Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Relam

What do you think about Jordan B. Peterson

113 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Aquila King
2 minutes ago, Relam said:

Trans people are just ill people and it's not wrong to call them ill, but in this fake brainwashed society  is

He's not calling them ill, he's calling them the opposite gender that they identify as. If he were simply calling them mentally ill, I don't think the backlash against him would be nearly as severe.

There are indeed some trans people out there who don't claim that their condition is in any way an illness or disorder or whatever you want to call it, and I get where they're coming from. It's something that they're born with and can't change, and it's a major cause of struggle for them. So valling them ill has a bit of a negative connotation to it, and can be damaging in itself. I get why they object to it.

However regardless of whether you consider them ill or not, specifically addressing them as the gender they don't identify as is not only incredibly insensitive and damaging, but also bullying and insulting behavior. JP is being a dick to trans people for no reason, and encouraging other people to do the same. 

5 minutes ago, Relam said:

Please go somwere else and don't post on my thread i didn't wanted some snowflake with his radical political views i just wanted to discuss with normal intelligent people about J.B Peterson

LOL. Guess we can toss out all the "free speech" rhetoric you've been promoting from JP, eh? :lol: I suppose freedom of speech only applies to conservative BS you agree with, like hating on trans people. :rolleyes:

Regardless, this is a public discussion forum. You don't get to pick and choose who can and cannot discuss a topic on a thread you posted publicly based on who you personally disagree with.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Triggered-Memes-12.jpg?resize=336,336

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Relam
4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

He's not calling them ill, he's calling them the opposite gender that they identify as. If he were simply calling them mentally ill, I don't think the backlash against him would be nearly as severe.

There are indeed some trans people out there who don't claim that their condition is in any way an illness or disorder or whatever you want to call it, and I get where they're coming from. It's something that they're born with and can't change, and it's a major cause of struggle for them. So valling them ill has a bit of a negative connotation to it, and can be damaging in itself. I get why they object to it.

However regardless of whether you consider them ill or not, specifically addressing them as the gender they don't identify as is not only incredibly insensitive and damaging, but also bullying and insulting behavior. JP is being a dick to trans people for no reason, and encouraging other people to do the same. 

LOL. Guess we can toss out all the "free speech" rhetoric you've been promoting from JP, eh? :lol: I suppose freedom of speech only applies to conservative BS you agree with, like hating on trans people. :rolleyes:

Regardless, this is a public discussion forum. You don't get to pick and choose who can and cannot discuss a topic on a thread you posted publicly based on who you personally disagree with.

If a man changes his physicall looks to a woman he is still man. This is contra evolution and its just a way of how natural selection works

7j3cqj37g9r21.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

When I call out Jordan Peterson for being a douche by not calling trans people by their preferred pronouns, I'm not suggesting he should face any legal ramifications for it.

Can you point to an occasion when Jordan Peterson didn't call a trans person by that person's preferred pronouns? I can't. Personally, if I'm going to call somebody out for something, I can wait for them actually to do what I'm calling them out for.

Meanwhile, you want what Peterson wanted: for him not to face any legal ramifications if he ever happened to do it. Kumbaya.

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Canadian bill C-16 which was to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act simply extended basic civil rights protections to transgender and non-binary people. It did not legally force people to address transgender people with particular pronouns.

And he says differently. Disagreeing with you about the political importance and likely consequences of a piece of legislation isn't

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

a flat out provable falsehood.

And if you don't believe me, then ask any lawyer, whether in Canada, or in Kentucky where you're located, or anywhere with an "English" system of jurisprudence and a legislative mechanism.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
3 minutes ago, Relam said:

If a man changes his physicall looks to a woman he is still man. This is contra evolution and its just a way of how natural selection works

This essentially just validates my point that your (and JP's) objection to referring to trans people by their preferred pronouns is rooted in your fundamental misunderstanding of transexualism, and a general bigotry towards transsexuals.

This isn't a "free speech" issue, it's a hate speech towards trans people issue.

6 minutes ago, Relam said:

7j3cqj37g9r21.jpg

Yes, and this is due in large part to the kind of hateful rhetoric you're currently expressing here.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

This looks like one of those, "I want freedom of speech, unless it hurts people's feelings" things. 

xqpk2cz365k21.png

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth

I feel like there is going be massive triggering here soon. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
3 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Can you point to an occasion when Jordan Peterson didn't call a trans person by that person's preferred pronouns? I can't. Personally, if I'm going to call somebody out for something, I can wait for them actually to do what I'm calling them out for.

My point is, JP got famous by publicly announcing that he wouldn't do so if legally forced to use preferred pronouns, despite the law literally not legally forcing him or anyone else to use preferred pronouns.

