Jordan Peterson rekt the psycho on Channel 4, Kathy Newman

Jordan Peterson rekt the psycho on Channel 4, Kathy Newman.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
twitter.com/Katja_Thieme/status/957011833403056128
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

So you're saying he literally raped her and needs to be locked up?

>So you're saying he literally raped her and needs to be locked up?
I'm saying that he intellectually destroyed her.

So you're saying he's a murderer and needs to be locked up then?

I've watched the interview. She doesn't seem very good with logic. Was this her first political debate?

>intellectually destroyed her
Do you have trouble understanding the word "intellectually"? If so, I can provide resources for you.

So you're saying you don't know what that word means and you need resources for it?

>I've watched the interview. She doesn't seem very good with logic. Was this her first political debate?

I'd say she had never met anyone that didn't bow to her dogma. She had no tools.

Don't tease the youngsters so.
Just because you know what words actually mean.

He understands perfectly, but he's not speaking the same language as you. You don't seem to speak Troll is the issue.

>You don't seem to speak Troll is the issue.
Seems you are correct. However, must be a dumb Troll who doesn't even speak Troll very well.

I didn't want it to come to this so I gave you every chance I could.

You are an idiot. No going around it.

If you truly watched the video you should have noticed the 'so you're saying' thing in my first post. The fact that you didn't says that either you:
a) didn't watch the video just heard from someone about it
or even worse:
b) you're one dumb faggot

He's making a joke about jow the interviewer jist kept saying "so you're saying...." to try trip him up and male him out to be a villan. How do ypu not clue onto this in your own thread talking about the interviewe, you fucking brainlet

>a) didn't watch the video just heard from someone about it

Sure I watched it. I'm quite familiar with Peterson and his world view. He's brilliant. Unlike Kathy Newman.

>b) you're one dumb faggot

Please provide a defeater for the conclusion that Jordan Peterson rekt Kathy Newman.

Please for the love of god just say you are trolling and leave the thread at this point. That's your only option at this point.

So you're saying you dont get the joke and/or never even saw the interview?

>He's making a joke about jow the interviewer jist kept saying "so you're saying...."

I get the joke. Only a bad troll would make the joke. The troll becomes Kathy Newman.

>Please for the love of god just say you are trolling and leave the thread at this point. That's your only option at this point.

Oh yes. I am trolling you beta faggots.

OK. Good. You can leave now. We'll pretend you are just trolling and not actually the dumbest moron on Sup Forums. Job well done OP, job well done!

>Intilectually destroyed her

Op is a fedora wearing faggot confirmed

>Op is a fedora wearing faggot confirmed

I'm with Jordan Peterson. No need for a Fedora.

So you're saying fedora fags love Jordan peterson and love cathy newman?

So you're saying he objects to things he doesn't understand?

>We'll pretend you are just trolling and not actually the dumbest moron on Sup Forums. Job well done OP, job well done!

Good. While I'm busting a nut in my woman's mouth tonight, I'll think of you looking at chicks with dicks.

Now you ruined that chance too. The butthurt is strong in that one.

...

I saw the video and didn't get it. I watched the video when it first came out and after a week I remember the substance of the interview not the resulting memes.

>gets owned online
>takes it out on his regretful sexual partner

You're so macho

Is that you Cathy?

...

So what you're saying is I am a femanon and have to post tits and timestamp?

>You're so macho
I'm sorry you are so upset about it, Cathy.

>I saw the video and didn't get it.
Which part don't you get?

I don't think there was anything that guy can get in fact. He's one of the dumbest fags I've seen around here. And the competition in that discipline on Sup Forums is strong.

>>Which part don't you get?
Cathy Newman constantly saying 'So you're saying"
Looking back at the video I see it's kind of a thing to pick on her for saying "So you're saying". Thing is I don't watch a lot of analysis of stuff I've already seen. I have the ability to come to my own conclusions without the help of pundits.

>I don't think there was anything that guy can get in fact. He's one of the dumbest fags I've seen around here. And the competition in that discipline on Sup Forums is strong.

Could be. But maybe he can learn to express himself.

I don't think I'm who you think I am.
This is me.

