BruceVC

Yes I read that but the lobster story comes from the book and there have been specific people who questioned this but its because its from the book ...the 2 are connected I was just pointing out this is a type of criticism the book gets and it becomes a focus

No thats not the same example, you can have an opinion of a game after 3-4 hours because thats normally enough time to understand its mechanics which is repeated generally throughout the game. And you can definitely rage quit a game because of its mechanics, you dont need 100 hours of being exposed to the same fundamental problem to know you dont like it But when we want to have an objective opinion on a book then you should at least read it or not think the message of the book is about 1 point discussed in 1 chapter And that applies to most things in life and this often applies to people like Peterson, I have no issue with people who dont like him or dont agree with him. Thats your opinion and you entitled to it but you must have a valid reason for not liking and it has to a legitimate. So for example thinking Peterson " destroys Feminists\Liberals\wokeness " because of how SM comments often frame his views is not a legitimate reason. Because thats not what he does and how he makes his points in debates, at least not the ones I have seen. And I have watched about 18-20 of his debates

But dont buy in and repeat the whole culture wars garbage, he doesn't destroy leftists. This is one of the issue with these types of debates nowadays, its how people frame them or understand them. If you go to Youtube thats how many people on the left and right title videos You find videos titled " Peterson destroy woke ideology " or " racist Peterson caught out " and its cringe because you need to watch the video and decide for yourself who made the more convincing argument He doesnt destroy leftists but he disputes and debates people or he will give an opinion on something. No one gets destroyed in a debate because its about our own reflections on what is a better point raised And then the lobster story is one chapter\rule in the book and its only part of the chapter but people obsess about that as if its what the whole book is about, what about the other 11 rules? Surly if we want to have an honest objective view about any book then we should comment on its entirety ?

No my point was his books are popular because they resonate with people and it doesnt matter if you think they " good " or not. Thats not why people like them My point hasnt changed

I realize what the main difference in our views are, because you a journalist you have a different definition and higher standard around what is good writing and this applies even to self-help books For me a good\effective self-help book is one that resonates with me and its advice is relevant and makes sense to me. Thats what matters to me. You are understandably more pedantic around editing mistakes and things like smileys We have a different definition of what makes a "good " self-help book and thats fine, we can agree to disagree because we do have different experiences of 12 Rules for Life

I did misunderstand you, I assumed you were saying all his writings are bad but you are talking about his views on religion and not his successful self-help books I havent followed much of his religious views, people keep wanting him to confirm if he is religious or not and thats not a reason I respect him or care about what he says. Because he has lots of opinions

Im not sure what you talking about, he has written self-help books like "12 Rules For Life " that have inspired millions of people So its not about the subjective quality of his writings. Im saying his books have helped people grapple with internal problems around confidence and purpose And the point Im making is not if you like or dislike or agree with the radical left or even if you think they exist because thats about an ideological definition and its nebulous and subjective Have you read 12 Rules for Life ? Here they and each of these is a different chapter and they all make sense and are applicable in different ways depending on the person Stand up straight with your shoulders back." "Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping." "Make friends with people who want the best for you." "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today." "Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them." "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world." "Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)." "Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie." "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't." “Be precise In Your Speech.” "Do not bother children while they are skateboarding." "Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street."[14]

I have to disagree, Peterson has written several books that have become best sellers and they helped and inspired millions of people world wide. So outside of what you quoted his ability to help many people through his writing is irrefutable Of course you dont have to think he is an effective writer because you entitled to your opinion but his books sales dispute that as an overall real criticism. Its like you saying you think George RR Martin is a bad writer, the fanbase and sales evidence of his works dispute that And then Peterson seems to get lots of criticism or praise because of his political and ideological views, I agree with much of what he says but not around other things. I dont follow or watch much of his latest podcasts or videos about how Western countries arent free or his views on religion and similar topics but he is someone who I rate based on the specific topic. I dont automatically agree with him or disagree with him just because he is saying it But I respect his intellectualism and how he is able to debate, he is a very formidable debater because he is so well informed about history and he is able to articulate his point convincingly in most debates