You can say "he never did it" all you want, but that's just not the issue here. He said he would refuse to use preferred pronouns if legally forced to. That's the point.

13 minutes ago, eight bits said:

And he says differently. Disagreeing with you about the political importance and likely consequences of a piece of legislation isn't

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

a flat out provable falsehood.

And if you don't believe me, then ask any lawyer, whether in Canada, or in Kentucky where you're located, or anywhere with an "English" system of jurisprudence and a legislative mechanism.

The province of Ontario where JP lives literally had the exact same law on the books in his province for 5 years before the nation wide amendment was passed. The only difference was that it became a national law instead of just a provincial law.

Furthermore, it was a law that merely expanded the exact same legal discrimination protections that exist for black people, women, gay people, religious minorities etc; to include trans people as well.

JP had absolutely nothing to fear from this legislation. He either knew this and intentionally misrepresented the law to make an uproar and get famous, or he's a paranoid incompetent idiot who didn't have even the most basic understanding of the law in the first place.

Most laws are open to various interpretations, some more than others. But interpreting this specific law as "requiring you to address trans people with preferred pronouns" is reading into the law something that just flat out is not even remotely there.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth
41 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

1) We don't hate him, we just think he's wrong on most issues.

2) "Not Politically Correct" is usually just a euphemism for "Being an Insulting Dick."

3) I'm open to listening to anyone. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

. Problem is that radical liberals do not view it in those terms. Rather it is agree with me or we will silence you and use any means necessary.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
6 minutes ago, Scholar4Truth said:

I feel like there is going be massive triggering here soon. 

Well, better go clean my room and check back later.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 minute ago, Scholar4Truth said:

Problem is that radical liberals do not view it in those terms. Rather it is agree with me or we will silence you and use any means necessary.

You can either listen to what us leftists directly tell you what we believe, or you can keep on telling us what you personally think that we believe.

I can tell you personally as a leftist, that what you claim here just isn't the case. That's not what I or any other leftist I know believes. Now do intend to ignore that and just keep on telling me what you think I believe regardless?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth

 I didn't say you specifically, I am just using an examplle of what I see in my encounters with various liberals. Just go to various college campuses and speak on the problems of what passes off as Feminism and Gender Studies. The speakers are either banned or lose their jobs because they are not toting the line. So sorry to say you are incorrect in your statements. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
22 hours ago, Relam said:

What do you all think about Jordan B. Peterson?

My opinion is that he is the type of "inteligent religious" man and i really respect that.

He is getting grief for going against identity politics.

His views on lobster dominance hierarchies and his attempt to transfer that over to how humans rise in their own is flawed. Political ability is more important for humans than competence. Competence without hiding it gets people assassinated in their careers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
Just now, Scholar4Truth said:

 I didn't say you specifically, I am just using an examplle of what I see in my encounters with various liberals. Just go to various college campuses and speak on the problems of what passes off as Feminism and Gender Studies. The speakers are either banned or lose their jobs because they are not toting the line. So sorry to say you are incorrect in your statements. 

SJW kids on college campuses encompass at most around 1% or 2% of all lefties in America. You're just echoing the same sensationalist anti-SJW nonsense you see all over YouTube and Fox News etc. That is a grossly inaccurate representation of left-leaning people.

I'm telling you as someone who regularly frequents various leftist sites, am a member of various left-wing groups and subreddits on social media, watch plenty of the left-wing YouTubers, and communicate with tons of other of my fellow lefties all the time. The overwhelming majority of people on the left strongly disagree with SJW's and their rhetoric. We lefties mostly just talk about policy stuff like Medicare-For-All and public college, etc.

Conservative media tends to take SJW's and grossly exaggerate their prevalence to paint the entire left as being represented by them. That's just nonsense. It's like saying that all (or most) conservatives are literally Nazis. That kind of extreme rhetoric is dangerous and objectively wrong.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
7 hours ago, Aquila King said:

The overwhelming majority of people on the left strongly disagree with SJW's and their rhetoric. We lefties mostly just talk about policy stuff like Medicare-For-All and public college, etc.

Well, I have no reason to disbelieve you and frankly I find that anecdotal offering to be encouraging.  It makes me feel better to believe that the nonsense that is being highlighted is not the predominate mindset of the Left.  I guess even the Left can be a victim of the 5th column.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
11 hours ago, Aquila King said:

1) We don't hate him, we just think he's wrong on most issues.

Do you mean yourself or were you talking about people in general, ie. Radical Liberals (as quoted in an earlier post)?

