Stupid World

[Kickaha]

they go well with Tramadol.

Everything does, cept maybe alcohol, that tends to make you die

[Laava]

Back on topic, I got my arse owned on the dragstrip today by a guy on a Ducati 848.
i will post a seriously grainy image of what could be virtually any red bike to prove it.

[TheDemonLord]

So why did you answer yes to confirm you also accused me of calling for censorhsip?

I've explained and clarified this - everything else is your failure (either willfully or from ignorance) to understand.

My actions fit both narratives.

That depends on whether I'm being charitable and whether or not you are arguing in good faith.

You've demonstrated a lack of the latter, so I'm disinclined to be the former.

Where did I state my noble standard, sans exceptions?

Simple: When you made the accusations against me, accusing me of all the things you're currently been doing. That's where you stated your Noble standard (without said standard, there wouldn't be anything for you to complain about).

Still no contradiction there. Objectivity comes from the clarification/discussion/justification of subjective opinions all the time.

Only when they are applied by an external, neutral observer. Nemo judex in causa sua.

[TheDemonLord]

Bullshit
! he gave the explanation afterwards. as an excuse.

See Carbonhed's video, predating the NYT article. Not only that, The term has been around in the Scholarly world for a while.

Even if we assume a hostile position, the subsequent clarifications confirm what the correct context is.

However, to restate the question: Have you ever supported someone in cheating on their partner or did you disaprove of them doing so? If it's the latter, then you are doing exactly what JBP is talking about.

2 if you use his explanation his definition is what happened and yet men are still violent

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here - are you trying to suggest that you think there is only a single cause for Male violence, and since his idea doesn't mitigate all Male Violence, it's wrong?

# racial was a autocorect from radical.

Uh Huh. Let's see, you've accused me of Sexism, you've accused me of Racism - It's almost like you are following the SJW playbook step-by-step. In about 5 pages you'll throw out Homophobia, and 15 after that Transphobia.

No, I don't buy Autocorrect as an excuse.

Also i hate to tell you divorce rates have been steadily dropping,

Because Marriage rates have been steadily dropping...

yet the suicide for males climbed for those two years you quoted and hand choose right down to an individual country, for that one reason its still horseshit.

Divorce is more a factor in Male suicide for the 35-45 age bracket, Remember the first comment I said 'under 25' - kinda relevant.

You said the Mental health foundation was biased as was the writer yet your cited person is "PAY PER VIEW POLITICAL FREAK SHOW" did you not notice he is biased and shares some interesting views.
His views that were so far out of the accepted norm he was "retired from teaching"

You got a source for him being formally retired by the University of Toronto?

He's still listed here: http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/facultyan...l-Members.aspx...

Or is this like your 'Women succeed at Suicide more than Men' and 'i could post a misogynistic rant. No ones claiming these make women commit suicide.' - where reality is the opposite to what you say?

All of the above, however is just more avoidance of the point. The writer has declared a socio-political position. One that is diametrically opposed to certain viewpoints. When said viewpoint is discussed, any adherent of that position is going to take a contrary stance, regardless of the evidence that is presented. As such, any rebuttal is to be considered prejudicial.

But let's pick apart your out-of-context and cherry picked quotes shall we?

First we need to agree on some grounds facts: Human Female mating patterns are Hypergamous - Not only have there been Mathematical models proving this, but also we can look at things like the 'Groupy' phenomena - remember when you quoted the God-Emperor Trump about 'they let you do whatever you want' - that's your Hypergamy right there.

As a fix for this, Peterson recommends a variety of things including "enforced monogamy" — a solution that implies men are oppressed due to lack of consensual sex.

He's never implied that. If all the available women go after the few men at the top of the societal Hierarchy, then the only way for those at the bottom of the Hierarchy to become desirable to Women is to use Tyranny and Force. See: Every pack Mammal mating strategy - the Males fight (sometimes to the Death) in order to be at the top (or near the top) in order to become a desirable mate to the Females.

