So since we are not eliminating murder, shouldn't we try to reduce the # of people getting murdered?
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
So since we are not eliminating murder, shouldn't we try to reduce the # of people getting murdered?
They will only "always be around" if you let them and your god sounds like a jerk.
There's a very good fiscal argument for limiting immigration. The problem, and I'm not saying it's wrong, is that people favor emotions over logic.
Well, considering that the vast majority of gun murders in this country are done with pistols, and (once again) getting rid of guns doesn't do anything to stop murders at all, then I'm going to say that the cons of anti-gun legislation severely outweigh the pros.
Just because I couldn't live with myself if I didn't post a video before I went to bed. 
Peace out, peeps!
Peace out, peeps!
So since curing cancer wont stop other diseases from killing people so we shouldn't bother? If we got rid of all guns right now (not what I'm suggesting FYI), do you not believe that the # of people murdered would drop?
"Getting rid of all guns" is a magic trick that no magician can pull off! But, if it were possible, then the actual number of people murdered by guns would have to drop!
Impossible! Our inept government says it’s not possible to find and remove 11-20 million people. How could it ever find and confiscate 100+ million guns.
I said "IF"... IF it could be done. I even tried to preface the sentiment by suggesting a magic trick.
If guns magically disappeared, then the number of murders from firearms would drop.
I’d be real interested in knowing what are our god given rights
Wages. Notice how the wage gap keeps increasing? It's simple supply and demand. There's too much supply for the demand, which will cause prices to drop.
First off, curing cancer would cause the death rate to massively drop. Second, curing cancer doesn't infringe upon anyone's liberties.
No. What I mean is the total # of people murdered (by all methods) would be less if guns disappeared.
You’re taking away my right to have a tumor.
This should have been much longer.I know most of you won't watch. You'll just grunt and walk on by, leaving knuckle trails in the dirt.
I looked for a longer version. There's a shorter and longer version of the Black people's discussion, but I haven't been able to find a longer LGBTQ version yet. I'm sure it's out there somewhere.
Do you have access to any video of Peterson's speech before the outrage and violence?Just because I couldn't live with myself if I didn't post a video before I went to bed.
Peace out, peeps!
I've watched this, but they all contradict themselves a little. Peterson is right in that I do not think there should be legislation denying people what words they can or cannot use. However, his assertion that he refuses to refer to people by their preferred pronouns (or whatever) because he disagrees with their motivation- political or social- is bullshit. He's just being an asshole, at that point. He also has this odd view that the words are "made-up words". Well, guess what, Jordan? ALL WORDS are made-up! That's how language(s) work. There are always new words and modified words added to the vocabulary, or nomenclature, or vernacular, or lexicon. They all derived from something else. If they asked him to refer to them as an artichoke, then what's the big deal? It's certainly peculiar and doesn't comply with what we usually call an artichoke, but it's not a huge hurdle to leap. One of my Dad's best friends went by Bulldozer. Nicknames aren't a problem for people. Obviously, gender is more complex than most people realize. Hardly an inconvenience.
There are a lot of "uh boat"'s up there.
His point in the video is that words are given power by people choosing to use them, not by government force. I could post the video that led to this discussion if you like. It's an interesting video, at least to me.
I mean, if he is refusing to call them what they prefer to be called because he disagrees with the motivation, or their political/social motivation... as he sees it... then, he can't be too surprised when there's blowback.His point in the video is that words are given power by people choosing to use them, not by government force. I could post the video that led to this discussion if you like. It's an interesting video, at least to me.
I also think he absolutely "deserves the platform" to speak his opinion or perspective. People who choose not to participate because they believe it "legitimizes" his point of view is unfortunate. He deserves to be heard like anyone else.
The transgender woman in Vancouver made a comment that she didn't like binary pronouns or something because they were "political terms" and she disliked political or politicized words. Then, at thee beginning, she said that she was a political you tube commentator or something. If you're a political commentator, or whatever, and then hate politicized issues, well... that seems like a strange contradiction. Peterson even said he would refer to "her" as "she."
To make it illegal to use certain words, or you're only allowed to say certain words is fukked-up! I was glad they didn't censor the PERSON on the panel when they said "darkies, nigggers, or coons." And, it's not because I think those words are appropriate. They're typically not. But, they're still just words. You can say the words and not be a bigot or racist. HOW you say them or use them is where it gets more serious.
I like how this is subtitled in a foreign language. If you were to say those words, it's okay. To say the English word would be offensive... if your audience all spoke English. Language is pretty interesting!
