https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoJKO-eUIzk
Peterson isn’t an atheist. Pop psychologist is an opinion, albeit an ill-informed one. You can do a lot better than this Ed.
Clueless Ed Condon
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Little of value in the comments of PF either. It is mainly governments that are guilty of the sins that he cites.
…facts don’t CARE who you are.
And Social Justice isn’t an amorphous thing– if Mr. Condon had a point, he could support it with a citation, rather than by attacking Dr. Peterson for… um… being liked by someone under 40.
Of course, “social justice” is also not “the fundamental” of Christianity.
“Man was created to praise, reverence and serve God and by these means to save his soul”.
(St. Ignatius of Loyola)
You can argue that helping bodies is sometimes involved in saving souls, but you cannot alter the priority of salvation.
…oh good heavens a canon lawyer can’t figure out how to do citations and offer evidence?
This could be a pretty funny skit, you know?
“How dare you, you ignorant hillbilly! I am a great and well recognized religious authority! While you are a backwater CARPENTER with a social following!”
“Amen, amen I say to you-“
Peterson’s positions are changing, I think, but he’s a Jungian. That’s basically salted earth for growing faith. As for what the Pope said, I think you could edit it into a defensible statement, but it’s got too many flaws as is.
While Social Justice is an oxymoron, Social Injustice is redundant.
Foxfire, as I read your last comment I could heard King Herod’s Song from the musical “Jesus Christ Superstar” begin playing in my head…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaOfBQ5uw6M
Dr. Peterson is an academic psychologist who has something of a popular audience, which he didn’t have until he was 54 years old and had been a working professor for 16 years.
As ever, when someone puts a modifier in front of the word ‘justice’, that’s a signal that their concerns have nothing to do with justice.
By the way, Mr. Condon, Francis’ laundry list tells you that Francis’ doesn’t know squat about why some households, communities, and societies are impoverished and why some are not.
As far as Pope Francis goes, the man to whom Jesus said:
Beatus es Simon Bar Iona: quia caro, et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in cælis est. Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam. Et tibi dabo claves regni cælorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in cælis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in cælis.
Jesus also said:
Vade post me Satana, scandalum es mihi: quia non sapis ea, quæ Dei sunt, sed ea, quæ hominum.
Think about that.
I’m fine with someone pointing out that Francis doesn’t have a clue about the fundamentals of Christianity. Because it’s true.
Dr Peterson is correct. You can not solve poverty and economic inequality by being kind and loving and charitable. Nations with these problems are typically non-western, non-Christian and have management issues with how their governments operate. They are also typically corrupt. PF is saying if we give our neighbour a loaf of bread and go with less we will solve these problems.
I’m happy for him to downgrade his residency and lifestyle as a way to lead by example and prove his point. So, you first PF.
Epistula Santcti Pauli ad Timotheum, Caput II, Versus III et IV.
Labora sicut bonus miles Christi Iesu. Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis sæcularibus: ut ei placeat, cui se probavit.
NULLA NEGOTIA SAECULARA IN ECCLESIA CATHOLICA !!!
Secunda Epistula ad Timotheum.
You can not solve poverty and economic inequality by being kind and loving and charitable.
‘Inequality’ is not a problem or an issue. It is simply the human condition and you will find it in any agglomeration larger than an agricultural village. It is something to be addressed if it is generated by force, fraud, or chicane. NB, common provision allows for a more equal distribution of goods and services, but that is not a necessary object of common provision. A necessary object is establishing a consumption floor, with the understanding that there are trade-offs involved in doing that.
As for ‘poverty’, it is also endemic but in a more qualified way. Every society will have some bloc of people who are less affluent than some other bloc of people. Up until the last two or three generations, just about every society had a large bloc of people in it who spent much of their life insane, ill, in pain, hungry, or in danger from the elements. Common provision is a feature of addressing those issues, but the main form of address is applying the technology and know-how to produce goods and services. That bland observation is alien to Francis’ way of thinking.
It’s always the other guy’s fault.
That’s why they cannot solve anything.
**Inequality’ is not a problem or an issue.*
Inequality is a problem and an issue. An equal society means everyone in that society has access to the same resources and opportunities for them to function in a society. ie. access to basic healthcare, access to safe drinking water, food, education, has access to work to generate income to support themselves and their families and has access to shelter. You are confusing it with equity which recognises that everyone has different circumstances and allocates the exact same opportunities and resources to achieve the same outcome. Eg. Everyone, regardless of whether they need it or not and regardless of their “status” or wealth has access to private healthcare, bottled Evian, eats caviar and lobster, private school education and lives in mansion by the water.
Inequality is a problem and an issue. An equal society means everyone in that society has access to the same resources and opportunities for them to function in a society.
