2019-04-05 at 2:34 AM UTC
wait so you would suck a homeless guys dick before you used the same pipe? how does that work?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-04-05 at 2:41 AM UTC
you can still get diseases in your mouth from someones dick
2019-04-05 at 2:44 AM UTC
im pretty sure sucking the dick would be worse. lanny can we get some polls please?
2019-04-05 at 2:45 AM UTC
Nil
African Astronaut
[the overexcited four-footed chanar]
Couldn't you just torch the mouthpiece for a few seconds? Not exactly an autoclave but couldn't hurt.
2019-04-05 at 2:46 AM UTC
yea, it would be easy to wipe the mouthpiece with bleach water
2019-04-05 at 2:48 AM UTC
add polls for the burning doorknob mystery cum debate? About a good of a reason as any I suppose but I'm drunk.
2019-04-05 at 2:54 AM UTC
I don't even need to watch this to know that Peterson will be hideously out of his depth.
Nigga thinks he is Jung 2.0 when he's actually Chopra 2.0
And Jung wasn't that great to begin with.
2019-04-05 at 2:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS
Hitting a random homeless person's dropped meth pipe that you picked up off the ground just to get some meth residue like a goddamn crack fiend. vs sucking a dude's dick while he's homeless.
AKA Saturdays with Scronaldo
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-04-06 at 4:41 PM UTC
This thread really went downhill before I got a chance to respond to it due to Lanny's built in "you can't post anymore until we deem you cool enough" feature. At any rate, nobody asked me, but since this is an open forum I'll throw in my two cents.
I managed to make this far in life without reading Peterson, but I finally caved in earlier this year because people have been incessantly talking about him. I would say that I think he's a very gifted undergraduate lecturer and any bachelor's psychology program would be very fortunate to have such an involved and passionate instructor. Moreover, I think he does leverage good criticisms of socialism (albeit perhaps a bit shallow at time). However, I will say that it's pretty obvious that he doesn't really reach people who seriously study philosophy or psychology outside of this immediate limited audience. While he speaks claims with a certain amount passion, confidence, and conviction, he never really defends any of their prerequisite assumptions very well. For example, he might make grandiose claims about the nature of mankind and appeal to archetypes when pressed, but I haven't really seen any thorough work on his behalf proving that either 1) there is a cause and effect relationship between archetypes and "human nature" or 2) that, if this relationship existed, it's linear instead of reciprocal. Similarly, when he makes claims that the Jesus mythos is foundational to the formation of Western culture, he doesn't really address potential extraneous variables that influenced it or even influenced early Christianity (which I assume anyone would anticipate when making such large-scale claims).
The short version is that you can be a moderately successful academic and not necessarily be a very good critical thinker. I also can't help but think that more powerful institutions who would profit from someone packaging conservative morality with secular arguments are endorsing him and promoting his career a lot more forcefully than he potentially would have succeeded on the merits of his ideas alone.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