>it's kind of a thing to pick on her for saying "So you're saying".

Because she is purposefully projecting falsehoods onto Peterson for a particular reason instead of letting him speak for himself.

> have the ability to come to my own conclusions

Why didn't you pick up on the above? It was obvious.

>has ability to come to conclusions without pundits
>misses one of the simplest/most glaring debate trick that happened no less then twenty times in a 27 min interview
>terrible at own analysis

Maybe you should listen to others. You know. So you can learn something.

Because I care about the substance of the arguments not the semantics`

So what you are saying is you are terrible at analysis and refuse to listen to other's who are better at it then you because you want your terrible analysis to be yours and yours alone. Good idea. Keep it dumb and obvious my friend.

>Because I care about the substance of the arguments not the semantics`
Seems you missed it.

>claims doesn't want to be caught up in semantics
>doesn't seem to understand what "semantics"mean

this ignorance is sublime.

Is that you, Cathy?

...

no whatbI'm really saying is suck on a diaper faggot

ITT: fuxking geeks

...

Just refusing to play along huh

>ITT: fuxking geeks
Yep.... and we are putting faggots like you in their place -- a cesspool of dumbassery and lack of reason.

We have yet to have a single post about the substance of the interview.

Nice quads, My use of the word semantics may not have been completely accurate, however insomuch as this entire conversation has been about the interviewer's use of 3 words over and over again it is still tangentially correct.

He rekted an SJW bitch, why is that impressive? I could box my 5 year old nephew and win. Jordon is the most overrated piece of shit that walks earth. Heard him on Sam Harris’ show and pretty much confirmed he’s retarded.

You can insomuch suck my dick. Take that as semantics but it will end up with substance. White one.

>We have yet to have a single post about the substance of the interview.

Interesting. Here's one, just for fun: Cathy could not understand why "equality of outcome" could be a problem in a free society.

Here you go you lazy piece of shit. Do your own homework and join in the class discussion

m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Quads says peterson is God and will help with the death of the left.

>He rekted an SJW bitch, why is that impressive?

Good point. That is easy to do. Cool thing is that he did for all to see.

>Sam Harris’ show
A counterpoint for another time is that Harris is a piece of shit.

Harrison lost a debate against a Christian who claims killing children is good for the children because the children are now on in heaven. That's embarrassing.

> inb4 Yeah fucking two years ago
Yes, was glorious, needed a better interviewer.

He's gonna be on CBC soon and the weird Canadian academic left is predictably wigging out.

twitter.com/Katja_Thieme/status/957011833403056128

Sam Harris is a little bitch tho

Bhahahaha. Someone ask he/r if traps are gay.

>Harrison lost a debate against a Christian
Oh yes. Harris was mangled even worse than our poor Cathy.

>who claims killing children is good for the children because the children are now on in heaven

Seems you didn't understand Craig's argument. Poor you. If there is a God, when anyone dies it is at the provision of God. 79 year old man from old age or a 7 year old from cancer. There is no difference.

Smashing comeback! I'll just assume that means you acknowledge my point.

True, she has several such issues. Seems she has never had to justify her dogma with logic deeper that what can be expressed on a bumper sticker.

Saw it las weekend when it was new, just watched it again, thanks.

>Seems she has never had to justify her dogma with logic deeper that what can be expressed on a bumper sticker.
Winner!

Nah. He’s the truth.

A a Phil PhD, neither of those guys is particularly good at ethics or religious shit.

Still love 'em both though.

You must be so smart. What's your i.q. user? How have you translated that superior intellect into real world success? Are you a CEO? Have you published something to fall under the microscope of peer review? Do you even acknowledge you have "peers" or is everyone else just a pleb? I am so excited to be conversing with such intellect I am literally shaking. And to think you are here. Of all places.

Wrong, it isn’t possible for Sam to be a piece of shit.

>Nah. He’s the truth.
He's that same guy who thinks you can kill someone for what they believe, not just what they do. Right. And Fuck you.

Genuinely curious where/when he said that.

>A a Phil PhD, neither of those guys is particularly good at ethics or religious shit.

Really? Both guys are smart for sure. You do realize that Craig has a PHD in theology AND philosophy right?

