You don't learn the whole truth until you've cleared all your thetans and reached OT8. 

(August 13, 2018 at 2:38 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:Well that's a different claim to what you said. 

Not really 

Quote:In relation to this different claim the only time I heard him mention complicitness is when he says something and doesn't finish his sentence. 

He says "I think the issue of complicitness......" 

Accept as Rev points out that's pretty much what he's implying

Quote:He goes onto say that make up and high heels are a sexual display but that he's not saying that means whatever happens to women after that is ok.

Directly no (i'll point out that i didn't say he said it was okay ) but clearly implying in his word salad way he's saying  that she bears some of the blame for being "sexually provocative"

This is a quote by you....

Quote:He's also said women who wear makeup should not be allowed to complain about sexual assault

The claim has now changed from him saying something to he's implied something.

The claim has also changed from he's saying "Women who wear make up should not be allowed to complain about sexual assault."  to a different claim that he's made an implication that she bears some of the blame for being sexually provocative.

So yes the claim has obviously changed and for this other claim you'd still have to explain where the implication is.

(August 13, 2018 at 2:07 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(August 13, 2018 at 2:38 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Not really 


Accept as Rev points out that's pretty much what he's implying


Directly no (i'll point out that i didn't say he said it was okay ) but clearly implying in his word salad way he's saying  that she bears some of the blame for being "sexually provocative"

This is a quote by you....

Quote:He's also said women who wear makeup should not be allowed to complain about sexual assault

The claim has now changed from him saying something to he's implied something.

The claim has also changed from he's saying "Women who wear make up should not be allowed to complain about sexual assault."  to a different claim that he's made an implication that she bears some of the blame for being sexually provocative.

So yes the claim has obviously changed and for this other claim you'd still have to explain where the implication is.

1. I never said it was a quote by Peterson 

2. Nope he said it not in the precise word above but he said it thus my reference to his word salad

3.No it's not he's clearly saying women who dress   sexually provocatively partially  invite there own harassment and thus are hypocrites if they complain thus have no right to complain if it happens . So nothing has changed

4. Nope nothing has changed and it's the same thing and just explained it

Yep. People should just leave kids on skateboards the fuck alone.

(August 9, 2018 at 11:06 pm)chimp3 Wrote: [*]

Fuck that shit. I owned an older home that had an add on with a flat roof. After the purchase of the home and securing the mortgage the insurance company decides that the flat roof is a.liability and threatens to cancel my insurance. So, I paid $1500 for a contractor to install a rubberised roof that met specs. I left state for two months to deal with unfinished business. While  I was gone these local pre and early teen skaters decided that climbing the unused CB radio tower onto my flat roof and using it as a skate park was too cool to pass up. They totally fucked up the roof and  had leaks into the add on. Cost me thousands and an increase to my insurance payments. Set the hounds on those little fuckers next time.

[*]

I mean, I think there's an unspoken caveat about skating on anything other than concrete surfaces on public property.

(August 13, 2018 at 2:22 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: 1. I never said it was a quote by Peterson 

2. Nope he said it not in the precise word above but he said it thus my reference to his word salad

3.No it's not he's clearly saying women who dress   sexually provocatively partially  invite there own harassment and thus are hypocrites if they complain thus have no right to complain if it happens . So nothing has changed

4. Nope nothing has changed and it's the same thing and just explained it

1. You said "Peterson said X," when he quite explicitly said not-X. You can backpedal all you want, but the fact is you made an untrue statement, a.k.a. you lied.

2. No. He never said it, or anything like it. You just got triggered by a few keywords and stopped listening, because your attention span is short and your English is poor.

3. Bullshit. He's saying that gender differences are entrenched in our evolutionary history, that dress and makeup are sexualized, and that this introduces sexual tension in the workplace. How could anyone past puberty not have experience which makes this obvious?

He very explicitly states that makeup and high-heels in particular are sexualized, supported by the way by pretty much the entire field of evolutionary psychology. He says that nevertheless, he favors a workplace where people can wear what they want, and that it's important to have a frank discussion about how we define harassment and what we should do to prevent it.

He gave examples of the kinds of definitions some individual groups made, as examples of why that's the case. For example, a company with a rule that you could not establish eye-contact for more than 5 seconds-- which is clearly a stupid rule.

---

(August 13, 2018 at 1:41 pm)robvalue Wrote: If Peterson actually believes the stuff he writes about women in this book, he's beyond sexist and more into delusional projections. I suspect at least some of it is part of the game. Finding out what he really thinks, about anything, is almost impossible due to the amount of caveats he uses. This may be the "new him" though, the one that wants to maximize his audience by not excluding anyone.

Except women that is. If a single woman finds this book anything other than hugely patronizing and misinformed, I'd be very surprised. It's clearly aimed at males only, and this makes me suspect it's not all an act.

I do not own the book.  Would you mind giving one or two examples?

