@@Uub27 running outta time doesn’t make his point invalid. They completely ignored it. If it were a point supporting them I’m sure this woulda gone differently
@@CenkoDeMayo -Running out of time doesn't make his point invalid I never said it did. -They completely ignored it I don't know if you've seen any other senate hearing but yes they don't acknowledge anything out loud. They silently acknowledge it. -If it were a point supporting them I'm sure this woulda gone differently. No, just no. He ran out of time, that's it. There's (almost) no bias in these senate hearings and you can even see that in this video. When the woman was scared to go on she said "Well, I think the chair would stop me-" but the chair cut her out and said "No. you're fine" Surely if there's bias they would've stopped her so there was no chance for Peterson to retort back in the first place.
@@PaulJacobs1970 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. GOD IS HOLY
Why should God let you into Heaven? Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us. So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven? Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
While true, politicians deal with the public, and if they sound as smart as Jordan than the public will have a hard time understanding, and good leaders should speak in a manner that does not confuse most
@@MusicEnthusiast_27I was taught by a doctorate in rhetoric that if your audience does not understand you then you are far less effective in persuading them. So if what you say is true, and Jordan wants a change in policy, then he should speak more "effectively" to his audience
Not only is he extremely intelligent, he is capable of clearly explaining the realities by providing facts and related studies in support of his findings. He simply points out inconsistencies and flaws, undermining the ignorant with a particular agendas.
Not only is he over-qualified for the Courts, but he is also over-qualified for any contemporary Western politician, or even globally..If Jesus Crist was to come back into this world, I would not be surprised he chooses Mr. Perterson as his first Apostle
All the fancy speech boils down to what you wrote. They won't say what they really mean and want which is to ask him to just go away and be quiet while they deconstruct Western civilization piece by piece. I don't mind anyone living their lives as long as they don't try to control me.
@@coaldoubt2879 how isnt it? The law says misgendering would be illegal. Misgendering as in the words you say that applies to the persons gender. How isnt it forced speech?
I think a huge problem that JP faces, is that he’s actually SO logical and SO coherent, that people aren’t used to it so it just doesn’t land the way it should.
You are exactly right. When Jordan Peterson retweets fetish porn and says it's a real Chinese milking facility or when he gets mad at paper towel dispensers and explain how they're tyranny, people just cannot understand how next level logic and coherent it is.
@@TheMarsCydoniastrawman arguments are all you have. And you claiming that Nazis are wonderful people makes you a terrible human being that should lose his job
@@TheMarsCydonia These tweets are clearly Satire, He never said that paper towel dispensers are tyranny, and I have to ask,Whar has he's said that makes him so unintelligent to you?
Superb, accurate, articulate, honest, diligent, caring and hopeful. JP deserves better than to be placed in a position where he has to explain things to idiots who don’t understand or appreciate that he is an extraordinary human being who wants the best for everyone concerned. He has helped so many and asks for nothing in return. JP is a living legend and a total inspiration to such a varied and diverse amount of individuals.
@@jackfisk2840 Not all opinion. For example, factually, Peterson cannot be called honest as he is a serial liar. You can have your own opinion of Peterson but there are things that remain factual, no matter your feelings.
@@jackfisk2840 Peterson lied about C-16. If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
Mike skidoo I agree that celebrities lecturing people is dumb. As If they know anything about the world outside LA and London. But people hate Trump because he actually does dumb shit.
Uhm U.N. , American Psychological Association...oh...you ste just a person...uh...they know a lot...and ugh...how do YOU reply to that Mr Peterson...HmmmmmMmMMMm?!?
I just enjoy the way he expresses himself. The way he builds sentences, the logic behind it, the examples. So vivid and sharp, right on point. It doesn't matter if I disagree with him about anything, I know that I can respect him for being a person who's able to speak about differences (of any topic) in a calm and respective manner.
Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back. God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying,, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Firstly, this has absolutely nothing to do with the video and is just pure fundamentalist proselytizing. Secondly, that sounds like emotional blackmail to me. “I did this thing for you that you never asked for, so now you have to love me back for it or you’ll go to hell”. Your God sounds like a very bad boyfriend 😂
Every time I hear him express himself I can't help myself to believe there is still hope for humanity. My mother is my hero and he is a version of a super human being. I hope God continues to bless him with knowledge and a sense of balance for his sake.
Why should God let you into Heaven? Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us. So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven? Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
@@Student4Life89 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. GOD IS HOLY
@@mandagenesis485 Yes, Jesus is a Hero and God. PERSONAL MIRACLE Everyone’s got struggles of some kind, whether it be financial, health related or sinful addictions that you know is bad but can’t stop it. Ask for Jesus to intervene and help. God will help you overcome, thus giving you a personal miracle, and proving He exists to you. I have received a physical healing miracle, Jesus is waiting for you to humble yourself and ask.
Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back. God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying,, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell
This is a great take. I had extreme difficulty communicating my thoughts until I listened to Dr. Peterson. When I started listening to his lectures, I literally had to pause sometimes to process his sentences because they have so much depth to them. He doesn't waste a word. Years later and I finally feel adequate in terms of saying what I truly think. It's a blessing having people more intelligent around you to learn from.
@@Hectorlph All sin must be punished that’s how judgement works, a Judge judges you on the bad you do and since everyone has sinned (lied, stolen, sexual immorality, dishonoured parents, had hatred towards other people etc). All humans need to repent and believe in Jesus (God) to go to Heaven or spend eternity paying for your sins in hell.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Dr. Peterson gave an outstanding argument on this bill with valid overwhelming points.. but they passed it anyway. Never forget that. It's not for the greater good. It's for an agenda.
Josip don’t let this happen to your country. We’re trying to get this changed, but the media refuses to cover the problems, in fact the media is forced to use female pronouns even for a sex offender if he chooses to identify as a woman. It’s so disgusting and misogynistic.
I agree with you. He does that a lot. Body language experts would say that when someone touches their wedding ring it's usually because they are thinking of their spouse. So I think the real genius here is Mrs. Peterson. ;)
@@dsma06 I think it's an intentional 'tick' he developed. (He may be trying to convey different messages when he does it depending on the person/situation that it calls for.) I really like it though. (Can't help but think he developed it/uses it mostly when dealing with someone who he's noticed has a peaked interest in him..) I love that he found a way to convey (w/e message it is) so subtly. ( I'd love to point out how genius he is but, that honestly feels a little redundant.) Ugh- Love this man-
Paper towel dispenser sticker: "Remember, you don't need an arm's length of paper towel to dry your hands" Jordan Peterson: "Up yours, woke moralists. Tyranny is always petty--and petty tyranny will not save the planet"
@@eraproductions9923 Its about feminism 3rd gen. and 1: yes it's in their own heads and 2: pls worry, it affects western legislation. Ruth bader ginsburg, the old lady that sleeps at work in the us supreme court has stated that "women are by definition victims".
Kenny berg. Thats hit the nail on the head. If you look at the list of 'genders', you will find one called 'adamasgender'. This is the given name of a particular type of gender that refuses to be categorised. Yep. Refuses to be labelled. Except.....well.......to be labelled as an adamasgender! Don't put me in a box! Ok, that box is alright. 😂
The guy is a savage. He comes up with perfect responses and comebacks instantly which most of us come up in the shower after thinking about it for a week.
Menn, you would have to combine the intellectual powers of taking a crap and showering at the same time, you'd have take a crap in the shower to come up with a response 1/10th as good as Petersons comeback. Mans crazy
I'm sure it probably has everything to do with his clinical psychology background, in which he is highly qualified, and his interest in socio-political matters. Not only is he acutely familiar with the subject content being discussed (or at least themes that strongly correlate) and facts that back his viewpoints but he is also very practiced in cognitive theory. Much of what you see when Jordan is in full swing is a combination of muscle memory in terms of recalling salient facts, and an inherent ability to adapt his responses and counter-arguments with the application of sound logic and critical thinking . That's a very powerful combination and you see people really struggling to handle him, particularly the glib ones who can't back up their claims with anything tangible.
I have never seen him ever show any sign of being frustrated and on the edge of losing control of said frustration. The man is a machine, nothing can shock him.
@@Omnipoops Why should God let you into Heaven? Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us. So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven? Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
I don’t get why people hate him for his views here. He isn’t transphobic at all and he’s said (numerous times) that he actually will call someone by the pronoun they prefer because he considers it to be common decency. He just doesn’t want it to be illegal to not do it.
Don't worry, I've been labelled sexist, racist for simply saying that to make an equal society, you shouldn't drag down , demonise, witch hunt or discriminate the predominant race or sex etc .
