Yea, that is factually incorrect. He didn't abuse any substance. He used medication prescribed to him by a medical doctor.Did you say addiction or attempt to deceive using the phrase “substance abuse” without any clarification?
Yea, that is factually incorrect. He didn't abuse any substance. He used medication prescribed to him by a medical doctor.Did you say addiction or attempt to deceive using the phrase “substance abuse” without any clarification?
Did you say addiction or attempt to deceive using the phrase “substance abuse” without any clarification?
The only thing Jordan destroyed was his own health.
Patently false. You can easily get addicted to medication without abusing it.Same thing. If you abuse it, you become addicted.
Find it interesting that a guy who preaches self discipline, became addicted.
You said it like he's a druggie to discredit his work. That was clearly your intention. Whereas he did the responsible thing and looked for help from a doctor with what must obviously be a very straining personal issue to deal with. The Dr failed him on that one. And once again he did the responsible thing by seeking help when he felt he got addicted to the medication.
So the reality is, the guy should be lauded for pretty much making every reasonable decision one can expect in those circumstances. Yet here you are trying to twist it into something negative. Like seriously man, you need to do some introspection.
Same thing. If you abuse it, you become addicted.
Find it interesting that a guy who preaches self discipline, became addicted.
So he was addicted to a drug.
How did his addiction affect what he was saying and how did this affect his judgement?
How can we judge what was said while he was on this drug was not said as a result of the effect the drug and his addiction to it was having on his mental state?
It raises much doubt.
Who's opinion would you rather listen to? A guy who is addicted to a drug, or a doctor who is not addicted?
His wife's cancer is a recent development. And people that I listen to, I actually listen to what they are saying.So he was addicted to a drug.
How did his addiction affect what he was saying and how did this affect his judgement?
How can we judge what was said while he was on this drug was not said as a result of the effect the drug and his addiction to it was having on his mental state?
It raises much doubt.
Who's opinion would you rather listen to? A guy who is addicted to a drug, or a doctor who is not addicted?
Yeah like this guy.
Imagine what Jordan Peterson would say about this guy's room and what effect it has on him.
View attachment 723198
Just wow.
Grow up and admit your cheap shot tactic has been called out. Even Jordan Peterson knows there are some situations which requires professional help. Your statement against his argument for recreational drugs and bad life choices is garbage and a severe ad hominem fallacy.
Other psychological signs of clonazepam abuse or addiction include:
- Feeling as though you must take the drug to get through the day.
- Moving slower than usual.
- Having difficulty concentrating and/or remembering facts or events.
- Inability to curtail compulsive use of the drug.
If someone was on cocaine, I probably would laugh at them and wonder how they got to such a point in their lives that their self esteem and confidence was so low that they needed a drug to boost them.His wife's cancer is a recent development. And people that I listen to, I actually listen to what they are saying.
So, for argument's sake, if someone high on cocaine speaks extremely insightful and reasonable, why the hell would you not listen?
O, because you base truth on the person it comes from. You cray cray.
Yeah like this guy.
Imagine what Jordan Peterson would say about this guy's room and what effect it has on him.
View attachment 723198
Do we take someone who would exhibit these symptoms as a valid view?
However does that mean just because its Jordan Peterson and he was addicted, we should accept what he said is valid, even though by all accounts it would be impaired?
Guaranteed he cleaned it up.
Ad hominem everywhere. The person is not a view. His message is.
No Anti depressants are a serious drug and in many cases helps people. It is however a unfortunate thing to have addictive medication adjust serotonin levels to keep people going. Seeking professional help to get off it after his doctor was unsuccessful is far beyond being responsible and far above any cheap shot comparison's you're making with druggies.
C-16 was passed in 2016 and JP has been campaigning against it since then. He's only been on the anti-depressants since about April this year when his wife was diagnosed with terminal cancer.Do we take someone who would exhibit these symptoms as a valid view?
Fair enough looks like he would become addicted to it anyway.
However does that mean just because its Jordan Peterson and he was addicted, we should accept what he said is valid, even though by all accounts it would be impaired?
Why did he let it get dirty?
Lol I love the gymnastics.
Why did he let it get dirty?
Lol I love the gymnastics.
You must constantly laugh while listening to music. Cause you know those artists, not exactly the sober type.If someone was on cocaine, I probably would laugh at them and wonder how they got to such a point in their lives that their self esteem and confidence was so low that they needed a drug to boost them.
Yes and the propaganda that JBP was promoting was debunked back then.C-16 was passed in 2016 and JP has been campaigning against it since then. He's only been on the anti-depressants since about April this year when his wife was diagnosed with terminal cancer.
If you're going to dig up random things on the internet to smear people, at least have the decency to look for the full story before posting it here.