See Also: Gangland activity: where status is conferred on the most violent and the most ruthless.

Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.
“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”
It’s a hard one.
“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”
But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.
“Yeah, they do. They do exist.

The Witch that lives in the woods, the Old Woman in the Forest, the Crazy Cat lady. These are all manifestations of the same idea. These ideas exist in stories that predate the time when Cultures had any interaction with each other. The Crazy Cat lady (replete in a disorganized home, with rubbish and multiple animals all around) is the modern re-imagining of this idea.

The 'journalist' wishes to portray that JBP believes in a Witch with Magical powers, as a means to ridicule what he's saying, what they fail to understand is that the idea of a Witch (an old, resentful, childless hag, envious of younger Women's youth and beauty, hateful of the Men that rejected her or used her when she was in her prime and wishes curses and misfortune against them) is very much real.

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

Every society that has instituted a system of Monogamous, exclusive relationships (call it Marriage or whatever) have shown to be the most stable of Societies. Polygamist cults/societies on the other hand, tend to get destabilized.

When Mr. Peterson talks about good women — the sort a man would want to marry — he often uses these words: conscientious and agreeable.

Can you provide a citation there? He's certainly said that as a trait, women are more Agreeable than Men. Conscientiousness is simply hard-working: Do you want your partner to be lazy?

Wherever he goes, he speaks in sermons about the inevitability of who we must be. “You know you can say, ‘Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine’ — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore.

It's almost like he's referencing some Human Universals, and pointing out that you can't win against Nature. As a hilarious case-in-point; 50 Shades of Gray.

he left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,”

There's a simple way to answer this: Who do you promote in a company? The person who is the best at their job or the person who isn't?
Who is the person that you will follow? The person who makes good decisions, increases your prosperity or someone who makes poor decisions and makes your life worse?

That is the question of Competence, and it is a self-evident answer.

There's a secondary question (which is being deliberately conflated into the first) as to why the majority of those at the top happen to be Men. When we account for IQ variation, Competitiveness and disagreeableness, it's clear to see why things are that way.

Sexism need not apply.

Peteron talks a lot at going back to old values the 1950 marriages etc etc as if we need to seriously do this

but if were are going back to old values they include slavery, segregation, Death penalty, Censorship of movies books no internet.

Holy Bait and Switch Batman!

Firstly, he's never advocated for any of that (although he has discussed the Death Penalty - and his response is interesting, but the nuance would probably elude you).

Secondly, Look to your own stats that you posted regarding Suicide. If maybe, we (as a society) made it just a bit harder to get divorced, in order to encourage people (who aren't being violent towards each other) to stay together - how many different risk factors in Suicide would that address?

At least 4, from the list of 'FACTS' you were so liberally posting - so let me ask you:

What is your preferred alternative - a System whereby people are encouraged to stay together, resulting in a large reduction in risk factors associated with Suicide.
or
Piles of young, male corpses.

A far as i can see the majority of Peterson supporters are long haired gamers with no girlfriends. these same people lack the social girls to find girlfriends or interact with people.

I'm a long haired Gamer, Married, With kids.

So, again, you're demonstrably wrong here.

[husaberg]

See Carbonhed's video, predating the NYT article. Not only that, The term has been around in the Scholarly world for a while.

Even if we assume a hostile position, the subsequent clarifications confirm what the correct context is.

However, to restate the question: Have you ever supported someone in cheating on their partner or did you disaprove of them doing so? If it's the latter, then you are doing exactly what JBP is talking about.



I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here - are you trying to suggest that you think there is only a single cause for Male violence, and since his idea doesn't mitigate all Male Violence, it's wrong?



Uh Huh. Let's see, you've accused me of Sexism, you've accused me of Racism - It's almost like you are following the SJW playbook step-by-step. In about 5 pages you'll throw out Homophobia, and 15 after that Transphobia.