@TURD BURGLAR I assume you're murican? Because usually, only muricans throw liberals, lefties, socialists and communists in the same pot. For example for most of Europe, a liberal is a centrist, more or less
Dr. Peterson - brilliant as ALWAYS, is unbelievable how good he is EACH TIME. That lady - she could not say 2 proper sentences, imagine how messy is her brain and so her actions. Pffff... 😊
@@TheMarsCydonia Sharp. Fact based. Knowledge. Experience. Packed up with kindness. One of a kind! His detractors... messy messages, messy language, messy behaviour- nothing to learn from. Simple
@@cristinabadea6344 I've definitely reached a different conclusion than you did here. I do not find Peterson to be anything you claim he is while being what you say his "dectractors" are. I guess that when Peterson replied "You don't know what you're talking about" when I explained his lies about C-16, I expected more from someone "Sharp" and "Fact based".
Agree. They come into the room thinking they are smart until Jordan speaks, They hear truth but remain stubborn and choose to be willingly ignorant at this point..showing the kind of person they really are which speaks to why they have the stance they do in the first place. They are control freaks used to faking being smart, they support each other in this endeavor and it works because nobody stands up to them...enter Jordan Peterson...just the man for the job of exposing these types. Jordan Is a true blessing to this world.
You are really being delusional, and falling into the exact same mindset as the people you seem to reject. Stop assigning such strong ideals to individuals, it is careless and harmful. Jordan Peterson isn't God's grace of intelligence to the world.
SENATOR: "I don't think the chair would allow me the time to list what they're all saying..." CHAIR: "No, you're fine" **Doesn't proceed to list what they're saying, because she doesn't know**
Well, if she did happen to know, listing it would disprove her assertion haha. I don't know what's worse- that the senators are dishonest or incompetent. Perhaps both.
Eddie Butkaliuk what? He purely is defending his right of freedom of speech, which any human with any sense would want, I don’t think that the lgbtq+ community should legislate themselves to acceptance, acceptance doesn’t work like that, btw he doesn’t disagree with their views he just doesn’t like the thought that one could potentially get punished for expressing their opinion (by not calling someone by their pronoun), that is called suppression, I don’t understand how this is such a hard concept to grasp, a government can tell people what they can’t say (such as a threat to public safety) but a government cannot and should not mandate what one has to say
If the politicians spend all their time talking with other politicians, it stands to reason at a certain point any language that isn't muddled would sound foreign to them.
When people ask a question, they are either looking for an answer or a fight. If they're looking for a fight, they won't accept to your answer, regardless of what you say.
I don't think the "level of badass" is a physical trait, man. In fact, I would argue its a behavioral trait. At no level, even the lowest, is it physical.
@@punxOiOi13 well..bad assery can be a metric of how close to a mythological hero an individual is, or how competent an individual is in the domain of transcending the dragon of chaos. Jordan Peterson's level of bad assery is somewhere that is approximating the archetype of the ideal mythological hero. ... roughly speaking
Hallowed be Thy Name not mine .. Thy Kingdom come not mine.. Thy Will be done not mine.. Give us peace with men, peace with ourselves.. And free us from all fear. Prof. Peterson's prayer has been heard, it seems.
BRAVO Prof Peterson, and THANK YOU for standing up for all us Canadians with common sense, your honesty and bravery for coming forward is very much appreciated!!
@@alfiepicton1339 Bill c-16 only adds gender expression to an already existing list of protected grounds. Misgendering someone by accident would not be considered discriminatory as many canadian lawyers have already talked about, repeated and deliberate attempts to harm someone through constant misgendering on the other hand is another story. This bill only compels speech in the same way that the original law compelled righteous canadians to not yell slurs at indigenous people
@@randomcaribou2747 I would disagree, there is a big difference between making it illegal for people NOT to say something and telling people they HAVE TO say something. Especially if we are forcing them to say something a lot of people (older generations in particular) don't really agree with or really understand. And all of this to accommodate 0.6% of society (In America).
@@micci9865 Before lying to the public to start his career as a culture war commentator, Peterson was an university professor. Do you believe all Canadian university professors to be millionnaires?
@@user-ug2hk3go6i Have you missed that the original comment mentionned Peterson's risk of what he could be losing? Why have you not asked them this question instead of asking it to me who pointed out the fact that Peterson gained from it and rather than lose anything?
@@WLyons9856 As long as the person expressing those facts can articulate them coherently. Jordan can and does better than almost anyone else on the planet. Facts don't have feelings and they can be discombobulated if the deliverer of the facts is a poor communicator.
Well, he didn't show any new side to his expression here, except a situatory extension of vocabulary. His trait of openess is integrated with his speech. That is of course not a problem, but it shows the limitasion. ... I don't have English anymore in school so i have to practice in the comment-section on UA-cam.
Alright, if you want to improve your English skills. Instead of saying limitisation, say limitation. And use big "I"s, when they are alone. Openness* also. Some more, but I don't give that much of a damn.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
prophetsnake His teaching had helped me in getting insights on psychology topics. He does his research and is a renowned writer and professor. If I were you, I would watch all his videos and be enlightened rather than giving unproductive homophobic insult.
I strongly disagree. I think she is an idol of the modern day, Western politician due to the fact her attributes are so antithetical to those of Jordan Peterson. She's full of incompetence, virtue-signaling, and - as Dr. Peterson put it - "cognitive incoherency." Yep, sounds like a senator to me :/
I believe that means "In an ideal world, this woman would never be a senator". You are correct that she represents something that is sadly typical of today's political climate.
@@jamesramplin8124 while others might not be peterson, I have experienced this sort of argument where I'm arguing a principle and brain dead people assume you're against their entire argument. Like people are allowed to support trans people but also be against compelled speech or bathrooms for example
Pepe's bodega USA has our own version of this guy. His name is Trey Gowdy and hes the governer of south carolina. look him up on youtube if you want some keks
I can argue with him, so can anyone else, easily, As long as the person is in the right, saying that, lets presume Mr Peterson came into said debate half cocked ( yes, highly improbable), engaged in the discussion, then was shown to be lacking, he would then apologise unreservedly, then change sides, to advance the truth, its a thought exercise, Mr Perterson, was asked by joe rogan, what can anyone wanting to help in this C16 law, to help? Mr Peterson, said something so profound and which struck me in awe, He said " work on yourself" or words to that effect, what the ......... no asking for money, donations or anything, he said sort yourself out, come on, a truly great role model, he is Good and truthful actions, backed up by words, the politicians are hollow words, hot air and slight of hand to gain by deceit
smartchip He also rented out a theater using his Patreon money to sort out his thoughts on the bible in front of a crowd. And it is becoming increasingly obvious he's doing it so people can understand the core benefits of religion and why it has held so much weight. It doesn't come off as pretentious, as he stands there as a lecturer, doing what he knows he can do really well.. Teach.
Id say Ben Shapiro, Steven crowder, Bill Burr, and many more UA-camrs do the same, things are better than they seem, don't believe the media saying we are the little, nah uh, we are the majority, u can check out Aba and Preach u may like them
@@triskalion9627 Steven crowder is a completle moron tho. Hes embarassing against anyone that can talk coherently. He only looks smart against some of the most extreme SJW students.
@@marwin4348 let me guess, you are referring to that Joseph in the argument about socialism? Yea Steven turned out like a total dumbass there, but if you judge people by one or two rare cases and extremes you will never have any friends, no one is perfect and Steven has his bias too, many conservatives are biased when it comes to Capitalism it's true.
hoply... i wich he would talk in Europe too..i am watching nearly all of his Videos on UA-cam. I love it. I am from Germany and i would love it if someone from here would the same work as him.
@@kailaine3974 This law will never lead to what Peterson envisions. He's one of the weakest intellectuals I've ever seen. Just plain misinformed on so many things.
rugbyguy59 I don’t really know what you mean by “what he predicts.” As far as I can tell, he is concerned about a compelled speech law, which is what bill C-16 is. I’ll also give you a bit of a pro tip: never in the history of ever has an ad hominem been a valid argument
What we're dealing with here is a huge difference in intellectual scope, depth and nuance between these two. JP understands the far reaching implications and their impact on logical coherency as well as basic rights and freedoms while the senator can't see past a single minded fixation on an end goal.
Yeah thats not what c-16 did. It never mentions pronouns and quite frankly has nothing to do with them, any other interpretation is just throwing shit at the wall and watching it stick. Namely educational facilitators who had no idea what it was and panicking every time someone claimed to be misgendered, the proper response would be, grow up.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Genuinely! I have a psychology degree im a clinical child psychologist and behaviour analyst. Still when i listen to him I remain silent for hours after afraid i will sound like a toddler
@@Hello11235 Look up Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, probably the most articulate man I've ever come across. Famous for uttering the longest word ever used in british parliament. Here's a link. ua-cam.com/video/Wc9b08J2KrA/v-deo.html
Might've been the best part of that..... She then literally says nothing of what all those organizations were allegedly saying in opposition to Peterson's views.
