rms
Active Member
you just demonstrated the problems within said profession
quite honestly, astrology seems to have more of a logical basis than just pure sedation via psychiatric drugging
The "What Are You Doing This Moment" Thread
- Thread starter A8
- Start date
you just demonstrated the problems within said profession
quite honestly, astrology seems to have more of a logical basis than just pure sedation via psychiatric drugging
Dak
mentat
As someone who isn't very pro-medication, there are at least a couple of mental issues which need some sedation, if you will. One is schizophrenia, and the other is bipolar disorder(s). I do think that for anxiety and mood disorders, which constitute the majority of mental health problems, being treated with meds is generally a bandaid at best.
rms
Active Member
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
CiG
Room with a View
Dak
mentat
Psychologists don't have any problem admitting the science limiting their effectiveness. A dfiference between psychology and psychiatry.
Well, the point of disagreement is that it isn't recovery. It's that the realities of life require some bandaids. But treating meds as anything other than that is mostly a disservice.
CiG
Room with a View
I've been warming to psychology lately, due to professor Jordan Peterson's lectures online. But I have a feeling he is anomalous to the field in some way.
rms
Active Member
CiG
Room with a View
Fair enough, have you watched his lectures? I really don't care about the debates he did with Sam Harris.
Boring to me, a card-carrying atheist that also thinks Eastern mysticism has its merits vs. a clinically depressed psychologist obsessed with Jungian interpretations of religion? Pass. Especially pass because I heard that it was long and went nowhere.
Honestly, I don't think he's that religious. I would put money on him not actually being a believer, I think he's just attached to the symbolism in religion. He recently did a big thing on the story of Buddhism for example. He's into the archetypes within religion.
Boring to me, a card-carrying atheist that also thinks Eastern mysticism has its merits vs. a clinically depressed psychologist obsessed with Jungian interpretations of religion? Pass. Especially pass because I heard that it was long and went nowhere.
Honestly, I don't think he's that religious. I would put money on him not actually being a believer, I think he's just attached to the symbolism in religion. He recently did a big thing on the story of Buddhism for example. He's into the archetypes within religion.
rms
Active Member
Peterson is definitely very religious and spiritually motivated. Haven't looked into his lectures but watched him on Rogan and Harris x2, all I need to know I think. He was also a douche on that campus activism thing, just to be a douche
CiG
Room with a View
I disagree, if you think that I'm just going to go ahead and say you haven't watched enough.
What are you talking about with that end bit though?
Actually, I feel sure in how misinformed you are because I just remembered when Steven Crowder interviewed him and I just remember how uncomfortable Crowder looked as Peterson was describing his own relationship with Christianity.
Peterson does not take any of the bible in the literal sense and Crowder looked like he was about to cry/get into a debate.
What are you talking about with that end bit though?
Actually, I feel sure in how misinformed you are because I just remembered when Steven Crowder interviewed him and I just remember how uncomfortable Crowder looked as Peterson was describing his own relationship with Christianity.
Peterson does not take any of the bible in the literal sense and Crowder looked like he was about to cry/get into a debate.
rms
Active Member
didn't say he was a pure christian, i said he's very religious. that's why he's kind of annoying, how he rationalizes God within his life and profession is out there and burdensome. but it's also how he grows his base, the internet/anti-left debaters love the idea of a Christian God making a reappearance in society
this video, off memory, is a good example of how he's just being a douche to be a douche. The part I remember is "if I want to be called "X", why don't you call me "X" ?" He had no answer to that real and correct objection
Off memory again, but I imagine this 40 minute clip encapsulates my problems with him
this video, off memory, is a good example of how he's just being a douche to be a douche. The part I remember is "if I want to be called "X", why don't you call me "X" ?" He had no answer to that real and correct objection
Off memory again, but I imagine this 40 minute clip encapsulates my problems with him
CiG
Room with a View
I can't be arsed to re-watch all of this footage. 
But I have no problem with his take on religion. [shrug]
If I recall, you were one of the people here making out like Hacksaw Ridge was some overwhelming piece of Christian propaganda though right? You might just be a little sensitive to religion or something.
He's had many valid responses to that question.
For example, he doesn't want to validate what he sees as the product of radical left-wing ideologues (radical feminists, post-modernists, neo-Marxists and so on), he also values language in a specific way that these demands don't fit within, but his overall point wasn't that he's against reciprocating the pronoun desires of a polite person or a person he respects but rather that he's opposed to Bill C-16 which makes not using people's preferred pronouns (which includes all the made up ones such as ze, zir etc) a form of hate speech.
Absolutely zero problem with how he's been interacting and dealing with these activists and this subject. Claiming he's just being a douche for douche's sake is a ridiculously weak argument and you should go and think about this a little more, no offense.
But I have no problem with his take on religion. [shrug]
If I recall, you were one of the people here making out like Hacksaw Ridge was some overwhelming piece of Christian propaganda though right? You might just be a little sensitive to religion or something.
He's had many valid responses to that question.
For example, he doesn't want to validate what he sees as the product of radical left-wing ideologues (radical feminists, post-modernists, neo-Marxists and so on), he also values language in a specific way that these demands don't fit within, but his overall point wasn't that he's against reciprocating the pronoun desires of a polite person or a person he respects but rather that he's opposed to Bill C-16 which makes not using people's preferred pronouns (which includes all the made up ones such as ze, zir etc) a form of hate speech.
Absolutely zero problem with how he's been interacting and dealing with these activists and this subject. Claiming he's just being a douche for douche's sake is a ridiculously weak argument and you should go and think about this a little more, no offense.
Onder
Active Member
- Apr 10, 2006
- 11,389
- 2,029
- 113
Nothing.
Listening to Darkthrone drinking some czech eurobeer.
Listening to Darkthrone drinking some czech eurobeer.
rms
Active Member
literally the most pro-christian movie i've seen in the past decade if not more. the first half hour was so overbearing it was ridiculous.
yes and that bill was ridiculous. but forcing someone legally to say things is very different than me asking you to call me Xena. and his idea against it was douchey and ridiculous, Peterson as a person isn't going to stop this leftist gender word movement but he may effectively help stop legal and political action as a recourse. The fact that he cannot grasp these two separate aspects makes me wonder why anyone should listen to him.
nah, it's what he did. acting like a child when conversing with 18-22 year olds. great look for an old educated man.
this is literally his point, "if it's not my way it's the highway" is ridiculous and immature, which was demonstrated in that video
CiG
Room with a View
rms
Active Member
just cited an hour of evidence while you chalk up being too lazy and im irrational? the hell?
Dak
mentat
CiG
Room with a View
Also I can already tell you have too much of a negative perception of him for this to be productive, as I can go into great detail about his position on many things, I've watched hours and hours of his lectures, but doing that and receiving responses like "he's an immature old man why should anyone listen to him" and so on will just be a massive waste of time and effort and I don't honestly respect your views enough to risk it.
Especially as I don't think I've ever seen you concede a point and shift your own position on something since I've been here.
Especially as I don't think I've ever seen you concede a point and shift your own position on something since I've been here.