No, I don't buy Autocorrect as an excuse.



Because Marriage rates have been steadily dropping...



Divorce is more a factor in Male suicide for the 35-45 age bracket, Remember the first comment I said 'under 25' - kinda relevant.



You got a source for him being formally retired by the University of Toronto?

He's still listed here: http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/facultyan...l-Members.aspx...

Or is this like your 'Women succeed at Suicide more than Men' and 'i could post a misogynistic rant. No ones claiming these make women commit suicide.' - where reality is the opposite to what you say?

All of the above, however is just more avoidance of the point. The writer has declared a socio-political position. One that is diametrically opposed to certain viewpoints. When said viewpoint is discussed, any adherent of that position is going to take a contrary stance, regardless of the evidence that is presented. As such, any rebuttal is to be considered prejudicial.

But let's pick apart your out-of-context and cherry picked quotes shall we?

First we need to agree on some grounds facts: Human Female mating patterns are Hypergamous - Not only have there been Mathematical models proving this, but also we can look at things like the 'Groupy' phenomena - remember when you quoted the God-Emperor Trump about 'they let you do whatever you want' - that's your Hypergamy right there.



He's never implied that. If all the available women go after the few men at the top of the societal Hierarchy, then the only way for those at the bottom of the Hierarchy to become desirable to Women is to use Tyranny and Force. See: Every pack Mammal mating strategy - the Males fight (sometimes to the Death) in order to be at the top (or near the top) in order to become a desirable mate to the Females.

See Also: Gangland activity: where status is conferred on the most violent and the most ruthless.



The Witch that lives in the woods, the Old Woman in the Forest, the Crazy Cat lady. These are all manifestations of the same idea. These ideas exist in stories that predate the time when Cultures had any interaction with each other. The Crazy Cat lady (replete in a disorganized home, with rubbish and multiple animals all around) is the modern re-imagining of this idea.

The 'journalist' wishes to portray that JBP believes in a Witch with Magical powers, as a means to ridicule what he's saying, what they fail to understand is that the idea of a Witch (an old, resentful, childless hag, envious of younger Women's youth and beauty, hateful of the Men that rejected her or used her when she was in her prime and wishes curses and misfortune against them) is very much real.



Every society that has instituted a system of Monogamous, exclusive relationships (call it Marriage or whatever) have shown to be the most stable of Societies. Polygamist cults/societies on the other hand, tend to get destabilized.



Can you provide a citation there? He's certainly said that as a trait, women are more Agreeable than Men. Conscientiousness is simply hard-working: Do you want your partner to be lazy?



It's almost like he's referencing some Human Universals, and pointing out that you can't win against Nature. As a hilarious case-in-point; 50 Shades of Gray.



There's a simple way to answer this: Who do you promote in a company? The person who is the best at their job or the person who isn't?
Who is the person that you will follow? The person who makes good decisions, increases your prosperity or someone who makes poor decisions and makes your life worse?

That is the question of Competence, and it is a self-evident answer.

There's a secondary question (which is being deliberately conflated into the first) as to why the majority of those at the top happen to be Men. When we account for IQ variation, Competitiveness and disagreeableness, it's clear to see why things are that way.

Sexism need not apply.



Holy Bait and Switch Batman!

Firstly, he's never advocated for any of that (although he has discussed the Death Penalty - and his response is interesting, but the nuance would probably elude you).

Secondly, Look to your own stats that you posted regarding Suicide. If maybe, we (as a society) made it just a bit harder to get divorced, in order to encourage people (who aren't being violent towards each other) to stay together - how many different risk factors in Suicide would that address?

At least 4, from the list of 'FACTS' you were so liberally posting - so let me ask you:

What is your preferred alternative - a System whereby people are encouraged to stay together, resulting in a large reduction in risk factors associated with Suicide.
or
Piles of young, male corpses.



I'm a long haired Gamer, Married, With kids.

