Yep, I honestly thought he’d posted that in jest, maybe he did and I was whooshed, either way Jordan Peterson is a very intellectual individual and usually has all of the facts to support anything that he says.
He's very popular on YouTube, but is no more qualified than me when it comes to climate change. He's got some very questionable views on various topics and many are absolutely not backed up by facts. He's mainly popular due to his campaign against political correctness, rather than his views on climate change and I never suggested he wasn't intelligent, but he's an odd bloke.
Ignoring the rather weak attempt to discredit him and defend the rather silly claim that he's just a youtuber, using your own standards to know what he says is wrong on a given topic you'd have to know what and why, so presumably you feel suitably qualified and experienced in the subject to be able to say which specific bits of what he said on that clip were inaccurate.
It's interesting to look at the qualifications and experience of those included in the so called 95% consensus. The study that came up with that has massive flaws from various aspects, not least the suitability of the authors of the studies included. It should also throw John Kerry, Al Gore and the doom goblin straight in the bin. It's quite selective, and seems more designed to stifle conversations than being anything at all to do with science.
As far as I'm aware, he makes a living from posting YouTube videos, so a YouTuber is exactly what he is. In fact, I believe he's in danger of losing his license to practice phycology due to the things he posts online, so it might well soon be his only source of income. I don't feel suitably qualified to comment on which parts of his claims are untrue, I'll leave that to the experts, many of who have rebutted his claims.
What he wrote and talked about a few years ago, to give young men agency and control of their own lives, to sort themselves out and not be made victims or aggressors because of who they are, was pretty good and needed at that particular time. His opinion on climate change is valid, but an opinion the same as everyone else's. Not sure we will get a definitive factual answer in our lifetime, as to how much man's actions affect the global climate.
He's entitled to claim anything he likes, anywhere he likes, but I'll generally take the opinion of the scientific community ahead of a bloke with no scientific qualifications.
He actually got his facts from experts, so that's that one put to bed. His income is very little to do with youtube, and his issues with the Canadian board have no meaningful relationship to youtube, but they do point to the fact that he is a qualified scientist. It's little things like facts that tend to be important.
The scientific community is far from in agreement with your view. Peterson is a scientist who got his facts from experts in the particular relevant areas. Some of those are liable to debate his views, but that's not the same as being blindly dismissive. You say yourself you are not clued up on the topic, so it would seem you are selecting your experts to suit your preconceptions and preference's rather than on actual facts and evidence. Calling Peterson a 'youtuber' really doesn't show an informed view.
Yeah, he's an awful ****. My post the other day suggests he's talking bollocks...again. He thinks that parents should use authoritarian techniques which are not only discredited but can be harmful to children. Children should not feel scared of the people who supposedly love them the most.
I expected you might say that but I can't believe you never disagree with 'qualified' expert opinion. If you 'generally take the opinion of the scientific community', what motivates you in those instances when you don't? There are equally qualified scientists who disagree with the 'consensus'(not just on climate change), don't their opinions count, and how are we(laymen), meant to discern which are correct, and how dare we have the temerity to question the one or the other in our state of ignorance? And the rules/laws/statutes that are inflicted upon us are made by people who are similarly unqualified who 'trust the science '.
If I say that when my car breaks down I generally take it to a mechanic, it means I take it to a mechanic, it doesn't mean there's times when I take it somewhere else. If there's a topic I have no detailed knowledge of, I rely on the information of experts. I have no particularly strong opinions on climate change, it's not something I spend much time thinking about, but if the vast majority of experts are of the same opinion, I'm likely to accept it. It's only the directly evident environmental issues that really concern me, pumping **** into rivers, filling waterways with plastics, things that clearly should be tackled, whatever your views on climate change.
Is he American? We were in Millers Ale house in Florida last year with our 3 year old grandson and he was making noises with his dinosaurs, to entertain us mainly, this couple then started looking over, our lass said yes can I help you, redneck type woman then said can you keep your child quiet, well, fuse lit. Redneck then said we keep our kids quiet in restaurants, then backed up by a number of other scruffy ****s, yanks are really poor dressers when they, go out aren’t they? I digress. And how do you do that, I said, redneck man “ we beat them to behave” Shall I ****ing beat you so you shut the **** up, says I, kicked off then didn’t it, probably not the wisest thing to do in the land of the gun. Anyway after much discussion we left saying beating your kids is a criminal offence in the UK, so **** off. So I started asking locals about this child beating, when we went to other restaurants and a few said yes it’s a thing, American kids keep quiet in restaurants because they get smacked int submission. No wonder there’s so many shootings over there.
Steve, when you write 'kicked off', what do you mean? Did you fight the woman that complained? Or the entire restaurant? All hitting children does is create adults who want to hit children.
