Inmendham attempts to tear apart Peterson's philosophy as expressed on the Joe Rogan podcast.
If you have several hours to spare, it's worth checking out.
Part 1 youtube.com
Part 2 youtube.com
Part 3 youtube.com
Part 4 youtube.com
Part 5 youtube.com
Part 6 youtube.com
Part 7 youtube.com
I've always respected Gary as he is the only serious atheist youtuber. I asked him to take the Humanity Party's $100,000 challenge (humanityparty.com
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtube.com
don-colacho.blogspot.ca
twitter.com
Literally who
WTF is that monster?!
>serious atheist
>serious
>atheist
oh that kind of a monster
>vulgar utilitarianism
is Nicolas implying fascism/communism?
No, he means literal utilitarianism. Pointing to values that arise from man alone.
Peterson debated the most famous atheist Sam Harris into a fucking wall, and u think this random YouTube loser can form good arguments
Is this the guy from the tavern in the stronghold series?
I've followed Gary for years. He's a bit abrasive at times but he's an excellent debater. Sam Harris is famous because he happens to be. A lot of "famous" atheists like TheAmazingAtheist never got famous because of the quality of their argument. Thunderfoot is another example.
This guy may make some very valid points but I can't deal with the video quality and the constant back and forth with the camera.
(((mosher)))
Is he a son of Israel?
>Is he a son of Israel?
i don't know, but he can be a son of a bitch.
>I've followed Gary for years
Fucking faggot.
It's just him monologuing?
Waste of time I'm not listening so some pseudointellectual speaking for 9 hours. Let's be honest Inmendham stop shilling here, if you can't condense or distill your arguments they probably aren't worth their gumption.
>he worships a dead jew
and what's that matter anyway? you guys need to drop the identity politics and the jew bashing.
christ, the identity politics is blatant now with these "identitarians".
>that face
yeah no I'm not spending time listening to a literal who who looks like that try to argue with a person who isn't even there.
Can anyone give a basic gestalt of his points?
>if you can't condense or distill your arguments they probably aren't worth their gumption
one criticism i've always had with his videos. over 1000 philosophy/economic videos and they're all way too long.
>Sam Harris is famous because he happens to be
This is true, Harris is pretty much meme. I have yet to see any justification for why people are impressed with him. He's an alright debater but he's not the greatest atheist on the planet.
Dude in the OP looks like a whack job though so nobody is going to take him seriously.
inmendham is the biggest sack of cuck there is.
Jesus.... how the hell does he get to debate JP?
my dude, you made a shitty thread on Sup Forums what did you expect?
At least summarize his points in the op next time to give anyone a reason to open that video.
inmendham has a strict anti-natalist philosophy. (eventually discontinue not just human life but all life.) he accuses JP of being a religious nut.
Kek
to be clear, what I got from this post was:
>this person I want you to spend hours watching is a self righteous retard who thinks human life is inherently bad AND he makes an incorrect argument about the person he is railing against
here he is screaming at power company technicians during a power outage. so rude, yet so hilarious.
what a degenerate
hey we've all been there. ever went to the tax office to renew your vehicle registration? it's enough to make you act like inmendham.
i'm really just trying to promote THumP. and Gary too, he deserves it.
You're not doing a good job, and apparently he doens't deserve it.
>You're not doing a good job
Most of my threads end up on page 6 within 2 minutes. I'm in the wrong venue.
bump for THumP.
bump for Inmendham lol
>t. /r/atheism
go
back
to
reddit
I watched about half of the first part and Gary is an absolute idiot that segments the video into meaninglessness and then makes arguments against a viewpoint that isn't even being presented. He takes it how he wants to take it rather that as it is meant. He is really just shit in every way, I can't believe people watch this garbage.
no atheists on Sup Forums? i don't think so...
This guy seems like some leftist lunatic.
Right, I'm an atheist. I'm not sure exactly what Peterson believes in, I don't think he believe in Christianity in the manner that most do. I watched a video where he answered the question in a very non-christian manner.
he sorta describes Sup Forums in this one.
youtu.be
Do the world a favor and kill yourself
he's like a right wing terrance mckenna.
>Do the world a favor and kill yourself
why should i?
>terrance mckenna.
I'm not familiar. Regardless, I think that Peterson makes a lot of sense.
>serious
>serious atheist
>serious
>atheist
>a-so serious
>so a aaaayyytheist
I'm not watching any of that trash, holy shit. Fuck that guy.
>If you have several hours to spare
Nah.
nice work, triple 0 7
stoner moron that never said anything of note
>never said anything of note
he said something or nothing would happen on dec 21, 2012. he was right, nothing happened.
Male dominance is natural.
What does he mean by "rejection of linear values"?
I think he's quite wrong about the actions he applauds.
He talks about shoddy ideals but sexual liberation is one of the biggest failures ever.
He praises the experiences of the body while discounting rationalism. This is no better that the petty consumerism that he condemns in the video.
He sounds like a cuck and he he doesn't seem very insightful. I agree with him on some of his points but even those were very common shallow thoughts. It makes sense that I would disagree, considering his views. It just didn't speak to me.
they just seem to have the same vibe, albeit expressed way differently. hearing JP talk about entheogens and the "logos" just reminded me.
YOU'RE WRONG PETERSON!
The only real similarity I see is that they are talking about intangible/abstract things, but that's pretty vague.
Where are you, politically? I'm trying to understand the type of person that would find the videos in your OP valuable.
Honestly I can't look at that guy for more than 5 seconds without throwing up. He is one of the most ugly white person I've ever seen, god bless his soul
...
> if you can't condense or distill your arguments they probably aren't worth their gumption.
Doesn't this mean Petersons arguments are shit?
...
hey this was a pretty good thread.
THumP Trump in 2020
This is now a Mike Gravel thread.
the last good Democrat, as well as Libertarian
thanks for the quote in your pic. I looked up his wikipedia page, and found this quote:
>The left claims that the guilty party in a conflict is not the one who covets another’s goods but the one who defends his own.
...and it just cut through me like a knife.
here's a good blog I found that seems to have translated most or all of his aphorisms:
don-colacho.blogspot.ca
Whats this dudes problem with inheritance? Is he that retarded?
that's one of many differences i have with inmendham. he is vehemently anti-rich. and while i hate life as much as anybody, i can't embrace the anti-natalist philosophy.
and what a peach. what's her name?
I'm not going to listen to someone who clearly hasn't bathed let alone cleaned their room in the last 10 years. Fuck off post modernist shill.
Agreed. People work for their children first society second
Idk I found her here. You could try reverse image search I guess..
>post modernist
whatever. labels and pigeon holes. i'm interested in making the game safe, whatever that makes me, so be it.
Peterson makes far more points in far less time.
OP's retard is also making a critique, which should be easier than original points. But he's still obviously intellectually inferior to Peterson and even Rogan.
'clean your room' is one of the catchphrases Peterson talks about, he argues you can't attack the problems of the world if you haven't cleaned up the problems in your own life.
I tried to give Inmendham an honest shot, but he's not really arguing against Peterson. He just watches 10 seconds of the video and then pauses and goes on a tangent about a word or phrase Peterson uses, with no regard for the context. I don't see the point, seems he decided from the start he wanted to disagree, and now he's trying to rationalize it. That's as close-minded as you can get.
>commie detected
so you think Section 8/HUD, food stamps, medicaid, clothing vouchers and student financial aid are communism? Shirley you can't be serious.