the lobster as an example BECAUSE they have a hierarchical system? This does not fit your take above.
The interviewer obviously chose this to discuss because others found it strange and just wrong. But she does not know enough to question his blabbering properly imo.. Then he goes on about seratonin and levels in higher status animals to ok reflexive mood... so bad. In fact* I totally agree with him then stating that hierarchical systems are absolutely NOT consequence of capitalistic patriarchy. In fact this is very dangerous imo and sounds Leninesque imo. (Btw, which lefties NOW state this? Link or something) This makes perfect sense. It may provide a structure to reinforce capitalistic patriarchy NOW, but no way did a patriarchy led hierarchical system arise because of a societal construct involving capitalism.
This is what I’m getting:
He states quite a bit of legit stuff, possibly even straw men to easily knockdown (see my* above). Then he throws a wild haymaker sucker punch now that he convinces with reasonable legit stuff. Of course the “lefty” interviewer is there to knoock him down. So now he has credibility because he mentions some interesting stuff about a Why he is being interviewed? This is again the shallow transparent tactic I see going on from both extremes. I’m legit, now I can say something wildly off target...
Conclusion:
There are some males that cannot stand the fact that they are being pelted with their own Western gem of thinking, the sanc y of the individual. Females correctly pointing out their burden of having to walk on egg-s s (in dress, in not being a by voicing an opinion, on and on) in our patriarchy is now being thrown back at males. (You can’t just stare me down because of my dress, you can’t just hassle me because I’m alone at a movie) There are males that have completely lost touch of what females go thru. They are frustrated because they can’t just grab and fck like on the porn sites they endlessly watch. We got these awkward males on reddit banning together crying because they are not loved and can’t find a mate. “Well dammit, it’s my right, I’m a a male in a male dominated society”
Tough luck losers. Learn to work within a society that is drug into the understanding that females are not your sex slaves or less intelligent than you are. Be more resourceful with your autistic tendencies like other males and females not overloaded with testosterone.
This stuff is almost as cool as the solar burp and all the judeo-christian creationist nonsense. We should be monogamous just like the bible says because lobsters!
Derp.
Huh? That chapter wasn't about monogamy specifically. It was more about a dominant personality. The mind set about being defeated or being a winner invokes more of the same. Everyone already knows this (or should).
TBH I had a free audiobook from Google so I used it on him. After chapter two I had a hard time driving and concentrating so I gave up.
You think the lobster is a valid proxy for human behavior?Because serotonin?
Apparently if you give SSRI's to a slug they avoid parasites. We should use antidepressants to treat parasites obviously!
You were the one claiming monogamy =lobster. The lobster chapter is called Stand up straight with your shoulders back. It does not talk about monogamy. It talks about acting confident and not being a beta. Nice way to deflect that you don't know what your commenting on.You think the lobster is a valid proxy for human behavior?
Apparently if you give SSRI's to a slug they avoid parasites. We should use antidepressants to treat parasites obviously!
He did a damn good job of getting that point across in that chapter.
He did not present the lobster that way in the interview except with the seratonin example. And even with that it’s not clear. But again you read the book I did not. Like I stated in post 43 he made did make a point that one has to agree with, but he went further in the interview. And the interviewer chose to bring up more about lobsters which is telling. They wanted to pick on this.
Also this alpha/beta thing is a strange fascination. Leaders and dominant personalities can come in a variety of forms. The mere act of making the pretense of needing to show leadership “shoulders back” could be considered an eye-roll a group would give a beta.
I would still like to know which lefties have claimed that patriarchal capitalistic systems created hierarchical social structures?
Actually, it wasn't targeted at anybody in particular, but a group of people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
