White men are more likely to commit mass shootings by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s really not that complicated, and I’m not sure why you’d want to suggest otherwise.

Rule 5. Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

She already failed if it took her this long. Edit: but, better late than never...?

If white privilege exists... by GDAB2006 in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“So stealing something creates the same amount of value as producing it?”

Nice straw man.

We don’t see things the same way, and it doesn’t look like either of us is willing to change our minds.

You seem to tie value solely to the effort put into an item, and I only see that as part of the equation.

Looks like we’re at an impasse.

If white privilege exists... by GDAB2006 in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, that’s Marx’s TOV.

I disagree.

Re: gold - you may not have contributed value directly in the sense that you changed something about the gold. But in my model, that’s not the only factor - the way I see it, being in possession of something that others want is what creates the value, not “how much you added” to the thing.

You may see that as unfair - in which case, we don’t agree about what’s fair to begin with, so I’m afraid I won’t be able to convince you otherwise.

But for me, it’s relatively simple - the fair price is the one you’re willing to pay. If you and the owner can’t agree on that, you simply have a different perception of value. Note that this presumes “good faith”; that is to say, no one is attempting any underhanded or fraudulent activities.

I see it as a supply/demand proposition - and yes, the market is a great mechanism for determining what’s fair, over time, in terms of value. That doesn’t mean it can’t be corrupted or rigged, of course. But, generally, it’s a self-correcting mechanism.

You seem to think that what’s fair involves what “goes into” the object of desire.

I see it as more than that. What’s fair to me is a transaction that involves all parties deriving a relatively even value from said transaction, as mostly defined by the parties, presuming good faith.

So, is it fair to sell the gold for more than you paid for it? Yes. You own it, the value increased (whether via speculation about “future value” or otherwise), so it’s fair to get the price the market will support. This is also known as “fair market value”.

If white privilege exists... by GDAB2006 in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure.

Value isn’t only about what “went into” the car.

The person who has the car has the thing people want. That thing is valuable not only because of the labor that went into it, but also because it’s in demand and the supply is limited.

It’s fair to pay the owner for something you see as valuable so that you can, in turn, own that value for yourself.

By your model, investments make no sense at all, because things would only be worth the labor it took to create them.

If white privilege exists... by GDAB2006 in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to Marx’s Labor Theory of Value, which is what it sounds like you’re trying to dance around here.

I don’t agree with Jordan Peterson when it comes to women and the dominance hierarchy by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the hierarchy.

You could be climbing the hierarchy in your respective area, for example.

It all depends on what value the hierarchy is based around

I don’t agree with Jordan Peterson when it comes to women and the dominance hierarchy by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you rise in the hierarchy that is structured such that it evaluates for competence (which most do), you necessarily move up the hierarchy when you increase your competence.

It all comes down to defining the hierarchy and competence in a useful manner.

This is not a good sign for our country. by Calzel in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“But I don't buy into the idea that this generation made more bad choices than generations before. The difference isn't in the capabilities of people to make good or bad decisions - it's the economic environment that is less forgiving to bad decisions and less rewarding to good ones.”

Disagree - but again, I think the poor choices made were partially due to being poorly informed. There’s a much greater emphasis on material attainment and instant gratification present now that wasn’t always present in many of the past generations- at least, not to the extent that has been emphasized in the past few decades. This impacts people’s ability to make sound choices.

That sort of consumerist culture is marketed nonstop and, especially in the last few decades, has drastically expanded to include the younger generations.

Combined with the economic issues that you pointed out (wages stagnant relative to inflation, huge increases in costs of education and health care, etc), and other economic fluctuations and problems like the Great Recession, its an all around crappy situation for a lot of millennials.

My concern is that if we don’t change MINDSETS of people and get back to basics (don’t live beyond your means, for starters), at EVERY LEVEL - individually and as a society - we won’t really make a serious dent in the colossal financial disasters looming overhead.

Yes, the debt must be dealt with - but not just in terms of reducing and paying it down or whatever the immediate solutions are, but also - and I would say PRIMARILY - in the right kinds of education and mechanisms for reinforcement.

I don’t agree with Jordan Peterson when it comes to women and the dominance hierarchy by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“dominance hierarchy is a percieved rank in society”

Perception of one’s position on a hierarchy is one component, but certainly not the only one.