So, again, you're demonstrably wrong here.

2 days and thats the best you can come up with
thats laughable.

Gets some facts and post them
You like what Peterson has to say as you like it, its neither logical or fact based it relies on picking and choosing data or practices to suit an agenda.
He likes to opine, things Like stepping back in time to say when divorces was lower so was male suicide.
sure thats true, but so was unemployment there was a male shortage due to war deaths as well in the 50's cars were cheaper as well.
Plus a million other things, but he just focuses on one thing and shortsighted people lap it up.
You go on about changes in society but then only want to tie them to very specific demographics and years and then to countries if you can see thats cherry picking no ones ever going to help you.
I dont care if buy autocorrect as an excuse as that it what it was.
As for the majority of Petersons man followers not being single long haired gamers ,TDL you are 2 out of three just yourself. you are practically a walking cliche.
Beside it might only take one Germain greer speech to radicalize your misses
As clearly the left radical feminist loonies are just that dangerous aye.
asuming she is your first wife?
If you want stronger divorce laws go vote for them. But don't push bs excuses as to why.
You want a stepford wife marry one. or Go buy a mail order bide like Yokel did.
Ps peterson sounds like Kermit the frog.

[husaberg]

Oh shit "no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION"... that's bad right?

ESPECIALLY SINCE IT"S IN FUCKING CAPITALS?????????????

Poor old Jordan "no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION". Man he's going to be pissed that this fucking retarded loser on the interweb has blown his world tour and multi million selling book out of the water.

I'll wake up tomorrow to global headlines that Jordan Peterson like has "no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION" and they'll be helicoptering into shitsville, west coast, NZ to interview a snaggle toothed, banjo plucker fresh out of the bush on how he exposed the scam of the century "literally no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION"!!!!!!!????????????????

Here's a panel on Bill C16.

Anyone who tries to use C16 as evidence is not real smart.
the same additions were made years before to countries and none of what Peterson said happened nor has it happened since.
According to legal experts, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.
He claimed he would be able to lecture, without getting sanctioned this was untrue as it doesn't apply to universities
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-j...-c-16-correct/
Peterson doesn't even believe in free speech himself otherwise you wouldn't want others censored.
Hes also religious nutter.

[TheDemonLord]

2 days and thats the best you can come up with
thats laughable.

Contrary to popular belief - I was busy over the weekend, I try not to make a habit of it, but sometimes things need doing.

Gets some facts and post them

Sure, as soon as you layout what your standard of Evidence is, you have been rather shy on this point.

You like what Peterson has to say as you like it, its neither logical or fact based it relies on picking and choosing data or practices to suit an agenda.

What Agenda, What Data, What Practices, What does he actually say that is either illogical or not based in Facts?

He likes to opine, things Like stepping back in time to say when divorces was lower so was male suicide.
sure thats true, but so was unemployment there was a male shortage due to war deaths as well in the 50's cars were cheaper as well.

I'm glad you agree it's true. Now the question is why. It could be war Deaths, it could also be 50% of the human Population hadn't entered the workforce en masse. Just a thought....

Plus a million other things, but he just focuses on one thing and shortsighted people lap it up.

The Irony is that he actually does the opposite, but in order to know that - You'd actually need to listen (and understand) what he says, as opposed to relying on misquoted, cherry-picked journalistic hit pieces on him.

You go on about changes in society but then only want to tie them to very specific demographics and years and then to countries if you can see thats cherry picking no ones ever going to help you.

I know right - it's almost like the changes in society are relevant to those societies where the changes occur, the people in those societies where those changes harm them, and the time periods in which those changes have come about.

It's Fascinating!

As for the majority of Petersons man followers not being single long haired gamers ,TDL you are 2 out of three just yourself. you are practically a walking cliche.

Yes - in case you missed it, you are trying to make out that we hate women, because we are bitter and depressed we can't get laid. The fact I'm married, with kids - goes rather a long way to disprove that.