@@TheMarsCydonia you need to elaborate on what he has lied about and what he is unrepentant about. Lying maybe but penance implies submission to JC. I’m not sure if he has bowed down to Jesus. Yet?
@@NHL4740 Unrepentant in the sense of showing no remorse or regret for years of lying, it has nothing to do with Jesus. And If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
Jordan Peterson's rethorical skills and the way he articulates his thoughts into arguments continues to amaze me. I want to learn to speak like that too.
Tadai, nenusisnekek jo sakiniai per ilgi buvo tai durnei kuri nekrimto jo mokslu, jo sakiniu gramatine ir semantine sandara pusei kambario buvo tamsus miskas. Petersono adresatai jo nesuprato nes jis ne ju kalba kalbejo kitaip tariant. Petersono kalba nera retorine, o akademine ir moksline.
He has very high verbal abilities. His VIQ must be over 4sd. That's why he sounds very clever and thoughtful when speaking. He also reads a lot of complicated texts, so that helps him for his rhetorical way of talking.
@@NFLStefanONFL his speaking manner was too intelelctual and academical for anybody to understand in that room. If he had better rethoric, he would have said the same thing in their "language". Dont you see the stares of mild stupor in their eyes? Their vague attempts to grasp his ideas, their reactions and rrplies? They clearly do not understand him.
@@zilvinasyes sakydamas, kad Petersono retoriniai įgūdžiai įspūdingi turėjau omenyje tai kaip jis valdo pokalbį. Pvz. kai toji senatorė pradeda vardinti organizacijas pasisakančias prieš lytinę diskriminaciją Petersonas taikliai pastebi, kad tokia jų pozicija neprieštarauja tam ką jis teigia. Aš pats tokioje situacijoje tikriaisiai būčiau bandęs impulsyviai gintis šitaip sukurdamas sąlygas neigti mano teiginius ir argumentus, padaręs save pažeidžiamą, bet štai Petersonas neleidžia oponentui valdyti diskusijos krypties pagal savo interesus, nepriima kaltinimų ar naratyvo kurį konstruoja priešinga stovykla. Nebūčiau pagalvojęs apie tokį greitą būdą išsisukti jo vietoje toje situacijoje. Pritariu tau, kad daugelis toje patalpoje nesuprato Petersono ir tyrimų metodikos apie kurią jis kalba, bet būtent ta akimirka apie kurią aš kalbu nėra susijusi su moksline/akademine kalba ar jos vartojimu. Labiau atkreipiau dėmesį į Petersono sugebėjimą valdyti diskusiją, nepakliūti į oponento spąstus, išlikti sąmoningam pokalbio eigai ir priešininko motyvams. Manau daug galima išmokti man šioje vietoje ir faktas, kad tau turėjau atrašyt tokią ilgą žinutę, tam, kad paaiškinčiau šitą mintį tai liudija :D todėl ir delsiau atsakyti, žinijau, kad bus daug rašymo.
Intelligent people that don't conform to those leftist ideology are vilified cause they speak the truth, thus they are not listened to, just ignored or put into a "far right or fascist" category, and I really do think that this is unfortunate, on all the videos I've seen of him, he's never been discriminatory against anyone, but well, logic and common sense are rare nowadays, I can't comprehend nor I want to abide by their stupid rules, with their unlimited amount of genders and sexualities, this world is going downhill and everybody in the west are pressing on the gas. Like there aren't anything more important on this planet than fucking imaginary genders and sexualities, this is what happen when you let deranged people give their opinion. This world doesn't have more than a few decades to live. Hope I wont be there at the downfall.
The most important thing that should be on everyone mind currently should be to invest in different sources of income that doesn't depend on the government. Especially with the current economic crisis around the word. This is still a good time to invest in various stocks, Gold, silver and digital currencies.
I agree with you and I believe that the secret to financial stability is having the right investment ideas to enable you earn more money, I don’t know who agrees with me but either way I recommend either real estate or bitcoin and stocks.
That's awesome to hear. I invested 5k in Robin hood about a year ago and it steadily went down, now my portfolio is down $800. I don't know what to do and i am in between jobs.
@@nyreggie That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like *Mr Gary Mason Brooks* my coach, you may have come across him on interviews relating to bitcoin and stocks. He trades, manage trading account and offer mentorship program for clients who wish to become professional investors.
Wow I can't believe you guys are discussing about Gary Mason Brooks , I once met him at a conference in California 2019, just before the pandemic. I can testify that he’s very good in trading..Highly recommended.
The point is, they argue with 'feelings' while in reality companys do a shittone of money with court cases (more law mean - generally speaking - more court cases, more tax contributions, more lawyers needed, ppl believing their arm doesnt belong to their body, etc. In other words, its more about the money than everything different. Politicians think in the matter of how to get more money out of this as the only possible way of thinking. Therefor they are not interessed in JP views. Interesstingly i agree with JP views, although i see myself more of a leftist-marxist than the ppl JP seems to criticise in many of his speeches.
Senator: "W-w-what about t-t-the people writing us letters about their feelings?" Answer = irrelevant on what their feelings are but they have to bring facts which science/biology is and what damages it will do to our society. Quit trying to please everyone, stand up and state this is what it is in terms of definition/biological, etc. This is been going on for years and will continue to be this way it is.
Esta Noche De Luna simply using logic and rationale is seen as intelligence in the modern day and age(even though it was usually rebuked in former generations to fit a religious status quo). We’re lacking in intelligence and logic for sure in this crazy world. It probably wouldn’t be so insane if many tried to create order through systems and people having simple common courtesy due to the rule of “what’s done unto others should be done unto me.” (No, I said something that many people should’ve thought of many years ago. Kill me like you did Socrates.)
Heather's comment reminds me of a quote I once read. It follows: "Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it"
@@juniorvonclaire3576 Being good at debating is still another thing than being right or having good points. I know quite a few people who are absolutely reta... Mentally challenged... Well, to state it briefly; they make ridiculous and unprovable claims, yet they still shine when they debate another's well-founded arguments, somehow. My point is, it's still alot easier to debate with an intellectual than it is with a professional debater. Jordan Peterson adheres too much to facts and logic to ever be a debater, a debater will throw anything under the bus to win the argument. As far as their own dignity, trustworthiness and principles. Look at the majority of successful politicians for proof of that.
He was getting right to the meat and potatoes of simultaneously holding two directly opposite theories as truth while reaching for that wedding ring. They were about to get hammered.
the wrap up is probably due to the strict time allotments government/congressional hearings have. notice how she constantly asks the chairman for permission to speak a little longer. BTW, I find these _strict_ time allotments ironic in light of the existence of a filibuster which as I understand it is a way for a speaker on a house or senate floor to take hours to ramble on in order to delay/derail a vote on a bill. BTW, time allotments in hearing committees can be used to the advantage of those who are questioned. for example, I noticed how the Twitter CEO kept spending/wasting time by saying things like "I would like to thank the members of the committee for asking this question... I am honoured to provide some insight into the issues at hand..." and other filler speech. often the congressman/woman asking the question interrupts the responder with "yes or no, please answer the question, I have limited time".
Oh no. He’s making sense. We need to move on to another senator.
Omgg 😂 that’s exactly what happened. They didn’t know what to say it’s like oh okay let’s wrap this up then 😂 and ignore what he said, typical
@@CenkoDeMayo That's not what happened, I agree with Peterson on these points, but he just ran out of time, that's all.
@@Uub27 running outta time doesn’t make his point invalid. They completely ignored it. If it were a point supporting them I’m sure this woulda gone differently
@@CenkoDeMayo
-Running out of time doesn't make his point invalid
I never said it did.
-They completely ignored it
I don't know if you've seen any other senate hearing but yes they don't acknowledge anything out loud. They silently acknowledge it.
-If it were a point supporting them I'm sure this woulda gone differently.
No, just no. He ran out of time, that's it. There's (almost) no bias in these senate hearings and you can even see that in this video. When the woman was scared to go on she said "Well, I think the chair would stop me-" but the chair cut her out and said "No. you're fine" Surely if there's bias they would've stopped her so there was no chance for Peterson to retort back in the first place.
@@Hildreth1101 Yes but there's different sections, he ran out of time for this one.
"Well, i think the Chair would stop me if i..."
"No, you're fine."
"Crap."
You have entered the thunderdome
She had the shit face
Def. the funniest part of this clip !
lol u caught that? smart man!
it's like someone edited the clip and added that sound😂😂😂
"no you're fine" had me laughing so hard, she was looking for a way out and they closed the door on her 🤣😂
Haha yeh I liked that too. She was like “damnnn!”
