Yeah, I am.
I know you’re left wing but very receptive to cunts like Douglas Murray, but it doesn’t mean others on the left are.
Enjoy it, imbibe it, but don’t assume it means the rest of us subscribe to it.
I don’t care about bookshops that carry worse, my point was never that Peterson is the worst guy going who should be silenced.
You’re struggling with your left wing identity and the right wing shit you enjoy reading. That’s your vibe mate, work it out in your own time
It isnt though, the state ruled in their favour and rightly so.
Who is “they”?
I literally said nothing about Jordan Peterson’s philosphy in the response you quoted. As I said, other people have debunked Peterson much more effectively than I ever could. But since you asked, I will point you to this one.
I was addressing the points you made. The first was littered with logical fallacies. So let’s break this down:
I never “discouraged” literature, what ever that means. I never said I agreed with the store pulling the book from their shelves. You literally made up a position and attributed it me. That’s called a straw man argument. What I did say was that the store has every right to pull the book.You then compounded it by stating “it’s a can of worms” which is a slippery slope argument. Like I said, I’m not your debate coach. And I don’t appreciate being attacked for something I didn’t say. I’m trying to respond in a calm manner, maybe I’m failing. If so, I’m sorry.
You could have called it mild censorship before the advent of the internet. Not after.
Now you have to go to great lengths to censor, and even then you can usually circumnavigate it. China has built a whole infrastructure around it, and it’s not even close to being full proof.
Well the thing is I didn’t really attribute anything to you.
I tend to write ‘you’ in general terms, should have used ‘one’ instead of ‘you’.
Hollywood needs nuking, now.
The bookshop.
I was pointing out a perceived folly regarding a self help manual.
My view is our strategy for minimising extremism is wrong. Don’t expect you or anyone to automatically subscribe to it. I know full well that some of what I think is not on the pulse of the commentariat left. Nice that you are giving me time to think it over though 
And hey, I could be wrong, anyone could be.
Not up on the latest Michael Jackson news but how was her acquitted of the charges if this is now a forgone conclussion that he did it?
Depends which one you are referring to. The first case was settled out of court. The second he was acquitted of all charges.
The latest one came after Jackson’s death.
He got off because the city didn’t want to ignite a race war? 
Probably meant that he had a bunch of high priced attorneys that used every trick in the book to get him off.
Ahh just read about it. One of his accusers from the documentary actually testified in Jackson’s behalf in the trial in 05’, and their civil case was thrown out by the judge. I’m not sure what to think about all of that tbh.
I’ve never been so certain that someone is trying to cash in on a dead mans estate and gain exposure from this. The issue with making allegations against a dead man is that he no longer has a means to defend himself. I’m not saying that this means you cannot make allegations but these are allegations without evidence.
I believe that MJ did inappropriate things like developing extremely close relationships with children. But I do not believe he sexually abused any of them.
Vegan social media influencer gets caught eating fish, and turns out for years she has been promoting a diet that made her sick.
One of her weight loss diet involving only drinking water for 25 dayss
Another reason I hate to see people put in power position just because they are good looking. So many qualified individuals out there that people can follow but they won’t get traction because they don’t have boobs.
Have you watched it?
I always thought he did it. He was utterly evil, calculating, manipulative and this doc explains it all in great detail. Those who surrounded him and facilitated his behaviour were almost as bad.
Do you take the same stance on Saville? The inappropriate relationships with children where he had sleep overs and cuddled up with children in public. To believe he didn’t sexually abuse him would be to assume he’s A Sexual, because we know he didn’t have sexual relationships with women or men.
Also it’s not like there weren’t multiple cases when he was around where he paid off the families of children and a child described his penis accurately.
I recommend watching the documentary and having the same opinion after because if they’re acting, they’re doing a hell of a job
Also if you goto around 49 minutes on here, this was a man who as a boy started a phone relationship with MJ and in the early 90s the tabloids ran with a story of MJ masturbating during their phone calls. He’s not getting any financial incentive in confirming this and says he holds no grudge to MJ:
I thought Faust was written by Marlowe?
There are some outrageous double standards going between Savile and Jackson.
Maybe it’s because of the sheer scale Savile did it?
In my opinion, if you’ve abused a child once, it’s inexcusable and unforgivable and you should be labelled a paedophile, no question
@shamrockgooner @arsenescoatmaker
My issue is always going to be that he was found not guilty in court and died 4 years later. There is no opportunity for him to defend himself against any subsequent allegations. Especially not when some of those allegations have been made by individuals who previously defended his innocence.
He spent the last near 20 years of his life dealing with the allegations and nothing was ever conclusively proven. Whereas Jimmy S never had to face the consequences of his crimes.
I do not know if he did it. I would always like to believe he never did. But it’s not a debate I want to engage in because it’s not one where there will ever be anything other than total disagreement from both sides.