Not to mention it's the classic Ad Hominem.

Beside it might only take one Germain greer speech to radicalize your misses

It only took one Germaine Greer book to Radicalize Feminism.... So I wouldn't be so quick to laugh...

As clearly the left radical feminist loonies are just that dangerous aye.

Well, shall I point to the death toll of every Marxist inspired Regime? I think 200 Million dead counts as 'Dangerous'. You should read up on the cross-over between Feminism and Marxism.

asuming she is your first wife?

Not that it has any relevancy, but yes, she is.

If you want stronger divorce laws go vote for them. But don't push bs excuses as to why.

Define 'Stronger'.

I also note that you don't actually address the point I made, which, considering how I linked it directly to what you have posted as Facts, is curious - it's almost like you've got no actual rebuttal and are seeking to divert attention.

You want a stepford wife marry one. or Go buy a mail order bide like Yokel did.

It's funny, if you met my Wife, you'd understand why. Just meditate on this: I'm well known to be an argumentative, Cantankerous Sod, consider the strength of will, of the Woman who can put up with me enough to Marry me.

If you can logically work through that, you'd understand WHY it's so funny.

Ps peterson sounds like Kermit the frog.

Something that he himself has acknowledged, Again - what is your point here? Or is it a half-assed attempt at ridicule?

[husaberg]

Contrary to popular belief - I was busy over the weekend, I try not to make a habit of it, but sometimes things need doing.



Sure, as soon as you layout what your standard of Evidence is, you have been rather shy on this point.



What Agenda, What Data, What Practices, What does he actually say that is either illogical or not based in Facts?



I'm glad you agree it's true. Now the question is why. It could be war Deaths, it could also be 50% of the human Population hadn't entered the workforce en masse. Just a thought....



The Irony is that he actually does the opposite, but in order to know that - You'd actually need to listen (and understand) what he says, as opposed to relying on misquoted, cherry-picked journalistic hit pieces on him.



I know right - it's almost like the changes in society are relevant to those societies where the changes occur, the people in those societies where those changes harm them, and the time periods in which those changes have come about.

It's Fascinating!



Yes - in case you missed it, you are trying to make out that we hate women, because we are bitter and depressed we can't get laid. The fact I'm married, with kids - goes rather a long way to disprove that.

Not to mention it's the classic Ad Hominem.



It only took one Germaine Greer book to Radicalize Feminism.... So I wouldn't be so quick to laugh...



Well, shall I point to the death toll of every Marxist inspired Regime? I think 200 Million dead counts as 'Dangerous'. You should read up on the cross-over between Feminism and Marxism.



Not that it has any relevancy, but yes, she is.



Define 'Stronger'.

I also note that you don't actually address the point I made, which, considering how I linked it directly to what you have posted as Facts, is curious - it's almost like you've got no actual rebuttal and are seeking to divert attention.



It's funny, if you met my Wife, you'd understand why. Just meditate on this: I'm well known to be an argumentative, Cantankerous Sod, consider the strength of will, of the Woman who can put up with me enough to Marry me.

If you can logically work through that, you'd understand WHY it's so funny.



Something that he himself has acknowledged, Again - what is your point here? Or is it a half-assed attempt at ridicule?

Read your answer and see how much they actually rely on conjecture and taking small things out of context to suit the agenda its laughable as is following a religious nut.
I am sure he believes everything he writes just as he believes in sky pixies and shutting down free speech he doesn't like.
or misrepresenting other stuff to make himself rich.
I never said or mentioned anything about his followers other tthan they believe hiam as thats what they want to here regardless if its illogivcal or not based on facts other than most were long haired gamers who where single you made up the rest all by yourself.

not to mention this

- in case you missed it, you are trying to make out that we hate women, because we are bitter and depressed we can't get laid.
Not to mention it's the classic Ad Hominem

Yet you are trying to make out thats what radical femism did to all women, thats a a bit inconvenient aye.
yet you go on about free speech. and preach peterson who thinks others should who don't agree with his thoughts on religion should be censored.
AS for the stuff you are trying to palm off as evidence stop cheery picking dates countries and places and certain years and you will see you have nothing but cherry picked data
I cant be easy being a frog

[TheDemonLord]

Read your answer and see how much they actually rely on conjecture and taking small things out of context to suit the agenda its laughable as is following a religious nut.