@@PaulJacobs1970 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. GOD IS HOLY
Why should God let you into Heaven?
Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us.
So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven?
Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 this is not a place to preach nonsense, try a street corner and wear a sandwich board!
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 just repent before death and you will be fine lol
Most politicians just don't have the intellect to keep up with what he is saying.
I see the same! 😊
yep and they make the laws what a world we live in
While true, politicians deal with the public, and if they sound as smart as Jordan than the public will have a hard time understanding, and good leaders should speak in a manner that does not confuse most
@@djryken bro its not a matter of what/how they sound like they actually lack the ability to even comprehend what Jordan is saying
@@MusicEnthusiast_27I was taught by a doctorate in rhetoric that if your audience does not understand you then you are far less effective in persuading them. So if what you say is true, and Jordan wants a change in policy, then he should speak more "effectively" to his audience
“I’m sorry mister Peterson, but you are overqualified for the court..”
Sadly the truth
Not only is he extremely intelligent, he is capable of clearly explaining the realities by providing facts and related studies in support of his findings. He simply points out inconsistencies and flaws, undermining the ignorant with a particular agendas.
Just another way of saying, “damn, my mind tricks won’t work on you, correct??”
She goes out and drinks heavily for three days
😂
Not only is he over-qualified for the Courts, but he is also over-qualified for any contemporary Western politician, or even globally..If Jesus Crist was to come back into this world, I would not be surprised he chooses Mr. Perterson as his first Apostle
@@jphalsberghe1 That is correct. Our savior's first Apostle would be Dr Peterson.
Pronouns = Ok
Being forced by law to use certain speech = Not Ok
Hard to understand ? I think not.
All the fancy speech boils down to what you wrote. They won't say what they really mean and want which is to ask him to just go away and be quiet while they deconstruct Western civilization piece by piece. I don't mind anyone living their lives as long as they don't try to control me.
@@randallN-sw6ee the government isn't trying to redefine identity. The people are, and the government accommodates the people.
Because they know.
I agree. But that’s got nothing to do with c 16
@@coaldoubt2879 how isnt it? The law says misgendering would be illegal. Misgendering as in the words you say that applies to the persons gender. How isnt it forced speech?
I think a huge problem that JP faces, is that he’s actually SO logical and SO coherent, that people aren’t used to it so it just doesn’t land the way it should.
You are exactly right. When Jordan Peterson retweets fetish porn and says it's a real Chinese milking facility or when he gets mad at paper towel dispensers and explain how they're tyranny, people just cannot understand how next level logic and coherent it is.
@@TheMarsCydoniawhat is a woman?
@TheMarsCydonia When was the last time you cleaned your room?
@@TheMarsCydoniastrawman arguments are all you have. And you claiming that Nazis are wonderful people makes you a terrible human being that should lose his job
@@TheMarsCydonia These tweets are clearly Satire, He never said that paper towel dispensers are tyranny, and I have to ask,Whar has he's said that makes him so unintelligent to you?
He's so articulate its almost a symphony.
he literally just says words for the sake of saying words. he doesn't have any fucking opinions, just says words without anything
@@psychoaurora2673 comprehension issue
@@zephysx6089 i mean like... im not wrong though
@@psychoaurora2673 Comprehension issue
@@NASTrading u took a long time to respond to that..
The more people attack him, the better he gets at defending himself.
Sadly, even he has limits.
killbotone nice
killbotone he’s addicted to drugs?
Sounds like Hulk
@JamesThat's because it's impossible to argue with someone who is lying, and Peterson is a liar.
They say if you're the smartest person in the room, then you're in the wrong room. I think Dr Peterson is in the wrong room a lot.
Unfortunately...but its his responsibility either way to do the right thing, which is.... to enlight people.
Hell if that's the case I'm not sure the poor guy could EVER find the right room😫😫😫😂😂😂
A LOT a lot
So teachers are always in the wrong room? You're an idiot...
Matthew Scott many of mine weren’t.
Superb, accurate, articulate, honest, diligent, caring and hopeful. JP deserves better than to be placed in a position where he has to explain things to idiots who don’t understand or appreciate that he is an extraordinary human being who wants the best for everyone concerned. He has helped so many and asks for nothing in return. JP is a living legend and a total inspiration to such a varied and diverse amount of individuals.
I would agree if what you were saying was true.
It's not.
@@TheMarsCydonia , in your opinion.
@@jackfisk2840 Not all opinion.
For example, factually, Peterson cannot be called honest as he is a serial liar.
You can have your own opinion of Peterson but there are things that remain factual, no matter your feelings.
@@TheMarsCydonia , ok, can you tell me what was factually untrue?
@@jackfisk2840 Peterson lied about C-16.
If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence.
Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements:
- That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law
- That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns).
- That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime"
So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list:
_"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_
Is now this list:
_"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_
The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words.
So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims.
1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word:
- Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them.
- If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada.
- In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012
- That's 5 years before bill C-16
- Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16
So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law".
2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned:
a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_
So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either:
Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated.
What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16.
b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed.
They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled.
Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades.
So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago.
3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime.
It does not either.
The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are:
*Section 318 Advocating genocide*
_Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_
*Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred*
_Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_
You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity.
The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not.
So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation.
Peterson has not stopped lying since.
Give this man the Nobel prize for peace. And let them haters hate
lol
amen brother
"You can't have all of the power and all of the victimization at the same time."
- Jordan Peterson
SJWs & cie: "ShUt Up YoU NaZi! REEEEEE!"
You can pretend your the victim, "'I'm oppressed"' they who hold the power, the far left, stupid people, with power very dangerous
@@desslattery3457 If you think the far left hold the power you're stupid
They sure as hell want it tho, that’s why everyone and all the social media and celebrities out there is trump hating saying crazy shit
Mike skidoo I agree that celebrities lecturing people is dumb. As If they know anything about the world outside LA and London. But people hate Trump because he actually does dumb shit.
When a smart person talk to someone who is pretending to be smart, the results are just priceless.
Uhm U.N. , American Psychological Association...oh...you ste just a person...uh...they know a lot...and ugh...how do YOU reply to that Mr Peterson...HmmmmmMmMMMm?!?
Thomas Grabowski dumbass that’s how he should reply
Corona Virus Agar - correct, that's what Peterson should have replied.
Good of you to complete the thought there.
Exactly..
Pro 23:9 KJV Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
I just enjoy the way he expresses himself. The way he builds sentences, the logic behind it, the examples. So vivid and sharp, right on point. It doesn't matter if I disagree with him about anything, I know that I can respect him for being a person who's able to speak about differences (of any topic) in a calm and respective manner.
Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back. God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying,, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363
Firstly, this has absolutely nothing to do with the video and is just pure fundamentalist proselytizing.
Secondly, that sounds like emotional blackmail to me. “I did this thing for you that you never asked for, so now you have to love me back for it or you’ll go to hell”.
Your God sounds like a very bad boyfriend 😂
Every time I hear him express himself I can't help myself to believe there is still hope for humanity. My mother is my hero and he is a version of a super human being. I hope God continues to bless him with knowledge and a sense of balance for his sake.
Why should God let you into Heaven?
Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us.
So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven?
Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
for OUR* sakes.
Man is a hero
@@Student4Life89 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. GOD IS HOLY
@@mandagenesis485 Yes, Jesus is a Hero and God.
PERSONAL MIRACLE
Everyone’s got struggles of some kind, whether it be financial, health related or sinful addictions that you know is bad but can’t stop it. Ask for Jesus to intervene and help. God will help you overcome, thus giving you a personal miracle, and proving He exists to you. I have received a physical healing miracle, Jesus is waiting for you to humble yourself and ask.
Oh no. I've fallen into a Jordan Peterson feedback loop again.
Hahah
Welcome back
Yup. I watch The Real, puppy videos, old football highlights, jordan Peterson, and that guy that clears sewer grates too much...
Clean your room
lol
I’d like to thank every SJW out there for introducing me to this man
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Haha so right!!!
Honestly listening to this man at least once everyday makes you a little bit smarter
Sjw?
@@fabulyzqueen582 Social Justice Warrior
I love to hear intelligent people who make me think and improve my understanding.
Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back. God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying,, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell
This is a great take. I had extreme difficulty communicating my thoughts until I listened to Dr. Peterson. When I started listening to his lectures, I literally had to pause sometimes to process his sentences because they have so much depth to them. He doesn't waste a word.
Years later and I finally feel adequate in terms of saying what I truly think. It's a blessing having people more intelligent around you to learn from.
