Jordan Peterson-Rational Wiki

#21
(Jun 22, 2019 08:35 PM)Syne Wrote: I've pointed out examples countless times over the years. And if you were to bring a defamation suit against me, I'd happily dig them up. Otherwise, you know exactly what I'm talking about and you can sod off.

No, I don't. If you can't provide the evidence then shut your piehole.
Reply
#22
(Jun 22, 2019 08:37 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jun 22, 2019 08:35 PM)Syne Wrote: I've pointed out examples countless times over the years. And if you were to bring a defamation suit against me, I'd happily dig them up. Otherwise, you know exactly what I'm talking about and you can sod off.

No, I don't. If you can't provide the evidence then shut your piehole.

So you're trying to quash other's free speech too, huh? Rolleyes

Again, unless you bring a defamation suit, I have no need to acquiesce to your petty and trolling demands (which misandrists often make of men).
Reply
#23
(Jun 22, 2019 08:44 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, unless you bring a defamation suit, I have no need to acquiesce to your petty and trolling demands (which misandrists often make of men).

You might to wait for C2's thread before jumping to any conclusions. Big Grin

(Jun 22, 2019 01:34 AM)confused2 Wrote: I am working a thread start about metaphors, similes, hyperbole, sarcasm and irony for the benefit of our American members.
Reply
#24
(Jun 22, 2019 09:34 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jun 22, 2019 08:44 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, unless you bring a defamation suit, I have no need to acquiesce to your petty and trolling demands (which misandrists often make of men).

You might to wait for C2's thread before jumping to any conclusions.  Big Grin

(Jun 22, 2019 01:34 AM)confused2 Wrote: I am working a thread start about metaphors, similes, hyperbole, sarcasm and irony for the benefit of our American members.

Oh, I get it. You like to troll (and deflect). It's not a secret. It's just sad that that behavior seems to bring so much joy to your pathetic life. Maybe work on the marriage instead, huh?
Reply
#25
(Jun 23, 2019 01:07 AM)Syne Wrote: Oh, I get it. You like to troll (and deflect). It's not a secret. It's just sad that that behavior seems to bring so much joy to your pathetic life. Maybe work on the marriage instead, huh?

Maybe you should work on your sense of humor and you might have a chance at marriage.
Reply
#26
(Jun 23, 2019 02:49 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jun 23, 2019 01:07 AM)Syne Wrote: Oh, I get it. You like to troll (and deflect). It's not a secret. It's just sad that that behavior seems to bring so much joy to your pathetic life. Maybe work on the marriage instead, huh?

Maybe you should work on your sense of humor and you might have a chance at marriage.

Pfft! Maybe you should actually work on supporting your ignorant opinions (who knows, maybe you'd manage to learn something in the process) instead of all this deflection.

And I don't see anyone clamoring to tell you how funny you are.
Reply
#27
(Jun 23, 2019 03:39 AM)Syne Wrote: Maybe you should actually work on supporting your ignorant opinions (who knows, maybe you'd manage to learn something in the process) instead of all this deflection.

And which opinion is that, Syne? This one?

(Jun 22, 2019 12:13 AM)Syne Wrote: And...how is any of that "deriding free speech with his own defamation suits"?

If, in fact, she did consult him before publishing it, why do you think that he advised her to check the legalities of recording before publishing it, if he was really just concerned about his reputation? Is this becoming his modus of operandi?

Well, one reason that comes to mind is that in Ontario,[1] you do not need to prove that you suffered damages—you only need to prove that a false statement with a permanent record was made about you to a third party, and the court will presume that damages were suffered. If you are suing for slander, however, you usually do need to prove that damages were suffered. Proving that slander caused you financial loss is difficult, which is why slander cases are far less common than libel cases.[2]

Quote:Why do plaintiffs outside Canada bring libel suits against non-Canadian defendants such as the New York Post and the Washington Post in our courts? The answer is that they likely have good legal advisers who correctly tell them that Canadian libel laws favor plaintiffs. For all the lofty quotes about free speech in Canadian jurisprudence, the reality is that our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world.

While social values and legal concepts have evolved dramatically of the past 200 years, the common law of libel in Canada remains startlingly unchanged. The Americans inherited the same common law of libel from England that Canada did, but American courts concluded that the law had to be reformed to protect free speech. In cases involving matters of public interest, the plaintiffs now bear the onus of proving falsehood, fault and damage, and statements of opinion are immune from liability. (See Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.) For those who prefer British and Commonwealth role models, it is noteworthy that in the past dozen years or so, the highest courts in England, Australia and New Zealand have all recognized that the traditional law of libel fails to adequately protect free speech, and they have all issued decisions which begin to right the balance. Every one, that is, except Canada.[source]

Godwin’s law is framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons,[source] but that doesn't seem to stop Peterson from invoking it. He uses this exact same hyperbolic comparison quite frequently himself.

