by blah blah bkah December 8, 2017
Get the jordan and jonmug. A couple that has unconditional love for each other, once these two souls are together nothing can stop them. They love being with each other and can get lost in each other's eyes. They love watching sunsets and could care less about what others think of them, they are inseparable together and without each other, they feel empty they would drop anything if it meant they could be together in each other's arms they love being clingy and can never get bored of just sitting and admiring each other. These two are soulmates who will forever belong to each other and will never get tired of telling each other 'I love you' every single day. Every day they are grateful for each other and would do anything to make the other person feel happy, they love getting tention and giving each other tention. They fill the right side of each other
hayley: "gimme tentionnn"
jordan:"you have all my tention baby"
a form of love used by hayley and jordan
jordan:"you have all my tention baby"
a form of love used by hayley and jordan
by dandelion090523 July 2, 2023
Get the hayley and jordanmug. Raging alcoholics and also sniffs ket and coke every Friday night in the bridge. They call him the horse in a field
by Bongs and spliffs September 11, 2020
Get the jordan the pedomug. When a friend, or friendly acquaintance or former employee goes missing and needs to be found but it's no big deal because he or she often goes missing.
I put out a Jordan Alert on Facebook, I hope he sees it on his friends feeds and brings me the twenty bucks he owes me.
by Beamerzzz February 19, 2019
Get the Jordan Alertmug. 
A logical fallacy where one of the sides attempts to discredit the opposition by painting the other side as incapable of arguing on the topic, by pointing out a source about the topic (which is mostly too long to skim through in a short time) and stating that they must scan the said source extensively before they can talk about the said topic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
Example 1
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
by Doge of Chamberlain October 11, 2023
Get the Jordan Petersonmug. by Yurl Tarded June 15, 2020
Get the Jordan Poythressmug.