Let's assume that's true for a moment, I could easily make the same accusation against you.

The problem you have (which is why you don't have the balls to address it directly) is that the Conjecture I put forward happens to have a very clear link between the ideology you are defending (your version of 'Religious Nut') and the 'FACTS' you were so passionate about citing.

I am sure he believes everything he writes just as he believes in sky pixies and shutting down free speech he doesn't like.

Can you point to where he's declared a belief in a supernatural Deity? Can you also point to where he's shut down free speech he doesn't like?

or misrepresenting other stuff to make himself rich.

Oh noes! He's getting rich! He must be EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!

If everything he said was demonstrably false, why would the various media outlets need to write such blatant hit-pieces on him, that rely on clearly manufacturing and misrepresenting what he says?

Case in point - the eponymous Cathy Newman interview 'So you're saying' (and the proceeding to say something that he isn't saying)

I never said or mentioned anything about his followers other tthan they believe hiam as thats what they want to here regardless if its illogivcal or not based on facts other than most were long haired gamers who where single you made up the rest all by yourself.

Yet, you contradict yourself in this very comment, it's the 'Single' part that is key. Why bring up someone's marital status? Unless, it was to try and paint a very particular picture.

Yet you are trying to make out thats what radical femism did to all women, thats a a bit inconvenient aye.

Did I? Can you provide the quotation? Or are you just making shit up/misrepresenting me again? Double hilarious since you've accused JBP of that.

yet you go on about free speech. and preach peterson who thinks others should who don't agree with his thoughts on religion should be censored.

Citation needed.

AS for the stuff you are trying to palm off as evidence stop cheery picking dates countries and places and certain years and you will see you have nothing but cherry picked data

I think you mean 'Data relevant to the time, society and issue'

I cant be easy being a frog

Indeed, Frogs have a higher standard of written English.

[husaberg]

Let's assume that's true for a moment, I could easily make the same accusation against you.

The problem you have (which is why you don't have the balls to address it directly) is that the Conjecture I put forward happens to have a very clear link between the ideology you are defending (your version of 'Religious Nut') and the 'FACTS' you were so passionate about citing.



Can you point to where he's declared a belief in a supernatural Deity? Can you also point to where he's shut down free speech he doesn't like?



Oh noes! He's getting rich! He must be EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!

If everything he said was demonstrably false, why would the various media outlets need to write such blatant hit-pieces on him, that rely on clearly manufacturing and misrepresenting what he says?

Case in point - the eponymous Cathy Newman interview 'So you're saying' (and the proceeding to say something that he isn't saying)



Yet, you contradict yourself in this very comment, it's the 'Single' part that is key. Why bring up someone's marital status? Unless, it was to try and paint a very particular picture.



Did I? Can you provide the quotation? Or are you just making shit up/misrepresenting me again? Double hilarious since you've accused JBP of that.



Citation needed.



I think you mean 'Data relevant to the time, society and issue'



Indeed, Frogs have a higher standard of written English.

Round and around you go still with no facts or un-cherry picked data though.
If you go back a page you will be Peterson in person on video Saying someone should be censored and he is on video and other forms multiple times about religion.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...-World/page700
Maybe if you actually did a bit of digging you might have noticed that.
He calls himself christian mentions religion almost every speech in glowing terms.

Nothing is wrong with getting rich unless you are doing it by taking advantage of people by telling them lies and half truths.
You claim he must be telling the truth as he getting coverage, yet only posts before go on about radical feminists spreading stuff to kill off men.
Reply when you actually have something that doesn't rely on cherry picking data and ignoring other data to get it to fit.
Post some facts that would be a change.