If you’re an advocate of free speech, when someone compares you to a Nazi, or even a misandrist, for that matter, you should probably think [Oh, well, it was inevitable] rather than heading straight to a lawyer.
Reply
#28
Again, you utterly fail to define free speech and legally protecting your reputation as being in opposition. Even under the very liberal free speech laws in the US, libel, slander, inciting to violence or panic, etc. are all legally actionable. Just because you are free to do something does not mean you are free from any consequences of doing so. So while in principle free speech may be absolute, in practice, not all speech is without a cost to the speaker.

Comparing orchestrated slander/libel campaigns to propaganda is quite apt. And again, you fail to make any argument other than the mismatch of your experience and that of a public figure, who's reputation is bound to their livelihood.
Reply
#29
(Jun 23, 2019 07:56 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, you utterly fail to define free speech and legally protecting your reputation as being in opposition. Even under the very liberal free speech laws in the US, libel, slander, inciting to violence or panic, etc. are all legally actionable. Just because you are free to do something does not mean you are free from any consequences of doing so. So while in principle free speech may be absolute, in practice, not all speech is without a cost to the speaker.

Comparing orchestrated slander/libel campaigns to propaganda is quite apt. And again, you fail to make any argument other than the mismatch of your experience and that of a public figure, who's reputation is bound to their livelihood.

That’s your modus operandi, isn’t it, Syne? You’re intellectually lazy and you want everyone else to do your work. I thought his book was supposed help you overcome that.

It wouldn’t work here in the states.

Like I said before, if you’re uncomfortable with controversial issues, stay out of them because others are going to challenge your values and world views. If you’re going to resist intellectual discussion because you feel threatened and angry then you’re not as refined and sophisticated as you may think.
Reply
#30
(Jun 24, 2019 01:14 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jun 23, 2019 07:56 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, you utterly fail to define free speech and legally protecting your reputation as being in opposition. Even under the very liberal free speech laws in the US, libel, slander, inciting to violence or panic, etc. are all legally actionable. Just because you are free to do something does not mean you are free from any consequences of doing so. So while in principle free speech may be absolute, in practice, not all speech is without a cost to the speaker.

Comparing orchestrated slander/libel campaigns to propaganda is quite apt. And again, you fail to make any argument other than the mismatch of your experience and that of a public figure, who's reputation is bound to their livelihood.

That’s your modus operandi, isn’t it, Syne? You’re intellectually lazy and you want everyone else to do your work. I thought his book was supposed help you overcome that.
All evidence to the contrary. Even though you seem to think that links that do nothing to make your case qualify, since they do not actually support your arguments, there is often nothing there to refute. IOW, your own intellectual dishonesty or outright ignorance is quite regularly your own undoing, requiring no effort on my part whatsoever.

Aside from excerpts, I haven't read his book. Unlike some others I can think of, I don't need such basic advise...sound as it may be.
Quote: It wouldn’t work here in the states.
Apparently you didn't read beyond your own affirmation bias.

This term was adopted by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,[2] in which the Court held that:

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
...
The existence of actual malice may be shown in many ways, as long as the claim is properly supported by admissible evidence.[6] Malice may be proved through any competent evidence, either direct or circumstantial. All of the relevant circumstances surrounding the transaction may be shown, provided they are not too remote, including threats, other defamatory statements, subsequent statements made by the defendant, any circumstances that indicate the existence of rivalry, ill will, or hostility between the parties, and facts that tend to show a reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights on the part of the defendant.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice


Quote:Like I said before, if you’re uncomfortable with controversial issues, stay out of them because others are going to challenge your values and world views.  If you’re going to resist intellectual discussion because you feel threatened and angry then you’re not as refined and sophisticated as you may think.
As I've said many times before, I'm actually here to have my views challenged. You're the one trying to shut down dissenting opinions. And your little projection is as transparent as it is sad, that you actually seem to be that lacking on self-awareness.

Like I said, ignorance really must be bliss, considering how you cling to it. Wink
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Psychology prof the new Hitler? What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson? C C 2 273 Jan 21, 2018 09:29 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Emotional and rational brains differ physically & Bisensory influence of musicians C C 0 395 Jun 18, 2015 08:17 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)