Comment by stillbourne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stillbourne | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The problem is people like Jordan Peterson are very careful who they choose to argue with, when paired against a skillful interlocutor, such as Matt Dillahunty, Jordan's arguments can be shown for the bullshit that they are.

eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8

The appeal that his particular block seems to be entranced by is his unique ability to engage in cheap rhetorical tricks. Those who are skilled in debate can recognize these logical fallacies but a weaker interviewer will fall to pieces. As Jordan seems to be more interested in engaging in interviews with weaker orators these debates usually fail quit spectacularly. Much like watching a train wreck you can not seem to avert your gaze. His acolytes seem to derive a great sense to schadenfreude from this.

When faced with a skilled rhetorician such as Jordan Peterson the more simple solution is to disengage from his oratorical slight of hand and ignore him for the jackass he is. You may consider this punishment, others consider it withdrawing from an uphill battle from a renowned quack that performed philosophical debate in the same manner and school of thought as the Gish Gallop.

Arguing with Jordan Peterson is tantamount to arguing with a flat earther. Rather than give platforms to these charletens it is best to ignore them.

good grief. talk about proving the point....

not even a jp fan here...

What a very vapid response, your statement contains no content whatsoever. Why did you even bother?

to point out the parent literally emulated the description of prejudiced un thinking responses to 'wrongthink' that they were apprently trying to rebut?

Of course, I get it, you don't seem to understand what an argument is! Silly me, You see when constructing a rebuttal to a point from your opposition the correct tactic is to retort with a dissenting position and back up your statement with counterpoints. You also seem to be under the impression that just because a statement is made that you favor, that means that statement is valid.

My point is when someone states that the earth is flat, you don't bother engaging in an argument on why they are wrong, there is mounds of evidence to the contrary if someone takes such a fallacious position. Your rebuttal to my point is: Nah-uh, he stated the world is flat therefore the world is flat.

Yes, I know that the parent states we shouldn't block people from going to venues and stating the world is flat or blocking them from going on TV and saying the world is flat, or going on social media and saying the world is flat, or even going to our institutions of education and saying the world is flat. What you fail to understand is while you are allowed to believe that the world is flat and state that the world is flat, that does not mean that you are entitled to the pulpit upon which you pronounce your bullshit from. There is nothing in the first amendment that entitles people to a venue to defend ignorance or hatred.

For example, replace the argument from my previous statement, "the world is flat," with the statement, "the KKK is right to suggest that races other than European whites are inferior." Are you entitled to your opinion even in the face of evidence to the contrary? Yes. Are you entitled to go to a college campus and spread your message of hate. No. You are not.

Again, you are free to your opinion and the speech you use to make those statements. You are not entitled to a pulpit to spread your message, if a venue does not agree with your opinion then it is their prerogative to decline your presence. It is not punishment, it is a statement of dissent to the opinion of the speaker. One that they are entitled to. That too is free speech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com