Killer

Yep. Listened to the whole thing... Guy is nuts, in a good way though. Must say my preconceived thoughts about Nuggent were that he was a straight up kook that was just obsessed with guns. He may be but definitely a lot more than that and found him intelligent and definitely interesting. One reason I like Rogan is he seems to bring out the realness in people.

Perhaps youre confused but the very definition of utopia is a near perfect society. What is the context around his reference to utopia? Can you share the conversation? We live in a better society today, by all metrics, where we've gotten over a billion people out of extreme poverty in the last 20 years. Life is FAR better for most people today than 200 years ago when your home boy Marx was on the scene. Even more recently as according to: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty In Marx time it was maybe the 1% who didn't live in extreme poverty, by 1981 it was estimated 44% of the world lived in extreme poverty and in 2013 it was 11%... 1 thing I've found his detractors get hung up on is the fact the guy choses his words very carefully and you have found yourself trying to interpret what he's said to fit your views and failed to actually listen to him as carefully as you should have if your going to form an opinion and especially if you're going to argue that opinion. I'm certain you've not paraphrased correctly his comments on Russia or Maoist China. I haven't heard his in whatever you're referring to so based on your comments so far, and knowing his position on the history of marxist-lenist dogma, I know definitively what he's suggesting is not what you have interpreted him to have said. Also, you are using terms like socialism and communism interchangeably to explain his position yet he rarely ever refers to socialism and definitely not in the same breath. He has talked about being in favor of a number of socialist philosophies and was at one point an active social Democrat. So it's pretty clear you don't have a lot of time into your argument or understanding what he's said, especially when you kick it off by saying the guy is pseudo intellectual. Pretty hard to take anything you say seriously because of that. How so? The lobster story is an analogy comparing humans to an animal, something scientists do every single day. Its scientific consensus We evolved from the same cells as crustaceans and he makes a very good case for how the way we act in many ways is a matter of evolution, not social construction. Perhaps it's debatable but to compare it to flat earthers is blatantly ignorant.

What is pseudo intellectual about him? Do you realize how ignorant that is?. He may be a lot of things but that's not 1.

I just did a search. Has been brought up a few times with minimal conversation but seems this is the first thread. You spend too much time on the fringes, which includes this site. A big reason why I found myself disagreeing with people here over the years, to my misfortune was moreso my attestation to the echo chamber than my sheer disagreement with what was being said. I doubt there are many fascists, some racists for sure but mostly very level headed people, regardless of the echo chamber or monolith (99% middle age white straight guys). Echo chambers are an easy target, and rightly so. It is pretty clear though you haven't done your due diligence and study. But tell me you are calling him the stupid man's smart person because you read this: http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

How so? Haven't seen it yet but I've listened to him and Sam harris now a few times. They are getting together in Vancouver very soon I believe. From what I can gather Peterson doesn't believe most atheists are actually atheist and he loaths nialism. He makes strong arguments for both and I'm being very brief on my interpretation.

I've been fortunate enough to have followed this guy's rise to fame since he first caught it over a year and a half ago because it started locally to me at UofT. It's pretty crazy watching him go from a popular professor with little noteriety to a world wide phenomenon. He's handled it quite well for a regular family guy. He has said he thinks this all started in the early 90s with the PC doctrine making its way through the schools.

Not exactly. He is arguing that essential human nature precludes us from this monolithic equity outcome you seem to think is the best form of society. History disagrees with you. His argument based on historical facts is far more believable than "we didn't have nice people in authoritarian positions for Marxism to work". The fact you use socialism and communism in the same context makes me think you don't know what they actually are.

That is in reference to YouTube where all his videos are posted and has something like 80% male audience. His audience now is far more diverse since his book launched. Have you read it or watched many of his lectures/videos? The funny thing about Peterson is if he was this popular 10 years ago you'd call him a bore.

Surprised it took this long for Peterson to pop up on here.