[TheDemonLord]

If you go back a page you will be Peterson in person on video Saying someone should be censored and he is on video and other forms multiple times about religion.

Did he say Censured? Did he actually call for censorship? No one else on the Panel thinks he did. In fact, from the clip you posted, he even says just prior to that, that the receptions Dawkins and his book has received is 'just fine' - not exactly the statement of a censur....

Maybe you should listen to the full clip - I'll give you a quote, from the same show, which should help highlight how badly wrong you are on trying to label Jordan as a religious nut:

"If the faith system is Coherent, there is an ultimate value at it's pinnacle, whatever that ultimate value is, for you, it's God.'

Note - that's not a supernatural God. This is what he has made reference to, probably most clearly in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, and also in the multiple debates he's had with Sam Harris.

Maybe if you actually did a bit of digging you might have noticed that.
He calls himself christian mentions religion almost every speech in glowing terms.

Correction - if you did the proper digging, you'd know what that's not true. He's said that "He acts as if God is real" - that is not the same as declaring a Theistic or even a Deistic position.

Nothing is wrong with getting rich unless you are doing it by taking advantage of people by telling them lies and half truths.

And you just so happen to be the arbiter of what is Truth and Lies... How convenient.

You claim he must be telling the truth as he getting coverage, yet only posts before go on about radical feminists spreading stuff to kill off men.

Nope, I never said that (although, there are quite a few famous Feminists who've made statements about wanting to kill off Men - funny that). You keep trying to ascribe these things to me that I've not said.

Reply when you actually have something that doesn't rely on cherry picking data and ignoring other data to get it to fit.
Post some facts that would be a change.

Sure - Set your standard of Evidence, so we can be sure there's no goalpost moving.

Plus, it's a bit rich to make that claim when so far, you've not managed to represent a single point I've made accurately.

[husaberg]

Did he say Censured? Did he actually call for censorship? No one else on the Panel thinks he did. In fact, from the clip you posted, he even says just prior to that, that the receptions Dawkins and his book has received is 'just fine' - not exactly the statement of a censur....

Maybe you should listen to the full clip - I'll give you a quote, from the same show, which should help highlight how badly wrong you are on trying to label Jordan as a religious nut:

"If the faith system is Coherent, there is an ultimate value at it's pinnacle, whatever that ultimate value is, for you, it's God.'

Note - that's not a supernatural God. This is what he has made reference to, probably most clearly in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, and also in the multiple debates he's had with Sam Harris.



Correction - if you did the proper digging, you'd know what that's not true. He's said that "He acts as if God is real" - that is not the same as declaring a Theistic or even a Deistic position.



And you just so happen to be the arbiter of what is Truth and Lies... How convenient.



Nope, I never said that (although, there are quite a few famous Feminists who've made statements about wanting to kill off Men - funny that). You keep trying to ascribe these things to me that I've not said.



Sure - Set your standard of Evidence, so we can be sure there's no goalpost moving.

Plus, it's a bit rich to make that claim when so far, you've not managed to represent a single point I've made accurately.

Round and around you go, every thing that you disagree with is simply " alternative facts" Sounds familiar.

Its pretty simple what is a fact and what is simple conjecture most people other than conspiracy theorists would spot it in an instant.
Same way most people notice when the only way when the only way can get a data to support a theory is to cherry pick certain years and ignore all other contradictory data that doesn't support you narrow view.
You have never made a single logical point about Peterson or his views . Its like you are in a cult. You are Katman 2.0 with out the latent homosexual advances.

[TheDemonLord]

Round and around you go, every thing that you disagree with is simply " alternative facts" Sounds familiar.

Well, you are the one saying it, I've never referred to it as such, so no - it doesn't sound familiar.