@@Hectorlph All sin must be punished that’s how judgement works, a Judge judges you on the bad you do and since everyone has sinned (lied, stolen, sexual immorality, dishonoured parents, had hatred towards other people etc). All humans need to repent and believe in Jesus (God) to go to Heaven or spend eternity paying for your sins in hell.
i can only dream of speaking like this man does
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Dr. Peterson gave an outstanding argument on this bill with valid overwhelming points.. but they passed it anyway. Never forget that. It's not for the greater good. It's for an agenda.
Voting cannon fodder.
Yay Canada.
naxel37 Meghan Murphy also spoke there against this insanity and was overruled. Even Rona Ambrose voted for this stupid law.
Josip don’t let this happen to your country. We’re trying to get this changed, but the media refuses to cover the problems, in fact the media is forced to use female pronouns even for a sex offender if he chooses to identify as a woman. It’s so disgusting and misogynistic.
@@barbarasherman4870 Unfortunately these people took most of the world. We just have to root them out and take it back.
Everybody gangsta until Peterson starts playing with his wedding ring
😂
😂😂😂
I agree with you. He does that a lot. Body language experts would say that when someone touches their wedding ring it's usually because they are thinking of their spouse. So I think the real genius here is Mrs. Peterson. ;)
@@dsma06 I think it's an intentional 'tick' he developed. (He may be trying to convey different messages when he does it depending on the person/situation that it calls for.) I really like it though. (Can't help but think he developed it/uses it mostly when dealing with someone who he's noticed has a peaked interest in him..) I love that he found a way to convey (w/e message it is) so subtly. ( I'd love to point out how genius he is but, that honestly feels a little redundant.) Ugh- Love this man-
🤣🤣🤣🤣
This man's every words save for future generations.
Paper towel dispenser sticker: "Remember, you don't need an arm's length of paper towel to dry your hands"
Jordan Peterson: "Up yours, woke moralists. Tyranny is always petty--and petty tyranny will not save the planet"
The power of knowledge and eloquence. My hero.
the power of being wrong
1990's "don't put me in a box or lable me"
2019 "you better put me in a very specific box or I'll cancel you"
@Phix don't worry non of this is real except inside their own heads
@@eraproductions9923 Its about feminism 3rd gen. and 1: yes it's in their own heads and 2: pls worry, it affects western legislation. Ruth bader ginsburg, the old lady that sleeps at work in the us supreme court has stated that "women are by definition victims".
Kenny berg. Thats hit the nail on the head. If you look at the list of 'genders', you will find one called 'adamasgender'. This is the given name of a particular type of gender that refuses to be categorised. Yep. Refuses to be labelled. Except.....well.......to be labelled as an adamasgender! Don't put me in a box! Ok, that box is alright. 😂
@@ohcrikey9560 i wouldn't have a clue what any of them are because they are not real so no point checking them out
@@eraproductions9923 yep. It's totally absurd, self indulgent nonsense.
Dr Peterson’s greatest weapon is how he listens to another speaker and so quickly distills their meaning.
Yeah, uh...no. His greatest weapon is calculated sophistry.
TheBermudaMan Point out one from this video
He pays attention, then he speaks magic words that extract habitable order out of chaos
And destroys them
He's very intelligent, very well read, he is sincere and has huge integrity, we're lucky to have him speak on _anything_.
Our biggest problem is our leadership. Thank you, Doctor, for your clear and thoughtful thinking . Sent
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
The eloquency of this man is incredible.
The guy is a savage. He comes up with perfect responses and comebacks instantly which most of us come up in the shower after thinking about it for a week.
Menn, you would have to combine the intellectual powers of taking a crap and showering at the same time, you'd have take a crap in the shower to come up with a response 1/10th as good as Petersons comeback. Mans crazy
I'm sure it probably has everything to do with his clinical psychology background, in which he is highly qualified, and his interest in socio-political matters. Not only is he acutely familiar with the subject content being discussed (or at least themes that strongly correlate) and facts that back his viewpoints but he is also very practiced in cognitive theory. Much of what you see when Jordan is in full swing is a combination of muscle memory in terms of recalling salient facts, and an inherent ability to adapt his responses and counter-arguments with the application of sound logic and critical thinking . That's a very powerful combination and you see people really struggling to handle him, particularly the glib ones who can't back up their claims with anything tangible.
@@bigmonsieurp.3564 LMAO this is great
lmaooooo accuracy 100%
@@mikerconway basically, man's highly educated lmao
Dr Peterson trying with every inch of himself to control his frustration at the complete lack of sense from the panel.
The opposition never listens to what he actually during these debates, major problem
politicians are not elected for their intellect. They are elected for their likeableness and oversimplified campaigning rhetoric.
I see what you did there :)
@Jim Jones can i add you man
I have never seen him ever show any sign of being frustrated and on the edge of losing control of said frustration. The man is a machine, nothing can shock him.
He is a hero ✨ thank you for being here and doing what you doing!
A hero who was completely wrong? Lol.
@@Omnipoops get a fucking grip
@@jaylinn7763 thank you for your useless comment
@@Omnipoops Why should God let you into Heaven?
Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us.
So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven?
Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 sorry I don't speak absolute garbage
A “career” based off a lie. There was and never would have been “compelled speech” in the bill. To quote a great entertainer “ya played yourself”
I don’t get why people hate him for his views here. He isn’t transphobic at all and he’s said (numerous times) that he actually will call someone by the pronoun they prefer because he considers it to be common decency. He just doesn’t want it to be illegal to not do it.
Because he refuses to play their game.
Don't worry, I've been labelled sexist, racist for simply saying that to make an equal society, you shouldn't drag down , demonise, witch hunt or discriminate the predominant race or sex etc .
That very simple concept is somehow so difficult for people to understand it blow my mind!
Even If you don't want to do it still you're not transfobic
@TURD BURGLAR I assume you're murican? Because usually, only muricans throw liberals, lefties, socialists and communists in the same pot. For example for most of Europe, a liberal is a centrist, more or less
This woman is lucky he didn't start playing with his Wedding ring, she would've been smoked.
LMAO 😆
What do you mean
@@zacdawson6881 typically when peterson plays with his wedding ring or stares away it’s bad news for his opponent
@@zacdawson6881 If you watch a lot of Dr. Petersons videos, he fiddles with his wedding ring when he's basic slaying his opposition.
I actually did see him touch his wedding ring in this video. Check out 04:15 haha!
Jordan I am with you! You are a great man of our time. Love your work
Dr. Peterson - brilliant as ALWAYS, is unbelievable how good he is EACH TIME.
That lady - she could not say 2 proper sentences, imagine how messy is her brain and so her actions. Pffff... 😊
What was brilliant about Peterson here?
@@TheMarsCydonia
Sharp. Fact based. Knowledge. Experience. Packed up with kindness. One of a kind!
His detractors... messy messages, messy language, messy behaviour- nothing to learn from.
Simple
@@cristinabadea6344 I've definitely reached a different conclusion than you did here.
I do not find Peterson to be anything you claim he is while being what you say his "dectractors" are.
I guess that when Peterson replied "You don't know what you're talking about" when I explained his lies about C-16, I expected more from someone "Sharp" and "Fact based".
@@TheMarsCydonia .. ... go home, we are fed up with this nonsense, go home
@@cristinabadea6344 Have I upset your feelings by having a different conclusion?
Unfortunately I think this brilliant mind speaks to deaf ears. Dude is a legend
I wonder if he will be mentioned in history books (or whatever children will use in schools to read about history) in, like, 2050.
@@Noctazar Not if the left has its way.
Agree. They come into the room thinking they are smart until Jordan speaks, They hear truth but remain stubborn and choose to be willingly ignorant at this point..showing the kind of person they really are which speaks to why they have the stance they do in the first place. They are control freaks used to faking being smart, they support each other in this endeavor and it works because nobody stands up to them...enter Jordan Peterson...just the man for the job of exposing these types. Jordan Is a true blessing to this world.
You are really being delusional, and falling into the exact same mindset as the people you seem to reject. Stop assigning such strong ideals to individuals, it is careless and harmful. Jordan Peterson isn't God's grace of intelligence to the world.
@@lolmanittakesguts LOL, if Jordan Peterson isn't intelligent, then what does that make you?
SENATOR: "I don't think the chair would allow me the time to list what they're all saying..."
CHAIR: "No, you're fine"
**Doesn't proceed to list what they're saying, because she doesn't know**
Well, if she did happen to know, listing it would disprove her assertion haha. I don't know what's worse- that the senators are dishonest or incompetent. Perhaps both.
Cardboard Jase LMAOOOO lowkey the chair is on Petersons side or he hates that senetor
The only thing she communicated was her aptitude for lazy thought.
to be fair.. she meant to read out 3 full pages of something whether or not fit, not just the points.
