erik The Incel Philosopher

Yes Cristiano Ronaldo, that incel of incels!

    bosstrabs how are all those ropey Chinese hookers working out for you Dave?

      hugopal he is all about taking responsibility yet when it comes to his own addiction he has nothing but justifications.

          zackster he doesn’t say in that it was someone else’s fault, he is giving reasons as to why he did something.

          Explaining why you did something isn’t not taking responsibility.

          And a combination of your wife having what was diagnosed as terminal cancer, along wtth you suffering from autoimmune diseases, sound like pretty valid reasons as for why you might be depressed and thus get prescribed antidepressants.

            He cries because cartoon skunks can no longer sexually force themselves on cats who accidentally painted stripes down their backs.

              How can anyone defend Peterson is beyond me. The man is clearly unhinged.

              zackster I don’t know what you’re talking about or how it has any relation to my comment.

                zackster He cries because cartoon skunks can no longer sexually force themselves on cats who accidentally painted stripes down their backs.

                He’s got a point to be fair

                  10 days later
                  20 days later

                  Homegrove Found Hugo.

                  Gee, you’re so wrong - the person in that even describes himself as “an ardent feminist”. The whole thing reads like a spoof.

                  I’ve no idea what the post has to do with Jordan Peterson either.

                    “She was a selfish demon who didn’t consider my feelings or needs at all.” 😂

                    great wind up.

                    Lol. I’m doing that with the wife. ‘What do you mean wet towel? What do you mean by left on the bed again? Let’s deconstruct what you actually mean mmmkay?’

                    Homegrove

                    The problem is for anyone attempting to make claims about the existence of gods is that they always come up against the reality: at some point you need to rationalise the fantastical happenings in the scriptures. That means you can never really tackle it honestly or forthrightly unless you are prepared to overlook some of the most fundamental beliefs it contains. That’s why Peterson has to resort to obscurantism.

                      Imagine what Hitchins would’ve done to Peterson in a debate about religion being a human essential. Sadly never to be.