As I've shown a couple of times in this thread, googling some of the "controversial" things he's said immediately brought up a lot of confirming evidence, much of it written by women in a professional setting.

Are you sure he's not just telling the truth as he has learned it in an academic capacity, and that people aren't comfortable with it?

Quote:1. You said "Peterson said X," when he quite explicitly said not-X. You can backpedal all you want, but the fact is you made an untrue statement, a.k.a. you lied.

Yes he did say X and no i have backpedaled and nope a total true statement thus i did not lie and your full of shit

Quote:2. No. He never said it, or anything like it. You just got triggered by a few keywords and stopped listening, because your attention span is short and your English is poor.

and yes he said it and anything like it. And no to the rest.

Quote:3. Bullshit. He's saying that gender differences are entrenched in our evolutionary history, that dress and makeup are sexualized, and that this introduces sexual tension in the workplace. How could anyone past puberty not have experience which makes this obvious?

which does not refute my point or even touches my point that he said what i said he said

Quote:He very explicitly states that makeup and high-heels in particular are sexualized, supported by the way by pretty much the entire field of evolutionary psychology. He says that nevertheless, he favors a workplace where people can wear what they want, and that it's important to have a frank discussion about how we define harassment and what we should do to prevent it.

Which does not refute my point or even touches my point that he said what i said he said

Quote:He gave examples of the kinds of definitions some individual groups made, as examples of why that's the case. For example, a company with a rule that you could not establish eye-contact for more than 5 seconds-- which is clearly a stupid rule.

And i showed why that example does not work and is not absurd . Are you even reading my comments anymore?

---

Quote:I do not own the book.  Would you mind giving one or two examples?

Which you will dismiss 

Quote:As I've shown a couple of times in this thread, googling some of the "controversial" things he's said immediately brought up a lot of confirming evidence, much of it written by women in a professional setting.

Already addressed this tactic your trying 

Quote:Are you sure he's not just telling the truth as he has learned it in an academic capacity, and that people aren't comfortable with it?

Nope because robs a smart guy and it's got fuck all to do with comfort  despite your hysteric accusations

(August 13, 2018 at 6:28 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:1. You said "Peterson said X," when he quite explicitly said not-X. You can backpedal all you want, but the fact is you made an untrue statement, a.k.a. you lied.

Yes he did say X and no i have backpedaled and nope a total true statement thus i did not lie and your full of shit  

No. He very clearly did NOT say that women are responsible for being harassed, and he very certainly did not say they shouldn't be allowed to complain if they ARE harassed (your original bullshit claim). The strongest thing he said, when pressed by an interviewer and after very careful consideration, was that sexualized displays in the work place would probably increase a woman's chance of being harassed. He did not make a positive value judgment about that-- he did not say it's okay on any level, just that it seemed likely to be true.

If you don't think it's true, then I'd say you've likely never BEEN in a workplace.

Quote:No. He very clearly did NOT say that women are responsible for being harassed. The strongest thing he said, when pressed by an interviewer and after very careful consideration, was that sexualized displays in the work place would probably increase a woman's chance of being harassed.

Actually he did say that he clearly said high heels and make up were sexulized and that women bare some blame for their harassment as well as saying it would increase harassment .The rest is clearly concluded from what he says .Is it a verbatim quote no is it what he's saying yes.

Quote:If you don't think that's true, then I'd say you've likely never BEEN in a workplace.

I work in an office and no this is not the case .I can't say that's a norm .But it's my experience .

(August 13, 2018 at 6:47 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:No. He very clearly did NOT say that women are responsible for being harassed. The strongest thing he said, when pressed by an interviewer and after very careful consideration, was that sexualized displays in the work place would probably increase a woman's chance of being harassed.

Actually he did say that he clearly said high heels and make up were sexulized and that women bare some blame for their harassment as well as saying it would increase harassment .The rest is clearly concluded from what he says .

I can go back and quote what you said, around which you spent about 10 pages waffling about without providing any factual support for it.

I'm not sure why you think that backpedaling and re-framing your ideas makes them any less credible. Even now, you are just copying what I've recently said to you-- it seems that you literally have no idea of your own other than what you're parroting from whatever liberal equivalent to Fox News you are stealing your ideas.

Here's what you do. You listen to a couple minutes of a video clip, completely fail through bias or lack of basic English ability to understand it, reframe it in your own (vastly inferior) words, and then claim Peterson has said it. I'm not sure how much more you could fail, intellectually speaking. . . though I'm sure you'll soon demonstrate how.

Look, as fun as it is to kick around the intellectual bag of kittens that you are, from now on, I'm going to take a simpler approach. If you say someone said something, I'll just say, "Quotes please." You'll either give them, in which case I'll decide whether the point is worth debating, or you won't give them, in which case I'll engage in a more mentally stimulating activity, like watching paint dry.