@Mamoulian War https://www.politico.eu/article/in-post-election-reversal-slovakia-enables-weapons-exports-to-ukrainef-fico/#:~:text=The Slovak parliament backed an,send another bullet" to Kyiv. Mamie what happened to the pro-Russian rhetoric "not another bullet to Ukraine " ...these politicians and there grandstanding

Hopefully the US border issue is agreed on because that $60 billion will also be appreciated

But SA doesnt think the ICC is a kangaroo court because they also want the ICC to charge Israel and your response to this doesnt make sense either, they not trying to shame the ICC to action. They believe the ICC must act, here is the official link from DIRCO https://dirco.gov.za/south-africa-along-with-like-minded-states-submits-joint-referral-of-the-situation-in-palestine-to-the-icc/ To quote " South Africa is further encouraging other States Parties to the Rome Statute to join the referral, or to submit separate referrals independently. South Africa remains committed to ending impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and it is hoped that the situation in Palestine will be prioritised by the ICC in order to deliver justice to the victims of these grave crimes " They even mention genocide and other countries joining them, thats not what a country would say if they didnt think the ICC mattered.These are public government statements So the inconsistency is obvious, the ICC matters when the ANC doesnt like a country but if its a "friend " then crimes like genocide dont matter and the ICC will be ignored or questioned like with Al-Bashir But its not about principle which is what our president said, it all about politics

Al-Bashir was ousted in 2019 and the current civil war started last year in 2023, so Sudan didnt collapse when he was removed. This civil war was years later But genocide can be both an ICJ or ICC charge, its not about if you like the ICJ, its about the principle and outrage about genocide as a crime. Thats what SA is now saying about the case against Israel, its about the principle of our belief in human rights as the foundation of foreign policy decisions But with AL-Bashir the principle vanished and suddenly it was about politics. And the ANC must just be honest about that, our foreign policy decisions are not guided by human rights. Its about who we friends with or who we like historically or who we dont like Its not about " we are opposed to genocide as a moral principle "

What about black people not caring about genocide of black people by brown people? In 2015 Al-Bashir from Sudan was allowed to leave SA without being arrested for an ICC warrant for .....genocide. The wars in south Sudan use to be an ethnic conflict, Arab Sudanese vs black Sundanese and the genocide in Darfur was committed against black Sundanese, 300k black Sudanese were killed And SA didnt arrest him and made excuses why they couldnt arrest him . If we had just known that 8 years later SA would be at the ICJ bringing a case of genocide around another country and now genocide really matters and we doing this because " we are guided by principles and our belief that human rights is a foundation of our foreign policy decisions " according to our president Its a pity we didnt practice that when it came to genocide in Darfur

Why whats wrong with Rwanda? Its one of Africa's most well run countries. Dont get influenced by racist or Afrophobic views about Rwanda. Rwanda is a much better place to live in than where many of these illegal immigrants come from. https://360mozambique.com/world/africa/13-stunning-facts-about-rwanda/#:~:text=Rwanda is known for its,for their hospitality and friendliness. https://www.butterfield.com/get-inspired/facts-about-rwanda

I do think he is a really bad leader for whats best for Israel, I dont believe he knew about the attacks because the surprise attack has inexorably undermined much of his right-wing rhetoric which is " I am best person to protect the Jewish homeland, stick with me " And his political career is over once this latest war is over. He has demonstrated he doesnt mind creating political or societal chaos in Israel if it suits his right-wing views, like when he wanted to make those changes around the courts authority and the powers of the Knesset But I dont believe he would willingly allow Jews to die if they knew Hamas was going to attack on the 7 October

https://www.primediaplus.com/sa-has-failed-to-prove-genocidal-intent-by-israel-in-gaza-says-international-law-expert/ Here is another interview with Professor Andre Thomashusen, an emeritus professor of comparative and international law at Unisa but this is his reflections after the ICJ evidence was presented and again he doesnt think SA made a very compelling case Its only 11 minutes and I encourage everyone to listen to it and particularly for those people who dont have a firm opinion on this issue and for those who are more pedantic about when something is genocide based on the legal definition and not the emotion or what we see through SM or the general media And again this is his opinion as someone qualified in the field of international law but the final ruling will come from the ICJ