Inequality is never a problem, because it has no discrete solution. It may be an issue. Issues, unlike problems, go on and on. Whether inequality is an issue or not is a normative question.
has access to the same resources and opportunities for them to function in a society. ie. access to basic healthcare, access to safe drinking water, food, education, has access to work to generate income to support themselves and their families and has access to shelter.
You’re not describing equality. You’re attempting to describe a baseline standard of living. What the baseline is is always going to be a matter of opinion and a function of the overall productivity of the economy. And, of course, there are going to be social costs as well as social benefits the more you attempt to make use of public policy and the public treasury to guarantee each household a baseline. In this country, we learned that the hard way during the period running from 1958 to 1996 (though it was no surprise to most people, just to social workers).
The writer Fran Leibowitz once gave an interviewer a concise statement of what is understood as ‘equality’ by most people in this country: “We all face the same laws”. The problem we are facing is that much of the professional-managerial element in this country does not believe we should all face the same laws.
The mission that Jesus gave to his followers was to grow and nurture the church — not to make the world a better place. We’re not here to save the world, we’re here to save people from the world. Our church has been forgetting that lately.
Art you said:
Inequality’ is not a problem or an issue.
Then you said:
Inequality is never a problem, because it has no discrete solution. It may be an issue.
Go back and read your own argument and try to make up your mind.
And no – you are adding words to what I said. If one group has access to healthcare, water, food, education, shelter, work…and another does not have access to these for whatever reason, then that is inequality. I did not imply what the baseline standard of those were. Access to them is my point. Everybody in a society has a right to access those basic requirements for living. And yes it is both a problem and an issue for a government if their citizens do not have equal access to these basics. You have other problems and issues which arise when people do not have access to these in their own countries. They go looking for them in other countries. Which creates problems for other countries.
Go back and read your own argument and try to make up your mind.
My mind is made up. Problems have discrete solutions. Issues go on and on. My statement ‘inequality is not a problem’ is a contestable assertion about social reality. My statement ‘inequality is not an issue’ is my personal opinion on a normative question. When I say, ‘It may be an issue’, I’m saying some have a different opinion and can be a matter of continuing controversy on that basis. I’m not making any concessions as to whether it is not a problem, but if you fancy it has a discrete solution, lots of people would be pleased to hear what it might be.
And no – you are adding words to what I said.
I added absolutely nothing. I did say you had assigned your concerns to the wrong category.
I did not imply what the baseline standard of those were. Access to them is my point. Everybody in a society has a right to access those basic requirements for living.
I’m sure that’s a distinction in your mind. I cannot figure out why you think one phenomenon differs from the other. (I think it’s imprudent to speak in terms of rights and entitlements when you’re speaking of social policy, btw).
They go looking for them in other countries. Which creates problems for other countries.
What typically happens is that there is some sort of shock which generates pioneer migration, which then triggers chain migration. The shock prevents the want satisfaction to which people are accustomed, which is very context specific.
Glad you understood what you just wrote Art. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You change your comments and think others don’t notice. You just like to argue. You couldn’t care less about who you are talking down too. Not in the mood for you this morning. I have a house full of sick kids.
Inequality is never a problem, because it has no discrete solution.
Lots of things without “discreet solutions” are problems … some serious. Drug addiction comes to mind, as does the prevalence of obnoxious argumentative nitpickers on the internet.
You change your comments and think others don’t notice.
I changed nothing.
as does the prevalence of obnoxious argumentative nitpickers on the internet.
You don’t make a habit of looking in the mirror, I see.
You don’t make a habit of looking in the mirror, I see.
OK, that’s just a more verbose version of “I know you are, but what am I?” … Try harder
CAG you are not going to get anywhere. Save your energy. Some just like to argue for the sake of it.
Yeah, I know Ezabelle. But the inane argumentation just degrades the conversation so much sometimes that pointing it out becomes necessary.
For most of us, discussion is sought after for the purpose of arriving at some truth. For others, it’s just an opportunity to win.
But the inane argumentation just degrades the conversation
You’re not very self-aware.
For most of us, discussion is sought after for the purpose of arriving at some truth. For others, it’s just an opportunity to win.
Yep I couldn’t have said it better if I tried. Spot on. And he has a track record of targeting certain “commenters”. I won’t say what criteria qualifies a person for Art Deco’s targeted merry-go-round schooling, but I think you can take a guess and be correct. He’s not interested in what the other person has to say. I can’t be bothered.
Sirach 8:3-5
Lots of people attack Joseph Peterson who I think of as a closet Christian and Catholic…. He’s kind of a modern psychologist GKC drawing an inescapable Catholic conclusion with a very large younger audience (and an older one.)
So why is he so often attacked by those who propose to be Catholic?
I think it’s that younger audience. I think it’s Envy.