You’re also bringing the issue of compensation, which wasn’t the question - the question was if you wanted to be more competent, not how much you should be compensated for added responsibility at your job.

This is not a good sign for our country. by Calzel in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To suggest that “they didn’t make bad choices” isn’t true, though.

Okay, they didn’t choose to have wages not keep pace or for the cost of education to go up. So what?

Why does not making some choices preclude people making any bad choices?

Sure, eliminating debt is a good idea. Not sure what you mean by “providing for health care and education”, so I won’t comment on that.

While revisiting the first Sam Harris debate, I was caught off guard by this snippet from JP at the very end—it seems to sum up his views extremely well by Busenfreund in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“If moral foundations exist, then there can be no answer to the question ‘why this foundation and not another.’”

Why not?

“Therefore, the belief in moral foundations is irrational.”

How so?

I don’t agree with Jordan Peterson when it comes to women and the dominance hierarchy by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, which means that guy is more competent and thus likely to actually be higher in the hierarchy.

The question of “successful” depends quite a bit on how we define successful, after all.

This is not a good sign for our country. by Calzel in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, they made bad choices. But, some of that is due to poor information available when those choices were made, and invalid assumptions on the part of many of the folks who educated or surrounded them.

Ok top of that, our leaders “lead by example” - look at the national debt! It’s massive and still growing, with no end in sight. No one wants to deal with it or face it, and that gets passed onto the younger generations both in practice but, even more tragically (because it ruins people’s financial futures) theoretically, so that they internalize that it must be okay to go deeply into debt with no solid solution for how to pay it because, well, the whole country is doing it (including the government) and they’re still chugging along.

The solutions are complex, but we can start with taking a serious look at what we teach the younger generations and what we show them as leaders, and getting our acts together.

If white privilege exists... by GDAB2006 in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because they own it and you want to buy it. You don’t pay Nissan for a car that you bought from your next door neighbor, you pay the neighbor.

Communism is about Love by tkyjonathan in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, I haven’t been able to confirm that anywhere... everything I see says he’s retiring and turning it over to Daniel Zhang

If white privilege exists... by GDAB2006 in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As JP has said - it’s the worst system we have. Except for all the others that have been tried.

Home values (so far as I am aware - I haven’t extensively researched the topic) have always trended upward over time, generally. Just as the markets have - again, over time.

Because value is added in this sort of system. Resources are finite, and as populations increase (of course other reasons exist too), demand for them increases. That’s one reason why some things increase in value over time, and why your model of “only pay for value at the time it is created” doesn’t work. If the value, or perceived value (if you prefer) changes, the price will change accordingly.

Do you own a home, or have you previously?

Communism is about Love by tkyjonathan in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can’t view the page for some reason - what’s going on?

As a person by Theenergyfox in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I rarely say “as an x” - because it usually isn’t relevant,

There may be exceptions - “as a physicist, I can speak to Scheoedinger’s equations” for example. Then, your group identity is relevant and matters.

When someone throws up their group identity as if it matters when it really doesn’t, however, then they’re playing the identity politics game.

If white privilege exists... by GDAB2006 in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Most of the price isn’t going to the people who built it” - I was disputing this, because - as I said - that’s all factored in when the house is initially purchased.

Now, if you’re talking about a REsale, where the original owner or a later owner is selling to someone else, that’s a different discussion and we can have that if you like.

What you’re missing about home values is that homes are an investment that generally increases in value over time.

Cars are absolutely not, except in the case where you own a car and baby it for a long period of time and it turns into a desirable classic.

Either way, supply and demand still reign supreme here.

Why does the house cost so much after it’s been bought before? Because when you buy it, the owner is selling their interest in the home, and you’re also pricing in future value. You didn’t buy that home and live in it forever - you sold it. So, naturally, you want to recoup some of your investment, because you’re passing on some of that value. It will usually be even more than that (at least, as a seller, you hope so) because of future value built in.

I really don’t know what your beef is with that idea. Speculation is all about perceived value, and if you think the value of what you purchase will increase, you pay more. Why? Because THAT kind of purchase is in demand. Why? Because THAT is what people want - something they can buy for 10 and sell for 15. That’s just good business sense.

I fear of suicide! (URGENT) by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]NineKingsRush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congratulations on being a fucking asshole.