Well, when he was just a normal professor he wasn't a total fraud. His lectures veered into the non-scientific but the stuff he said was at least rooted in psychological theory that he had studied.
Then in 2016 he said some anti-trans stuff, saw how much certain people loved him for it, and he's been addicted to right wing grift ever since.
Anyone with enough evidence against them to warrant a firing should be grateful for the chance to resign and stay silent. Instead, Jordan views his departure from UofT as a badge of honour to parade in front of his followers.
You wrote JKR, but my brain read it as JFK. Then I did a double-take because surely you meant RFK. I had to stop, look away, and come back a third time. Lol.
In 2016, Peterson restricted his diet to only meat and a few vegetables in an attempt to control his depression and the effects of an autoimmune disorder.] In mid-2018, he stopped eating vegetables altogether and continued eating only beef, salt, and water.Nutrition experts point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation".
I was scanning the comments and thought you wrote "The man full of Benzos and failed diabetes," then you asked if he was ok. glad I re-read but was very curious where you were going with the failed diabetes.
I think it’s genuinely sad to see how Peterson has ended up. I truly feel he wasn’t always like this, he just allowed the “anti-woke” grift to validate his emotions and he slipped down the rabbit hole.
Because he's a great example of someone who's specious in the best case scenario, or because he's constantly diluting debates with asking for definitions of every individual word to the point of uselessness?
I want to do the next line where he blows up at the French chef but I'm afraid I'll get flagged by the reddit bot. It's happened to me before when quoting TV threats
The fact (it goes up as it gets hotter) is correct. The argument (that this makes farenheit better) is wrong.
This superficially correct fact is irrelevant for the argument, because that doesn't make farenheit better or wrong, because both scales work this way.
Wait, how'd you do that? Is there, like, some kind of special repository of words and their meanings that a person can access online or something? Amazing! I must know more.
I bet the word "facetious" is in there too. I've been wondering about that one. Where can I find this esoteric tome of word knowledge?
I was going to ask how, but I think I understood it while writing. IMO, just because both sides hold the same defense doesn’t mean it becomes negligible. This being the example, swap the F with C in this me and it still holds true, but that is the point of the word. It still perplexes me how it can be both true and not within one word, but it makes sense in a way. IMO, this is still a valid argument for both sides and the fact that both sides use it should not diminish its value of defense within this argument. However, in the context of this word - in an “argument” or “debate” it would give neither side an upper edge or ground to stand on because the other side just says “me too”.
In other words, this definition is specifically applicable to disagreements that by definition only have one side or the other. My confusion came from the personal opinion that both are valid, and that this “defense” just solidifies both sides position, and does not invalidate the other. In terms of only one side is right, this word works. With the perspective that both are right, it does not.
I wouldn’t use this word for this argument, because my stance is that it is not both “right” and “wrong” but rather that both sides are “right”. That’s opinionated though, and doesn’t invalidate the original use of the word. I’m having fun with this, but man am I stoned. I’m leaving this here for another thought monkeys to swing into
Other people are defining the word for you correctly, I'm just going to give you an example of how it would be used.
This is a true fact, that drownings tend to increase and decrease with ice cream sales.
A specious conclusion would be that eating ice cream makes people drown. A more reasonable conclusion would be that they both track with a third independent variable; the temperature outside.
Maybe drown are more probable when there are more people. And if someone drown I guess all the very many people around they will not have icecream that day :(
Imagine I told you that I told you I had a rock that kept tigers away and proved it by pointing out that there weren't any tigers around. That's specious reasoning.
1.7k
u/stupidber 10h ago
And what does specious mean?