Very sorry to hear this, I had a lot of respect for Rob in how he handled the shitshows here and at HCS over the years and of course his epic mileage! HCS was key for me in finding my passion for sledding, learning so much about the sport, with FS helping to continue that passion and connect with so many of you motherfuckers. Sorry for your loss CKF

You

Read it dummy

Here's another one idiot http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html

The chart does, the scientific study i posted correlates gun ownership to gun homicide. It also includes accidents. Are you cool with that too? Murder rates and violent crime have been decreasing for decades-this has been studied extensively. The U.S. is ranked 4th out of 34 developed nations for the highest incidence rate of homicides committed with a firearm, according to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data. Mexico, Turkey, Estonia are ranked ahead of the U.S. in incidence of homicides. A U.S. male aged 15–24 is 70 times more likely to be killed with a gun than their counterpart in the eight G-8. Everyone is free to live their life though... There is so much more info out there that directly correlated gun ownership rates with gun homicide. There is really no debating it. Like this one: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

What a fucking simpleton. Do some bloody research instead of posting bullshit photos. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/ This is one of the most extensive studies and there are plenty more which correlate gun ownership rates with higher gun crime rates, either by state or country.

I just saw this, can't comment t on why others haven't posted but it's apparent there are some startling realities to decifer from that list. Let me break it down for you Pathetic fucking idiots: 1. It is clear the USA has more in common with 3rd world shit holes and middle Eastern war zones than the rest of the modern world. Looking at how many times Kenya, Pakistan, Nigeria and India are listed along with USA is telling. Try to figure it out. There are a few high profile USA shootings that didn't seem to make the list either, namely the Dylan Roof event. Maybe not enough body count? Vegas isn't there... 2. The Scotland shooting was an epic turning point for gun violence in the UK. Over 750,000 signatures from the public demanded more restrictions on gun ownership and they got it. There hasn't been a significant shooting since. Go figure 3. The ecole Polytechnic shooting in Montreal was also a turning point for gun violence in Canada with bill c-68 "the firearms act" passed a few years later. Similarly nothing as serious since and even a later school shooting in Montreal at Dawson college likely was limited in seriousness due to those very gun laws (1 dead). Carry on dummies

Uh huh... 2 Different lady's... Also "context". Ez Ryder is a moron

You're a fuckin idiot

300,000 years ago, from possibly a few big factors, one being valcanic activity, not your tail pipe, et al today. That is the last time co2 has been 400ppm. 200 during ice ages and 280 on average. Numerous peer reviewed studies supporting this and all the other research. Real scientists, 1000s of them. There is mountains of evidence to suggest historical climate in certain parts of the human world was not represented as a global norm. It would have been colder in a different part of the world there were almost no humans and no human history of the climate at the time.

There is no main driver, there are obviously many moving and constantly changing parts. Science is pretty damn clear on that. What climate change science is proving, is that the rate of change and the state of change is unlike most anything, and in fact the correlation between our impact on the environment, mostly with respect to greenhouse gases is mimcing major historic, NATURAL climate events. There is more co2 in the atmosphere today than any time in the last 300,000. We know why it happened 300k years ago and we know why it's happening now.

Climate scientists failed science? Huh I think you're referring to the "expert" denier group.

I love the morons who site a cold winter as evidence there is no such thing as global warming then dismiss any record breaking events scientificly tied to climate change such as increased prominence and power of hurricanes. Can't get dumber than that. Weather events are the poorest of datasets when it comes to scientific research (and consensus) on climate change. Then there's the people who say the climate has always changed and always reacts to itself but dismiss mans influence on the planet as inconsequential. This is the crux of the intellect and sophistication of the denier cult. It is clear that it doesn't matter what you say or what scientific evidence you share, they don't care.

Then why are you participating in this discussion?

A meteor could hit the USA tomorrow and wipe out 300million people. Climate change? You couldn't possibly have read what I posted in the amount of time it took you to respond, but the ice age!