11 hours ago, Relam said:

2) "Not Politically Correct" is usually just a euphemism for "Being an Insulting Dick."

Personally, I am definitely not a big fan of political correctness.  I refuse to buy into the outrage culture of today, where people allow themselves to get upset at every little thing they can possibly get upset over.  I'm a fan of simple, good old fashioned manners.  I will admit though, I'm a very black and white person.  I am very aware of it, so I constantly remind myself that most people think in grey areas. :lol:

Just a bit about my beliefs here though......if I saw a trans person down the street and met them, I'd address them as a she or a he, depending on what they'd like to be addressed as.  I'm never impolite by being disrespectful on purpose to someone at all. 

For me, I would have an issue if I was TOLD to call the person that by Law.  I would like it to be my own decision.  After all, it's the transgender person's decision to want to be called that, therefore, it's only fair that I'd like my decision to be taken into account in how I address them.  Not the Law's decision.  

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, iirc, Peterson clearly said to the effect that, he would also call the person a she or he as they wished. He's not going to go out of his way to be rude to someone simply because of that.  His issue was with the Law.  

Sometimes, it can be a simple thing, such as, nobody likes being told what to do. :whistle:

11 hours ago, Relam said:

3) I'm open to listening to anyone. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Absolutely, we'll never learn other people's perspectives on topics if we just shut other people's opinions out.  I disagree with a lot of people on here, but I will always do it in a respectful manner, unlike quite a few people who can only respond by attacking. 

I wanted to thank you for being respectful also - I hope I made my beliefs clear on why I like Jordan Peterson.  I think he's fabulous and I can only wish I was as intelligent and articulate as he is.  :) 

Edited by Gwynbleidd
my speeeling as usual
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
14 hours ago, Aquila King said:

The province of Ontario where JP lives literally had the exact same law on the books in his province for 5 years before the nation wide amendment was passed. The only difference was that it became a national law instead of just a provincial law.

OK. This topic is a frackin' tar baby. I want to ask a question, but I know even to ask it will make me an "advocate." But seriously, I don't understand this argument, which might be applied to anybody who lives under a federal government (like that of Canada, Switzerland, the United States, ...), but is on-topic here because one instance of it involves Jordan Peterson.

The premise of your argument implies that Jordan Peterson knew first-hand about the operation of a local version of a law whose coercive features he opposes. He then finds out that "the exact same law" (seriously, you think that the national government of Canada has no greater coercive power than one of its provinces?) is about to spread nationwide, in his nation.

In your view, it is remarkable that Peterson protested this development, because _________?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
13 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

Do you mean yourself or were you talking about people in general, ie. Radical Liberals (as quoted in an earlier post)?

I meant those of us on the left who oppose JP, but I was speaking in broad general terms, so obviously there would be exceptions. Just saying that I know I personally don't "hate" JP, and I don't know any other lefties who hate him either. We just strongly disagree with him on a fair number of things.

13 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

Personally, I am definitely not a big fan of political correctness.  I refuse to buy into the outrage culture of today, where people allow themselves to get upset at every little thing they can possibly get upset over. 

Personally, I'm more of a fan of nuance. Certain things that people get outraged over are just silly and stupid, and they should just get the F over it. Other things people should be outraged over, because outrage is what inspires and motivates change.

It really just depends on the individual issue here. For instance, I don't think Kamala Harris is right when she says she wants to ban Donald Trump off Twitter. Apart from it violating what are IMO first amendment protections, to me it's Trump's policies that are the real danger here, so getting outraged over his mean Tweets is just ridiculous. However at the same time, a significant number of policy proposals and things he's said are genuinely outrageous, and people should be outraged over them. 

So again, it just depends on the specific individual issue here.

13 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

I'm a fan of simple, good old fashioned manners.  I will admit though, I'm a very black and white person.  I am very aware of it, so I constantly remind myself that most people think in grey areas. :lol:

Yeah, the black and white mentality seems to be a hallmark of conservative philosophy for some reason. If you want to understand how the left thinks, start thinking of things in less of a black and white view of the world, and add a bit more nuance. Too often the right wants to at the left is in favor of the most extreme black and white nonsense, when in reality we're far more nuanced than that.

13 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

Just a bit about my beliefs here though......if I saw a trans person down the street and met them, I'd address them as a she or a he, depending on what they'd like to be addressed as.  I'm never impolite by being disrespectful on purpose to someone at all. 

For me, I would have an issue if I was TOLD to call the person that by Law.  I would like it to be my own decision.  After all, it's the transgender person's decision to want to be called that, therefore, it's only fair that I'd like my decision to be taken into account in how I address them.  Not the Law's decision.  