Cardboard Jase 😂
Absolute legend 👏
Funny how she says he's entitled to his opinion when they're literally trying to outlaw it.
E B truth
Snake
Eddie Butkaliuk what? He purely is defending his right of freedom of speech, which any human with any sense would want, I don’t think that the lgbtq+ community should legislate themselves to acceptance, acceptance doesn’t work like that, btw he doesn’t disagree with their views he just doesn’t like the thought that one could potentially get punished for expressing their opinion (by not calling someone by their pronoun), that is called suppression, I don’t understand how this is such a hard concept to grasp, a government can tell people what they can’t say (such as a threat to public safety) but a government cannot and should not mandate what one has to say
@@eddiebutkaliuk4681 ??? He's not a legislator...??
Lol... they are literally giving him a platform to outline his grievances... I agree with pete but you are lost in emotions.
Peterson is thinking on such a clear unmuddled level, of course a politician can't cope.
true
IKR when we really need that clarity IN politics
If the politicians spend all their time talking with other politicians, it stands to reason at a certain point any language that isn't muddled would sound foreign to them.
He lost her after his very first words.
This man is so much more than just his title.
When people ask a question, they are either looking for an answer or a fight. If they're looking for a fight, they won't accept to your answer, regardless of what you say.
The level of badass this guy has obtained is beyond physical
Lobster energy 💪
amin
Yes, his badassery is strong here.
I don't think the "level of badass" is a physical trait, man. In fact, I would argue its a behavioral trait. At no level, even the lowest, is it physical.
@@punxOiOi13 well..bad assery can be a metric of how close to a mythological hero an individual is, or how competent an individual is in the domain of transcending the dragon of chaos. Jordan Peterson's level of bad assery is somewhere that is approximating the archetype of the ideal mythological hero. ... roughly speaking
His passion is contagious. Thank you Mr. Peterson for putting your light on top of a hill for all to see.
Passion for what? For using or not using pronouns? :)
Richard Pollard for not being bullied.
White man is being bullied? LOL
I'd like to take a look at that definition.
Hallowed be Thy Name not mine ..
Thy Kingdom come not mine..
Thy Will be done not mine..
Give us peace with men, peace with ourselves..
And free us from all fear.
Prof. Peterson's prayer has been heard, it seems.
BRAVO Prof Peterson, and THANK YOU for standing up for all us Canadians with common sense, your honesty and bravery for coming forward is very much appreciated!!
How has Peterson ever stood up for Canadians with common sense? By blatantly lying about Canadian law? By re-tweeting fetish porn?
That woman went home with very sore ass... Jordan smacked the hell out of it 😂
He's trying to explain nuclear fusion to a pre-schooler.
A pre schooler will understand in a certain point, a politician never.
He misunderstood the entire bill tho, if anything he's a pre schooler trying to tell his teacher that 2+2=5
@@randomcaribou2747 in what way may I ask?
@@alfiepicton1339 Bill c-16 only adds gender expression to an already existing list of protected grounds. Misgendering someone by accident would not be considered discriminatory as many canadian lawyers have already talked about, repeated and deliberate attempts to harm someone through constant misgendering on the other hand is another story. This bill only compels speech in the same way that the original law compelled righteous canadians to not yell slurs at indigenous people
@@randomcaribou2747 I would disagree, there is a big difference between making it illegal for people NOT to say something and telling people they HAVE TO say something. Especially if we are forcing them to say something a lot of people (older generations in particular) don't really agree with or really understand. And all of this to accommodate 0.6% of society (In America).
"w-well I think our chair w-would rule me out of order If I proce-"
"No you're fine"
SHUT DOWN
Top 10 anime betrayals
bradhuygens Haha! He may as well have handed her a 6ft length of rope and saved us all the time.
HAHAHAHAH that was the best part. no lady, you dug your own grave, now deal with it yourself, don't bring us into this!
Exactly, she tried a little last ditch effort and worming out of answering that question and was shut down instantly.
I loved that part!!
I love his wisdom of knowledge, morals and firm to it!! Thank you for fighting and insisting what is proper and rigth Sir Jordan❤God Bless
In spite of what he could lose after, this man stands by what he think is right. balls of steel right there.
He risked losing so much by becoming a millionaire?
@@TheMarsCydonia This man is intelligent and hard working. Do you not think that he had already made millions before going viral?
@@micci9865 Before lying to the public to start his career as a culture war commentator, Peterson was an university professor.
Do you believe all Canadian university professors to be millionnaires?
@@TheMarsCydonia You know his finances? What does his financial standing have to do with his position on the issue being discussed?
@@user-ug2hk3go6i Have you missed that the original comment mentionned Peterson's risk of what he could be losing?
Why have you not asked them this question instead of asking it to me who pointed out the fact that Peterson gained from it and rather than lose anything?
This man doesn't rattle easily. Thinks quick on his feet and disembowels his opponents in such a thoughtful and polite manner that it's a work of art.
Because facts can not be debated
Please watch his debate with slajov zizek(that peterson posted) if you think he is so quick on his feet
@@WLyons9856 As long as the person expressing those facts can articulate them coherently. Jordan can and does better than almost anyone else on the planet. Facts don't have feelings and they can be discombobulated if the deliverer of the facts is a poor communicator.
You almost make him sound like he's the great Hannibal lecter lol!
Absolutely!
he's so articulate it's astounding
Well, he didn't show any new side to his expression here, except a situatory extension of vocabulary. His trait of openess is integrated with his speech. That is of course not a problem, but it shows the limitasion.
...
I don't have English anymore in school so i have to practice in the comment-section on UA-cam.
Alright, if you want to improve your English skills. Instead of saying limitisation, say limitation. And use big "I"s, when they are alone. Openness* also. Some more, but I don't give that much of a damn.
Snorri did use limitation, just incorrectly* spelled it 'sion' at the end. ( * Incorrectly for American English anyway.)
It’s called well read, life long learner, magi, truth speaker, polyhistor aka Educated.
Anthony Corleone why dont you ask if he's single? Takem out ta denny's. SPLURGE a lil bit.
Dr. Peterson is a world treasure and should be protected at all costs
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Imagine standing up for something despite being internationally vilified and risk losing your job. This man is a hero.
@@brianwilson7624 but they dont exist??? Stfu ok
Yeah, I guess you could say the same about Hitler right?
@@89Valkyrie how is hitler in this conversation
Yeah man it’s rare to a person with that much courage
He's the man they couldn't cancel lol
The way he articulates his words is just amazing.
prophetsnake If slandering and mediocre insult is what you stand for, I’m afraid you will have a miserable and delusional life.
@@wagagagaggag Stand for?
Bwawhawh!
Go ahead, slurp Jordie. See how that works out for ya.
prophetsnake His teaching had helped me in getting insights on psychology topics. He does his research and is a renowned writer and professor. If I were you, I would watch all his videos and be enlightened rather than giving unproductive homophobic insult.
prophetsnake don't talk when you have no knowledge
@@beyond4374 Oh brother. Being told I have no knowledge by someone who can't even speak his own language.
Perfect.
Senate Chairperson: "We need to move on..." Loose translation: She is getting torched so I'm going to save her from further embarrassing herself...
Bravo!!! What else can I say to show appreciation for this man! absolutely brilliant!!
seriously lady: what were you thinking whilst trying to bamboozle The lobster king?
Well done sir. . . Well done.
lol
the lobster king lmao
Good one, lol
She is nothing more than completely affected by politics with a half working brain.
Dr.Peterson is next level of linguistic and thought .This woman should not be a senator.
I strongly disagree. I think she is an idol of the modern day, Western politician due to the fact her attributes are so antithetical to those of Jordan Peterson. She's full of incompetence, virtue-signaling, and - as Dr. Peterson put it - "cognitive incoherency." Yep, sounds like a senator to me :/
In a round about way, you two agree...
Edit: I strongly disagree with the second sentence of his original comment. lol
I believe that means "In an ideal world, this woman would never be a senator". You are correct that she represents something that is sadly typical of today's political climate.
jeepers what was that about how do they get to be a senator in canada?
The man is too coherent, that he is incomprehensible for her
What did you not understand?
@@misanthrophex i meant for the senator lady peterson only speaks the truth
He is absolutely correct 👏
When they can’t defeat Peterson’s argument, they say:”Let’s wrap up here and move on...”
Yeah , that happens to me often 😆
@@amandahelenatkins8636 You're not Peterson
So true.
He had them and they knew it.