I don't think he's surprised that there is blow-back. He just sees it as the means to a bad end.
Separate reply for this, because it deserves it's own discussion. I completely agree that words aren't the problem, intention is. This is why the current Democrat party is struggling so much. Nobody wants to actually discuss anything. They just want to virtue signal, and that's not a valid argument as to why you should be president.
Last edited:
For those of you who don't understand why I know about these videos and find me squirrely, I'll give you some background. I don't watch much TV. I don't go to movies. I read books, but most of them are non-fiction. I've been this way since I was a kid. It's just how I'm wired.
So, that should give you some insight as to why I've never seen 'The Godfather'. I would rather spend two hours listening to Joe Rogan/Paul Joseph Watson/Jimmy Dore/Ben Shapiro/Pat Condell/ect... than I would watching a movie. I don't ask for your forgiveness, or even your understanding. I hope you ridicule me incessantly, as that "builds character". That's just my two cents on the situation. All you alpha-male wannabees...HAVE AT IT! Lulz!
So, that should give you some insight as to why I've never seen 'The Godfather'. I would rather spend two hours listening to Joe Rogan/Paul Joseph Watson/Jimmy Dore/Ben Shapiro/Pat Condell/ect... than I would watching a movie. I don't ask for your forgiveness, or even your understanding. I hope you ridicule me incessantly, as that "builds character".
That's just my two cents on the situation. All you alpha-male wannabees...HAVE AT IT! Lulz!
I can forgive you for not watching the godfather, but someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me.For those of you who don't understand why I know about these videos and find me squirrely, I'll give you some background. I don't watch much TV. I don't go to movies. I read books, but most of them are non-fiction. I've been this way since I was a kid. It's just how I'm wired.
So, that should give you some insight as to why I've never seen 'The Godfather'. I would rather spend two hours listening to Joe Rogan/Paul Joseph Watson/Jimmy Dore/Ben Shapiro/Pat Condell/ect... than I would watching a movie. I don't ask for your forgiveness, or even your understanding. I hope you ridicule me incessantly, as that "builds character".
Okay... I got through about 5 minutes of that.
I would really like to know, from these people themselves if possible, exactly how they are being mistreated, denied services or access to whatever it is, because of their gender distinction... thing.
It would help him greatly to call these people- once they make it clear what they, themselves, prefer to be called- by that reference. In my opinion, that is just being polite. Once you know how they prefer to be addressed, then respect that. It's not a very tall order. It might not make sense to you, or me, or anyone else, but it does make sense to them.
These people offing-themselves seems a bit drastic. Not to sound too cold and heartless, but that's just giving-up. If abolitionists and freed slaves had committed suicide instead of fighting for the equality and freedom of African slaves, they might still be on plantations. Not a perfect equivalent, but I don't feel like digging too deep.
I agree with pretty much all of this. Even JP agrees with this, as he's said in other videos. The unfortunate part of this video is that people wouldn't allow him time to respond to their complaints. I'm pretty sure that these people would be the first one's to complain about Hannity or O'Reilly shouting over their interviewees, but they hypocritically do the same thing to JP.
Well, he's entitled to that opinion. But, these people are fervent about SOMETHING. I wish I knew more about their struggles, but I don't. He may even be right about the inevitable outcome, I don't know. I don't believe Peterson to be what I think of as a "racist." There are many degrees of racism. And, unfortunately, in our social climate being so politically saturated, everyone is on a default to lump their assumed adversaries into one pile, with maybe a handful of different popular labels.
I'm always learning new things. After watching the Canadian panel video, I was aware, for the first time in my life, of the introduction of the term "Ms." and what it meant. I guess before that it was Misses and Mrs.? I dunno. I always kinda knew that Ms. meant unmarried woman, I think. I rarely, if ever find myself in an awkward situation where someone is angry at me because of how I addressed them. If I need someone's attention, I typically just say "Excuse me..."
It's okay to be fervent about an issue, but it doesn't surmount being correct.
I think confronting him and targeting him as the source of their struggles is off-target. He has an aversion to "the left", which, in my opinion, is his problem. I dunno why people even want to be one or the other. I feel very pleased when I can find common ground with all people. I don't feel the need to be on one side OR the other, at all. I never have.
Well, right and wrong are subjective. I'm surprised that CANADA is oppressing anyone!
That's why you have an open debate, and that's also why you don't have a true democracy.
Similar threads