That's all well and good and I would agree to that. I'm just saying that neither you nor JP or anyone else were ever in threat of legal enforcement of such a thing in the first place.

13 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, iirc, Peterson clearly said to the effect that, he would also call the person a she or he as they wished. He's not going to go out of his way to be rude to someone simply because of that.  His issue was with the Law.  

Sometimes, it can be a simple thing, such as, nobody likes being told what to do.

Yes, he said that. But again, the law didn't force people to address trans people by preferred pronouns. It simply expanded the same exact legal discrimination protections that exist for blacks, women, gays, etc to include trans people too. That's it.

14 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

Absolutely, we'll never learn other people's perspectives on topics if we just shut other people's opinions out.  I disagree with a lot of people on here, but I will always do it in a respectful manner, unlike quite a few people who can only respond by attacking. 

I wanted to thank you for being respectful also - I hope I made my beliefs clear on why I like Jordan Peterson.  I think he's fabulous and I can only wish I was as intelligent and articulate as he is.  :) 

Thanks for the kind response as well. ^_^

I can be rather direct and abrasive at times, but I hardly ever mean anything personal against someone I disagree with. If you like JP, then you do you. Not all of the things he says are bad. I just think the things he says that I agree with are relatively unremarkable and standard inspirational quotes, mixed in with an implied right-wing ideology that I disagree with.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
10 hours ago, eight bits said:

OK. This topic is a frackin' tar baby. I want to ask a question, but I know even to ask it will make me an "advocate." But seriously, I don't understand this argument, which might be applied to anybody who lives under a federal government (like that of Canada, Switzerland, the United States, ...), but is on-topic here because one instance of it involves Jordan Peterson.

You asked multiple questions here, all of which seem to operate under the same basic underlying libertarian assumption that [all things government] = BAD. 

So in order to understand where I'm coming from here, first I'd like for you to take your libertarian cap off for a moment and try to understand an alternative perspective. Okay?

10 hours ago, eight bits said:

The premise of your argument implies that Jordan Peterson knew first-hand about the operation of a local version of a law whose coercive features he opposes.

No, I don't know whether or not JP knew about the law already existing in his province prior to his little anti-PC stunt that got him famous. He may have just been incompetent, and genuinely didn't know or understand what the law actually says. Or he could've just utilized the nationwide amendment as a means to ride the wave of right-wing anti-SJW crowd at the time to make himself famous. Hell if I know. All i know is that his "interpretation" of the law was completely false, and he faced absolutely no threat of censorship in the first place.

Also, again, the law was no "coercive" in the slightest. Your question here presupposes it is. It literally only extended the exact same anti-discrimination laws that existed for black people and other racial minorities, religious minorities, gays and lesbians, etc. Things like job place discrimination and refusing to hire people based on these attributes, denying customers service based on those attributes, refusing housing to these kinds of minorities based on being minorities, etc.

Given that you're a libertarian, I don't know whether or not you even support these kinds of anti-discrimination laws for these other minorities in the first place. But try to understand my perspective here for a second. The law did not in any way say that you would be forced to address a trans person by their preferred pronoun. It simply said you couldn't deny them service or not hire them etc just because they're trans. That's it. Whether you think that's some government overreach or whatever is all on you, but can we at least agree that the law did not in any way specifically say anything of this sort?

10 hours ago, eight bits said:

then finds out that "the exact same law" (seriously, you think that the national government of Canada has no greater coercive power than one of its provinces?) is about to spread nationwide, in his nation.

Okay, imma have to try and circumnavigate the libertarian assumptions here again, but this'll be difficult...

If the law was coercing people to address trans people by preferred pronouns, then there would've already been widespread reports of people being coerced and even punished by law years prior to Peterson's public outcry. If there is no objective evidence of legal coercion to call trans people by preferred pronouns prior to the nationwide amendment, then there is no cause for concern that legal coercion would take place due to this law on the national level.

You can't multiply by 0 and get a bigger number, aka: You can't increase the size and scope of something that just isn't happening to begin with.

11 hours ago, eight bits said:

In your view, it is remarkable that Peterson protested this development, because _________?

I wouldn't say remarkable. More just plain stupid and paranoid. But anyway...

Because his protest against it entirely misrepresented the law being passed, and was his outrage / fear / concern over it was completely unwarranted. Moreover, it caused a lot of his followers to harass trans people by rallying his base of support against a falsely perceived threat of censorship.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Thanks for the kind response as well. ^_^

I can be rather direct and abrasive at times, but I hardly ever mean anything personal against someone I disagree with. If you like JP, then you do you. Not all of the things he says are bad. I just think the things he says that I agree with are relatively unremarkable and standard inspirational quotes, mixed in with an implied right-wing ideology that I disagree with.