@@jamesramplin8124 while others might not be peterson, I have experienced this sort of argument where I'm arguing a principle and brain dead people assume you're against their entire argument. Like people are allowed to support trans people but also be against compelled speech or bathrooms for example
I saw a comment once and I love it so here's a quote:
"Everyone's gangsta until Professor Peterson calmly explains why they're not"
Seen that one somehwere
Everyone’s gangsta until Professor Peterson starts playing with his ring
🤣
From joe rogan experience 1 or 2 ( with Peterson )
might sound odd but I appreciate how you wrote this out instead of just copying it and putting out the impression that you came up with it
Dr Peterson should be one of the minds employed by the UN to help guide correct international policies on these matters. Simply brilliant.
Peterson, supporter of conversion therapy, opponent of free speech, should help the UN?
How is he brilliant exactly?
He is so sharp when speaking
Pepe's bodega USA has our own version of this guy. His name is Trey Gowdy and hes the governer of south carolina. look him up on youtube if you want some keks
T. M lol that's such a diservice to Mr. Peterson. And the fact that you can't see so if kind of funny. Peterson is on a whole. nutha. level.
Michael Egan ive seen trey gowdy on cspan rip people in half. Hes been ripping comey in half before trump even thought of presidencym
Awww cute, you have your first intellectual hack for a hero! We've all been there mate.
Pepe's bodega Roughly speaking
If you think you can argue against Peterson, think again. This man is a logical beast.
...yep, you should think again sunshine
I can argue with him, so can anyone else, easily, As long as the person is in the right, saying that, lets presume Mr Peterson came into said debate half cocked ( yes, highly improbable), engaged in the discussion, then was shown to be lacking, he would then apologise unreservedly, then change sides, to advance the truth, its a thought exercise, Mr Perterson, was asked by joe rogan, what can anyone wanting to help in this C16 law, to help? Mr Peterson, said something so profound and which struck me in awe, He said " work on yourself" or words to that effect, what the ......... no asking for money, donations or anything, he said sort yourself out, come on, a truly great role model, he is Good and truthful actions, backed up by words, the politicians are hollow words, hot air and slight of hand to gain by deceit
smartchip He also rented out a theater using his Patreon money to sort out his thoughts on the bible in front of a crowd. And it is becoming increasingly obvious he's doing it so people can understand the core benefits of religion and why it has held so much weight. It doesn't come off as pretentious, as he stands there as a lecturer, doing what he knows he can do really well.. Teach.
listen to the sam harris and jordan peterson debate on truth
+Apoorv Salar - How.
A politician without a paid agenda…..is a public servant!
Come to America Dr. Peterson! Shame on you Canada for putting this wonderful man on your chopping block!
This guy is litterally carrying the whole genderdebate on his own!!
so true👌
And dont forget Bill Burr, last of the two men fighting for us...
Id say Ben Shapiro, Steven crowder, Bill Burr, and many more UA-camrs do the same, things are better than they seem, don't believe the media saying we are the little, nah uh, we are the majority, u can check out Aba and Preach u may like them
@@triskalion9627 Steven crowder is a completle moron tho. Hes embarassing against anyone that can talk coherently. He only looks smart against some of the most extreme SJW students.
@@marwin4348 let me guess, you are referring to that Joseph in the argument about socialism? Yea Steven turned out like a total dumbass there, but if you judge people by one or two rare cases and extremes you will never have any friends, no one is perfect and Steven has his bias too, many conservatives are biased when it comes to Capitalism it's true.
Dr. Peterson will go down in history as one of the greatest minds of the 21st century.
hoply... i wich he would talk in Europe too..i am watching nearly all of his Videos on UA-cam. I love it. I am from Germany and i would love it if someone from here would the same work as him.
It's funny because the Bill passed and we haven't seen anyone actually charged under it...
@@StevesSammiches you're missing a key word at the end there. "Yet."
@@kailaine3974 This law will never lead to what Peterson envisions. He's one of the weakest intellectuals I've ever seen. Just plain misinformed on so many things.
rugbyguy59 I don’t really know what you mean by “what he predicts.” As far as I can tell, he is concerned about a compelled speech law, which is what bill C-16 is.
I’ll also give you a bit of a pro tip: never in the history of ever has an ad hominem been a valid argument
What we're dealing with here is a huge difference in intellectual scope, depth and nuance between these two. JP understands the far reaching implications and their impact on logical coherency as well as basic rights and freedoms while the senator can't see past a single minded fixation on an end goal.
Yeah thats not what c-16 did. It never mentions pronouns and quite frankly has nothing to do with them, any other interpretation is just throwing shit at the wall and watching it stick. Namely educational facilitators who had no idea what it was and panicking every time someone claimed to be misgendered, the proper response would be, grow up.
Love this man ❤ he doesn’t take BS from No one
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
It's just mind-blowing, how articulate he is
Yeah, the way he quickly and elegantly processes and communicates (often complex) arguments is amazing! It’s so inspiring to listen to him speak...
That was the first thing I thought when I seen the thumbnail of this video
Genuinely! I have a psychology degree im a clinical child psychologist and behaviour analyst. Still when i listen to him I remain silent for hours after afraid i will sound like a toddler
@@Hello11235 Look up Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, probably the most articulate man I've ever come across. Famous for uttering the longest word ever used in british parliament.
Here's a link. ua-cam.com/video/Wc9b08J2KrA/v-deo.html
Agreed. Peterson has an extremely high verbal IQ
"well i think our chairman would rule me out if i proceed to share with you the details"
*no you're fine*
LMAO
Might've been the best part of that.....
She then literally says nothing of what all those organizations were allegedly saying in opposition to Peterson's views.
“Et tu, Brute?”
God bless that man. Let truth prevail
Ironic, considering Peterson is a shameless, unrepentant liar.
@@TheMarsCydonia you need to elaborate on what he has lied about and what he is unrepentant about. Lying maybe but penance implies submission to JC. I’m not sure if he has bowed down to Jesus. Yet?
@@NHL4740 Unrepentant in the sense of showing no remorse or regret for years of lying, it has nothing to do with Jesus.
And If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence.
Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements:
- That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law
- That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns).
- That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime"
So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list:
_"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_
Is now this list:
_"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_
The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words.
So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims.
1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word:
- Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them.
- If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada.
- In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012
- That's 5 years before bill C-16
- Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16
So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law".
2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned:
a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_
So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either:
Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated.
What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16.
b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed.
They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled.
Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades.
So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago.
3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime.
It does not either.
The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are:
*Section 318 Advocating genocide*
_Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_
*Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred*
_Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_
You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity.
The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not.
So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation.
Peterson has not stopped lying since.
Ever notice that as soon as Mr. Peterson is making his point (driving it in), someone says "We have to wrap it up there. Let's move on to..."?
No, because this was actually the last 5 minutes of a scheduled one hour.
"No you're fine."
STRAIGHT SAVAGE!!
I didn't hear what she was exactly saying before the guy said that
"Well I think our chair would rule me out of order if I..."
Im gonna use this too hehe.great one.
She thought the chair who save her....😂😂😂
His like Nah,i don't wanna get in on that, jp is a savage,rip
That shit had me dead
Jordan Peterson's rethorical skills and the way he articulates his thoughts into arguments continues to amaze me. I want to learn to speak like that too.
Tadai, nenusisnekek jo sakiniai per ilgi buvo tai durnei kuri nekrimto jo mokslu, jo sakiniu gramatine ir semantine sandara pusei kambario buvo tamsus miskas. Petersono adresatai jo nesuprato nes jis ne ju kalba kalbejo kitaip tariant. Petersono kalba nera retorine, o akademine ir moksline.
Read
He has very high verbal abilities. His VIQ must be over 4sd. That's why he sounds very clever and thoughtful when speaking. He also reads a lot of complicated texts, so that helps him for his rhetorical way of talking.
@@NFLStefanONFL his speaking manner was too intelelctual and academical for anybody to understand in that room. If he had better rethoric, he would have said the same thing in their "language". Dont you see the stares of mild stupor in their eyes? Their vague attempts to grasp his ideas, their reactions and rrplies? They clearly do not understand him.
@@zilvinasyes sakydamas, kad Petersono retoriniai įgūdžiai įspūdingi turėjau omenyje tai kaip jis valdo pokalbį. Pvz. kai toji senatorė pradeda vardinti organizacijas pasisakančias prieš lytinę diskriminaciją Petersonas taikliai pastebi, kad tokia jų pozicija neprieštarauja tam ką jis teigia. Aš pats tokioje situacijoje tikriaisiai būčiau bandęs impulsyviai gintis šitaip sukurdamas sąlygas neigti mano teiginius ir argumentus, padaręs save pažeidžiamą, bet štai Petersonas neleidžia oponentui valdyti diskusijos krypties pagal savo interesus, nepriima kaltinimų ar naratyvo kurį konstruoja priešinga stovykla. Nebūčiau pagalvojęs apie tokį greitą būdą išsisukti jo vietoje toje situacijoje. Pritariu tau, kad daugelis toje patalpoje nesuprato Petersono ir tyrimų metodikos apie kurią jis kalba, bet būtent ta akimirka apie kurią aš kalbu nėra susijusi su moksline/akademine kalba ar jos vartojimu. Labiau atkreipiau dėmesį į Petersono sugebėjimą valdyti diskusiją, nepakliūti į oponento spąstus, išlikti sąmoningam pokalbio eigai ir priešininko motyvams. Manau daug galima išmokti man šioje vietoje ir faktas, kad tau turėjau atrašyt tokią ilgą žinutę, tam, kad paaiškinčiau šitą mintį tai liudija :D todėl ir delsiau atsakyti, žinijau, kad bus daug rašymo.