>tried to be funny
>wasn't funny
>calls the guy a dumb faggot

Pick a new line of work

How could he lose? Maybe he didn’t debate well or articulate his ideas. God and Jesus don’t exist. Unless the Christian proved th existence of god, not sure how’d he lose.

I wasn't talking about Craig; I was talking about Peterson and Harris. Craig's clever (read some of his shit), but he's still wrong about basically everything he says. Though he makes for good discussion fodder.

Would you like me to post the quote of him claiming when the Israelis killed the malikites (I know I misspelled) that the children were not wronged by being murdered? Heard him say exactly that during the debate. "Who was wronged by this extermination? Certainly not the children for they are now in heaven."

"Anything God commands is immediately good and moral."

God : "kill, rape, steal, lie"

Good christian : "i will do it with a smile on my face. It's for the lord!"

>Wrong, it isn’t possible for Sam to be a piece of shit.
Piece of shit would believe: It's ok to kill people for what they believe. But if their is no God, then you would be correct.

I don't even think Peterson actually believes in a literal God. It's really quite hard to pin down what he thinks religiously speaking, since he thinks the "truth" in Christianity lies entirely in metaphors.

>Genuinely curious where/when he said that.

“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”

Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.

Which is a cop out bitch answers and he knows better. If he admitted he was religious, he would need to provide some evidence for his beliefs.

>Certainly not the children for they are now in heaven.

The man needs some Euthyphro in his life.

He avoided the main topic, which was "can objective morality exist without a god." Craig did a better job at answer the question and was amazingly persuasive and articulate. Just so you know I am the user who sited his "dead children are happy in heaven" stance. Craig us Christian. Christianity is a lie but he won.

I'm glad this thread is here. I'm watching it right now. I dont know if its just because shes talking to him and its by comparison, but she seems fucking obtuse and pugnacious.

>Unless the Christian proved th existence of god, not sure how’d he lose.

Are you serious? You can't "prove" God one way or another. It's on you to decide if the evidence is good enough. Look at the evidence. Go from there.

That is a retarded thing to write, it it’s accurate. Maybe he used it to sell books. It doesn’t negate his other arguments.

>I wasn't talking about Craig;
Sorry.

>but he's still wrong about basically everything he says.

Wow. After all those debates with high level atheists who haven't been able to defeat him, you think you can. Amazing.

Who the fuck even are they?

Yeah, but that still doesn’t prove the existence of a god, nor does it disprove the argument that teaching blind faith isn’t dangerous, it is.

Just looked it up. He's talking about unassailable intrinsically motivating beliefs that generate violence. He's wrong, but only because there are no such things.

I have a different understanding than Craig. But, he is not wrong.

Besides. How do you even get the notion that it is wrong for people to be killed? If you are an atheist, you are just space snot anyway.

>Peterson actually believes in a literal God
He seems like a Christian to me. He's got the right idea.

If you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. I could say that teaching anti scientific perspectives, with 0% evidence, hurts society.

>but she seems fucking obtuse and pugnacious.
Winner!

>It doesn’t negate his other arguments.
He is an immoral fucktard. Why would you listen to someone like that?

To be fair though Craig does play "hide the ball though". One minute he is like "I'm not arguing for the Christian god. I am arguing that any objective mortality is only possible with the existence of a theist." Next minute "God so loved man he created a man just to be tourtured for the sins he put on men for wanting to be more knowledgeable instead of ignorant bliss... that he knew would happen... but still need to happened."
Ben Shapiro does the same things.

I hope you people realise that kathy Newman was doing her job. Please don't antagonize this women. If you want to attack someone attack the people she works or who made her argue that view on TV.

>Wow. After all those debates with high level atheists who haven't been able to defeat him, you think you can. Amazing.

Lots of atheists have beaten him. It's just that "high level atheists" like Sam Harris aren't philosophers or moral theorists. They're hobbyists.

He’s retarded. How sad. When poo in loo Indians worship toilets built for them instead of shitting in them, we point and laugh. When Jordan says stupid shit about god, his retarded cult followers clap and cheer like retards.

But. That. Wasn't. The. Question.

It is not wrong to kill people and you believe this as well.