Thank you for the lovely reply @Aquila King :)

I can see where you're coming from a lot easier now and thank you for explaining about the Law part as I didn't google it as I figured you guys would know more about it and correct me if I was wrong. 

The MSM has portrayed him as very right wing.  Which of course will automatically anger some of the left unfortunately.  Do you think the MSM is partly to blame for the negative response towards JP?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
41 minutes ago, Gwynbleidd said:

Do you think the MSM is partly to blame for the negative response towards JP?

I don't really watch much MSM (not at all really) so I don't know how much coverage he actually gets from them.

Honestly though, I think it's just his own words that I've personally seen and heard come out of his mouth that prove to me that he's rather right-wing. All you have to do is listen to him to see that he's rather conservative.

Of course not on every issue. A lot of the self-help stuff he does is relatively apolitical and uncontroversial. Pretty much standard inspirational stuff that emphasizes hard work and personal responsibility.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks

Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual spewing paranoid and conspiratorial political theories, pseudo-scientific nonsense, bigotry and misogyny. No surprise that his audiences tend to be incel-heavy. His statements may sound intelligent, but on closer examination they are little more than purposely ambiguous gibberish. In other words, he's full of ****.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I don't really watch much MSM (not at all really) so I don't know how much coverage he actually gets from them.

Ive never once seen him discussed on MSM that i can recall. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 10/19/2019 at 8:12 AM, Relam said:

What do you all think about Jordan B. Peterson?

My opinion is that he is the type of "inteligent religious" man and i really respect that.

Haven't heard much of him, but I watched a talk once because I enjoy the other person in it. He is certainly cheaper than sleeping pills, and would probably make a good philosopher as they seem to be generally a waste of academic resources. From memory it went something like this...

Other Person "Mr. Peterson, you seem to have such a way of bloviation with your irrelevancies and partial relevancies cultivated with 100% pure grade bs and couched in quasi intellectual rhetoric to arrive at some seemingly controversial yet disingenuous conclusions in an effort to promote yourself, that it might be fair to wonder if you can actually distinguish your **** form your elbow"?

JP "Well of course, that all depends what you mean by the terms "****" and "elbow"? What did Nietschke have to say on that? There are many references to it historically all through our artwork and if you have read every literary work ever written for every corresponding period to understand the cultural significance and nuance, as I have, it becomes quite obvious. Every ideologue and every doctrine both epistemic and non epistemic confer with Jungian archetypes and it is very clear, even though it might not be to you...everyone believes in god."

Other Person "WTF are you on about, are you off yer chops.?"

JP "Well of course, that all depends what you mean by the terms "off" and "yer chops". The answer to that is also that everyone believes in god. Though I don't really have time to explain because I can Gish gallop this mofo endlessly if necessary, so you'll simply have to accept it for our discussion to move on."

Thankfully he didn't take up science. Lol.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 10/19/2019 at 8:12 AM, Relam said:

My opinion is that he is the type of "inteligent religious" man and i really respect that.

In what way do you think he is religious? Have you ever heard him try to define the term lol? It would be fair to say he uses rather non standard definitions that are vague and fluid enough to be useless, in his effort to make them fit his narrative. 

There is a bit of merit to the idea that if you can't coherently and succinctly outline the basics of a theory/idea in a neat little paragraph, you're probably either bs-ing or you don't understand it yourself. It might be a bit of both with Peterson. Have you heard his definitions of this god? ....."the future to which we make sacrifices and something akin to the transcendental repository of reputation”..... “how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence and action of consciousness across time”.....lol. His definitions are basically his own made up bs, he withers terms away in abstractions endlessly and they are so broad they have no meaning. He could easily change his term "repository" for "suppository" and find it more useful lol.

It's very unlikely that he sees religions such as Christianity for anything other than the fantasy based mythology it is (in fact he has said as much, though not verbatim), although he argues it is useful. This he does rather poorly if not deceptively, redefining terms to prop up anything he wants in amongst lots of logical fallacies (the no true scotsman and false dichotomy seem specialties). Though he seems to have his target audience picked out well.

He is a used car salesman with big words. A pseudo intellectual who seems to bemoan the enlightenment. There can be a big difference between being educated and being intelligent, and he seems to exemplify this difference. Surely his magnum opus will be about the dilemma of whether to put the left or right shoe on first (something he must surely struggle with tremendously) and it's implications re Jung and the transcendental repository (of bull**** lol). It probably begins with..."well that all depends on how you define the terms left and right......".

Edited by Horta
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.