That line about competence in a given position was foul 🤣😂
Thanks JP. keep speaking the truth and logic
He's rational. He's logical. He thinks critically. For these reasons he is vilified.
1000%
Hitler thought critically. Do you want to be like Hitler. (just kidding)
@@grantlandis2747 how is this kidding?
Intelligent people that don't conform to those leftist ideology are vilified cause they speak the truth, thus they are not listened to, just ignored or put into a "far right or fascist" category, and I really do think that this is unfortunate, on all the videos I've seen of him, he's never been discriminatory against anyone, but well, logic and common sense are rare nowadays, I can't comprehend nor I want to abide by their stupid rules, with their unlimited amount of genders and sexualities, this world is going downhill and everybody in the west are pressing on the gas.
Like there aren't anything more important on this planet than fucking imaginary genders and sexualities, this is what happen when you let deranged people give their opinion.
This world doesn't have more than a few decades to live.
Hope I wont be there at the downfall.
@@demons21100 its just with the western civilization , not the entire world
Everytime he speaks I feel educated. Intellectual heavy weight.
Everytime I listen to him I feel like my IQ is increased by 50
until he opens his mouth about god and jesus that is ...
What do you mean?
Ocean Backwards he doesn’t know what he means.
@forza juventus I have a tiktok account (lord forgive me) and I literally saw an SJW talk shit about Peterson. Had to destroy her
The most important thing that should be on everyone mind currently should be to invest in different sources of income that doesn't depend on the government. Especially with the current economic crisis around the word. This is still a good time to invest in various stocks, Gold, silver and digital currencies.
I agree with you and I believe that the secret to financial stability is having the right investment ideas to enable you earn more money, I don’t know who agrees with me but either way I recommend either real estate or bitcoin and stocks.
That's awesome to hear. I invested 5k in Robin hood about a year ago and it steadily went down, now my portfolio is down $800. I don't know what to do and i am in between jobs.
@@nyreggie That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like *Mr Gary Mason Brooks* my coach, you may have come across him on interviews relating to bitcoin and stocks. He trades, manage trading account and offer mentorship program for clients who wish to become professional investors.
@@bjoe631 You allow people to trade for you? that's interesting, I would love to learn, hope it’s safe?
Wow I can't believe you guys are discussing about Gary Mason Brooks , I once met him at a conference in California 2019, just before the pandemic. I can testify that he’s very good in trading..Highly recommended.
An intellectual skyscraper surrounded and attacked by mindless chaff. Satisfying to revisit this clip.
Jordan: "Your legislation is too general and disjointed"
Senator: "W-w-what about t-t-the people writing us letters about their feelings?"
The point is, they argue with 'feelings' while in reality companys do a shittone of money with court cases (more law mean - generally speaking - more court cases, more tax contributions, more lawyers needed, ppl believing their arm doesnt belong to their body, etc. In other words, its more about the money than everything different. Politicians think in the matter of how to get more money out of this as the only possible way of thinking. Therefor they are not interessed in JP views. Interesstingly i agree with JP views, although i see myself more of a leftist-marxist than the ppl JP seems to criticise in many of his speeches.
I want to like this but 69 😅
Senator: "W-w-what about t-t-the people writing us letters about their feelings?"
Answer = irrelevant on what their feelings are but they have to bring facts which science/biology is and what damages it will do to our society. Quit trying to please everyone, stand up and state this is what it is in terms of definition/biological, etc. This is been going on for years and will continue to be this way it is.
Brandon E then cue in the Offspring song: Feelings. ua-cam.com/video/XnhoIf8dDVE/v-deo.html
"Fuck your feelings"
-Gad Saad
An intelligent man in an increasingly absurd and facile world.
well that's how become relatively intelligent in the first place lol
I was gonna like your comment but it's at 666 so I wont
@@Mr59J hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Yes intelligent is relative, amongst uneducated people and bunch of idiots, even a 3rd grade school student is intelligent
Esta Noche De Luna simply using logic and rationale is seen as intelligence in the modern day and age(even though it was usually rebuked in former generations to fit a religious status quo). We’re lacking in intelligence and logic for sure in this crazy world. It probably wouldn’t be so insane if many tried to create order through systems and people having simple common courtesy due to the rule of “what’s done unto others should be done unto me.” (No, I said something that many people should’ve thought of many years ago. Kill me like you did Socrates.)
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, but impossible to win against an idiot! 😂😉
Her: “everyone else thinks differently from you, so you’re wrong.”
Him: “Wrong about what?”
Her: “... uhhhhh....... you just are.”
Yeah, well everyone a long time ago thought that sacrificing your baby to a statue will produce better harvests.
Jeseph Willis only Catholic Church based on 3 party book readings 🧐
That's not what I'm talking about and Catholicism hasn't been around more than a couple thousand years or so.
Thats when you know youre talking to someone with an iq below 50
Heather's comment reminds me of a quote I once read. It follows:
"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it"
"Gonna have to wrap it up there and move on"
Translation: You're making too much sense, stop it.
It's that noticeable that when Peterson is making minced meat of her they stop him. How pathetic are they.
People who don’t REALLY want to debate tend to steer clear of individuals who are as intelligent, knowledgeable and articulate as Jordan.
😂 haha
Nah bruh how can he make sense to her she doesn't even understand half the stuff he's saying stupid bimbo
@@juniorvonclaire3576 Being good at debating is still another thing than being right or having good points. I know quite a few people who are absolutely reta... Mentally challenged... Well, to state it briefly; they make ridiculous and unprovable claims, yet they still shine when they debate another's well-founded arguments, somehow. My point is, it's still alot easier to debate with an intellectual than it is with a professional debater. Jordan Peterson adheres too much to facts and logic to ever be a debater, a debater will throw anything under the bus to win the argument. As far as their own dignity, trustworthiness and principles. Look at the majority of successful politicians for proof of that.
Oh man, I got chills with this one.
Pearson is an absolute Legend.
He will stay in history for ever near names like Einstein, Plato, Tesla.
peterson*
XDD
God protect and keep him and his family safe! We all need this man in this craziness we call society
Without Peterson, we would have no one to re-tweet fetish porn and get mad at paper towel dispensers.
"We'll have to wrap it up there because he just proved us all fools"
He was getting right to the meat and potatoes of simultaneously holding two directly opposite theories as truth while reaching for that wedding ring. They were about to get hammered.
@@EightiesTV he showed mercy xD
🤣🤣🤣🤣
You stole what I was going to write. God I wish we could have got a response from that Senator.
In other words let's get the hell out of here before everyone finds out v made bad grades at school.
omg i love you Dr. Peterson, you eloquent son of a gun.
This lady should not be asking any questions period !
Those who seek to represent us ought to be of a higher level of competence than demonstrated here.
On point ☝️
STOP SHE'S ALREADY DEAD
stickexjr lmao its better to make sure
@Mike Fletcher "It's too late for words with these people." That may be true, but that line of thinking can be imminently dangerous.
Shes all coal now but he just keeps burning her
stickexjr crush your enemies completely
J Peterson: OMAE WA MOU SHINDEIRU
Senator Gender Identity: NANI?!
"We'll have to wrap it up there"
Yeah, because she's toast.
Best comment bro :D
Burnt toast with a fireball in the middle
@@thinginground5179 super duper atomic toast.
the wrap up is probably due to the strict time allotments government/congressional hearings have. notice how she constantly asks the chairman for permission to speak a little longer. BTW, I find these _strict_ time allotments ironic in light of the existence of a filibuster which as I understand it is a way for a speaker on a house or senate floor to take hours to ramble on in order to delay/derail a vote on a bill. BTW, time allotments in hearing committees can be used to the advantage of those who are questioned. for example, I noticed how the Twitter CEO kept spending/wasting time by saying things like "I would like to thank the members of the committee for asking this question... I am honoured to provide some insight into the issues at hand..." and other filler speech. often the congressman/woman asking the question interrupts the responder with "yes or no, please answer the question, I have limited time".
Dead in the water
100% hero JP brilliant x