Keyrock dont forget its also sexist to tell any liberated women what she can or cant wear Thats why I always support chainmail-bikini armor, its the right thing to do when it comes to gender equality

Its guaranteed Trump will be the GOP nomination, thats been known for months if you look at almost every poll

Thanks , I do find these types of specific stories about a country very interesting and informative It all helps to build an understanding of any country that you havent visited

I think you might be misunderstanding my point or Im misunderstanding your point There is common response throughout the world when institutions like the ICC or ICJ make rulings or issue warrants that people have opinions on those outcomes based on their own bias or ideological views. Its not based on if country x or person y is really guilty or not. And the main difference between the ICC and ICJ is the ICC prosecutes people and the ICJ prosecutes countries. Here is a link and summary of the difference https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/news/2024/01/89269/what-international-court-justice-and-why-does-it-matter#:~:text=The simplest way to explain,crimes or crimes against humanity. " There is frequent confusion between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice The simplest way to explain the difference is that ICJ cases involve countries, and the ICC is a criminal court, which brings cases against individuals for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Also, whilst the ICJ is an organ of the United Nations, the ICC is legally independent of the UN, although it is endorsed by the General Assembly. While not all 193 UN Member States are parties to the ICC, it can launch investigations and open cases related to alleged crimes committed on the territory or by a national of a State party to the ICC or of a State that has accepted its jurisdiction. Cases have been heard and decisions rendered on a range of violations, from using rape as a weapon of war to conscripting children as combatants" So for example when Putin was issued with an ICC warrant this was immediately dismissed by Russian supporters, anti-West groups and Vatniks including many people within South Africa yet 9 months later many of those same people, specifically from South Africa, now believe the ICC is credible and we must support it against Israel because SA has also taken Israel to the ICC and not just the ICJ. This is just one example of selective and inconsistent outrage and how some people and countries flip-flop on support or belief when it comes to the ICC or the ICJ And this matters to what you originally said " as countries outside the west will completely lose all faith in the system, worse than the prospect of Sting ever losing his faith in you." This ruling is not going change what countries or people think about the system. Most people already dismiss or support these institutions based on what country is involved But it will always matter to the people who are victims or the targets of genocide, the likes of the ICC and ICJ will always matter to them because these are international institutions and victims have no other options It was Gambia that took Myanmar to the ICJ for the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims and this matters to the Rohingya even if others are cynical about the ICJ https://iimm.un.org/icj-the-gambia-v-myanmar/#:~:text=The Gambia brought the case,the Genocide Convention in 1956. End of the day these allegations of genocide is about the legal and technical definition of genocide and that will be decided by 17 judges. Im woefully unqualified to give an opinion on the hours of presented evidence by both sides...I also only watched about 1 hour of the total submissions. I generally find this types of legal cases boring and repetitive So I will the read the final opinions of the ICJ and comment further then. Because that will be summary of the evidence presented

But the ICJ has 9 judges out of 15 that arent from Western countries, the ruling will be based on the evidence. It wont be because of " evil, Western Capitalist countries control the ICJ " . And its a UN institution so its not like its going anywhere whatever the final ruling

I have finished NWN2 MoB and I have already summarized what I loved about this game so all that's outstanding is the anticipated and highly influential score on the " BruceVC game rating system "...it gets a sold 78/100 Now Im playing Storm of Zehir, I appreciate the new mechanics like the map and how that works and I know its going to be another rewarding Forgotten Realms D&D experience

I have had the TV on in the background and the SA ICJ lawyers have been on , some compelling comments around what I understand I am interested in what Israel says tomorrow

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/narvik-movie-true-story I watched this movie about Norway in WW2, its good

So Im not very knowledgeable on most of the wars over the last 100 years that Nordic countries have fought in but I do know a little I do think Finland had demonstrated it has the most effective military if you think of the Winter War and I do realize all the Nordic countries fought admirably against the Nazi, of course some Nords also aligned with the Nazi but most people didnt support them but they had to accept Nazi occupation which was normal for most of Europe But the main advantage that Finland has now is the additional security of NATO and thats why I want friendly Sweden to join. I doubt Russia would invade Sweden but Putin has demonstrated you cant take anything for granted NATO membership will give friendly Sweden peace of mind