The only thing sounding familiar is you

A: Ignoring the points I've made
B: Ascribing things to me I've not said.

Its pretty simple what is a fact and what is simple conjecture most people other than conspiracy theorists would spot it in an instant.

Which is why JBPs book is a worldwide bestseller

Same way most people notice when the only way when the only way can get a data to support a theory is to cherry pick certain years and ignore all other contradictory data that doesn't support you narrow view.

Ah yes, I'm sorry I didn't include the data from Equatorial Guinea for the year 1934, when referencing an issue in NZ in the year 2018.

How silly of me...

You have never made a single logical point about Peterson or his views . Its like you are in a cult. You are Katman 2.0 with out the latent homosexual advances.

Except, y'know - I've provided the direct quotations to show that your cherry picked (IRONY!) and out of context quotes are incorrect.

The only person who has not made a logical point about Peterson is you.

[Graystone]

I've explained and clarified this - everything else is your failure (either willfully or from ignorance) to understand.



That depends on whether I'm being charitable and whether or not you are arguing in good faith.

You've demonstrated a lack of the latter, so I'm disinclined to be the former.



Simple: When you made the accusations against me, accusing me of all the things you're currently been doing. That's where you stated your Noble standard (without said standard, there wouldn't be anything for you to complain about).



Only when they are applied by an external, neutral observer. Nemo judex in causa sua.

You have not explained, nor clarified this, you simply point to your 'context' to try to change the accusation, but in your 'context' the correct answer would have been no; since you would not have added that different accusation.

So it does fit both narratives, your subjective take on it (and you just admitted to) is what I was calling you out for.

So, it's another implicit thing is it? fuck you're big on subjective interpretation to fit your narrative. Where have I actually stated my standards?

Exactly, so we agree there is not contradiction.

[husaberg]

Well, you are the one saying it, I've never referred to it as such, so no - it doesn't sound familiar.

The only thing sounding familiar is you

A: Ignoring the points I've made
B: Ascribing things to me I've not said.

To put it bluntly Your points are pointless, Yet they are far still far sharper than your barbs.

Which is why JBPs book is a worldwide bestseller

So was Harry potter, a shit load of John grishman novels, lord of the rings, the da vinci code, as was the Female eunuch by Germaine Greer
Which you dismissed as being radical feminism so that another of your misses. Especially considering she is a hell of a lot more famous than your kermitt the frog.
Mcdonalds sells a lot of food but it doesnt mean it is goof=d for you or the best food, Peterson is fodder for his target market.

Ah yes, I'm sorry I didn't include the data from Equatorial Guinea for the year 1934, when referencing an issue in NZ in the year 2018.

How silly of me...

Was was silly was for you to claim it suicide was the biggest killer of under 25's when you really ment only in a country in certain years. And that it was epdemic proportions when the truth was it was actually dropping and not only that female suicides were not static as you had said for those years you later specified they had risen by 40%. to get around the 40% rise you then tried to use a different set of years for the females. which you have never explained you just ignore that.
To top it all offf you then blamed radical feminism for the difference in the male adn female stats only issue is there is many other reasons behind the difference and no one other than Peterson cults thinks its radical feminism.
Nor does it explain why that difference has always existed.

Except, y'know - I've provided the direct quotations to show that your cherry picked (IRONY!) and out of context quotes are incorrect.

The only person who has not made a logical point about Peterson is you.

Whatever no one else cares what you think enough to argue with you. Even cassina or whoever Graystone is, cant be bothered
i cant be arsed multiquoted you in replies its not worth the effort. 4/5 of your replies are plucked out of thin air.
You claim everything is proof, because you ignore anything that doesn't suit. You have the strongest confirmation bias this side of Katspam.
Any thing on one side for you is proof any thing contrary is ignored or dismissed as not be significant to you, Yet this is what the worlds experts in suicide say, but you claim to know better.
Just like your total dismissal of the NZ mental heath foundation letter.