???

That's elitism nonsense

It's non-scientific, is it?

Peterson is the King of AIDSPIG.

Watch it, and then see that I was right and you were wrong.

If it's non-scientific, then a *concept* can be explained much faster

There's a reason why it's so long, though. There's a lot of groundwork to the concept that needs to be laid out, before he can get to the nitty-gritty.

Big doubt

It's based on the fact that language is fluid.

Watch it and find out, instead of pedantically arguing with us.

The gist of his argument can be reduced a lot, I'd bet half my net worth on that

If you've watched any of his videos (which I'm starting to doubt), then you'd know that's not how Mike works.

He makes tons of much shorter videos, what do you mean?

That 40 minute video is the exception for him

Actually, I take that back. Peterson isn't actually AIDSPIG. He's something else: he doesn't insist on dictionary... he creates words out of his imagination, spouts them and **assumes** everyone uses his newly created definition.

Agreed @whiic

Are we talking JBP?

Peterson does articulate his definition **IF YOU FORCE HIM TO**. But if not forced to, he will run with his non-sense newspeak to the end of the world, leaving the audience think that he won a completely different argument .

Also agreed

When Peterson for example argues for "Christianity", he argues **only** for being a good person with morals and drive to follow them. Nothing about Jesus or God (as used by everyone else than Peterson).

And nothing about the Bible either.

Although at least he is indeed open if pressed, I guess that makes him a lot better than some

Teabag *cough cough*

Yeah, but just understanding his definitions (when he has redefinitions for every other word he uses) takes at least 3 hours of time before you can actually debate him.

Jefferson made that bible teaching the morality of Christianity without the religious overtones.

And you **cannot** skip the definitions phase or the audience will not understand it. It doesn't suffice if his opposing debater understands the redefinitions.

The audience is mislead if you just accept redefinitions.

Some scholars in similar positions to JBP often have the problem that they're not pressured to shorten their argumentation

This is what causes their word salads

@Wizard_of_The_West Did it include genocides by one tribe against other tribes?

Because that doesn't involve God. It does involve **morality of the Bible**.

(Mostly Old Testament, though.)

Lol did you know everyone genocides

Jefferson, and to a large degree the rest of the Founders, were Deists. JBP, I gather, isn't.

Jefferson's bible was for the natives in an attempt to help with cultural understanding

Seems like gun discussion was more alive on the <#613769782461857813>

@Goodwood of Dank™ Yeah. Jefferson is an atheist.

He just calls his atheism "Christianity".

No, he was a deist. Thomas Paine was a legit atheist.

Sorry, I meant to type "Peterson", not Jefferson.

A deist is not a theist, nor is he an atheist.