T
ThatDjangoWalk
Zephir
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2020
- Posts
- 1,776
- Reputation
- 3,259
Jordan Peterson, idol and face of the right wing conservative christians in the west dissapoints many of his fans and followers by chickening away and cancelling a conversation with traditionalist muslim speaker Muhammad Hijab for the 3rd consecutive time. I ask "Is this your hero?"
My theory confirms, people like Peterson, or Ben Saphiro who in his case rejected cowardly debate proposals in the past and sent his media army to attack Muhammad Hijab can't debate with a traditionalist religious person, mainly because their public is right wing conservative who considers itself religious, but they are not that truly religious, they just denonimate themselves part of a religion like if it was a football team and they somehow think that judeochristianity is compatible with 21st century western morality in some key and big matters. Therefore, for someone like Peterson or Saphiro debating with someone who has true knowledge of scripture and religious history would mean that: 1-They either have to abandon their "pro 21st century morality public" who at the same time considers itself conservative and pro religious without having true knowledge of scripture, and who doesn't either know or support many Biblical rulings like death sentence for many acts like adultery, homosexuality, etc (The biggest chunk of their public, possibly around 75% to 90%).
Or 2-They adhere to the religious traditionalist view which is strictly scriptural and abandon the pro '21st century morality' narrative that their discourse contains, which would mean that they would lose a lot of popularity and they will be attacked by the mainstream media because, of, for example, fomenting directly things like the death sentence towards homosexuals, or the death sentence to a raped woman which is a biblical ruling, etc
There is a 3rd option: Mantaining their current discourse i.e Being pro 21st century morality but at the same time acting like they are pro judeochristian values. The result of taking this position would mean that they will, most definetly, not only be destroyed in a debate with a traditionalist religious person who is kinda a "rival", but also humilliated, since adhering to both "pro 21st century morality" and a traditionalist judeochristian view is highly inconsistent and impossible to sustain.
So what is the easy way? Chickening away from the debate, not giving a direct rival publicity and audience, not exposing themselves with that person, etc. Also, let us remind to everyone that many speakers like Saphiro and Peterson are usually financed by many Zionist lobbies (This is no secret by the way), and the idea that those speakers might conversate with a traditionalist muslim speakers might not appeal to those lobbies, since that would mean opening the door to their adherents to different causes and narratives which are against them and their interests, like, among many examples, the Palestinian cause.
My theory confirms, people like Peterson, or Ben Saphiro who in his case rejected cowardly debate proposals in the past and sent his media army to attack Muhammad Hijab can't debate with a traditionalist religious person, mainly because their public is right wing conservative who considers itself religious, but they are not that truly religious, they just denonimate themselves part of a religion like if it was a football team and they somehow think that judeochristianity is compatible with 21st century western morality in some key and big matters. Therefore, for someone like Peterson or Saphiro debating with someone who has true knowledge of scripture and religious history would mean that: 1-They either have to abandon their "pro 21st century morality public" who at the same time considers itself conservative and pro religious without having true knowledge of scripture, and who doesn't either know or support many Biblical rulings like death sentence for many acts like adultery, homosexuality, etc (The biggest chunk of their public, possibly around 75% to 90%).
Or 2-They adhere to the religious traditionalist view which is strictly scriptural and abandon the pro '21st century morality' narrative that their discourse contains, which would mean that they would lose a lot of popularity and they will be attacked by the mainstream media because, of, for example, fomenting directly things like the death sentence towards homosexuals, or the death sentence to a raped woman which is a biblical ruling, etc
There is a 3rd option: Mantaining their current discourse i.e Being pro 21st century morality but at the same time acting like they are pro judeochristian values. The result of taking this position would mean that they will, most definetly, not only be destroyed in a debate with a traditionalist religious person who is kinda a "rival", but also humilliated, since adhering to both "pro 21st century morality" and a traditionalist judeochristian view is highly inconsistent and impossible to sustain.
So what is the easy way? Chickening away from the debate, not giving a direct rival publicity and audience, not exposing themselves with that person, etc. Also, let us remind to everyone that many speakers like Saphiro and Peterson are usually financed by many Zionist lobbies (This is no secret by the way), and the idea that those speakers might conversate with a traditionalist muslim speakers might not appeal to those lobbies, since that would mean opening the door to their adherents to different causes and narratives which are against them and their interests, like, among many examples, the Palestinian cause.
