Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[Angrboda]

I don't know Peterson other than that he's a darling of certain types. I can only hope that his reputation and fame is secured by something more substantial than what I've seen in this thread. (In fairness, I didn't listen to the videos. Fuck a bunch of videos.)

[bennyboy]

At any rate, are you just going to keep quoting rationalwiki's distilled quotes out of context, or are you actually going to watch some of the videos, in which Peterson directly addresses some of these points made against him, and clarifies his position candidly? Do you have any issues of your own with him, or your own ideas, or are you just going to keep quote-mining?

1. Yup quoted rational i make no hidden fact about that too bad for you they a neither out of context or distilled 

2.I have watched his video's and seen his responses . They are not responses and often are more confused then the original statement and generally ignore the actual point his critics were making.Then tries to wiggle out of being called out .Like most cult leaders .

3. None of these lack context and you can call them distilled i would prefer accurate and in context 

4.I have made issues clear but please keep screaming "out of context " like a fundie protecting his bible .

1. You seem not to know what the word "context" means.

2. ?

3. Apparently you would NOT prefer that. Why don't you watch the videos I linked, so you can see him actually address the issues you are talking about? You and I both know you won't bother, but that's because you can't come up with ideas that you can't copy and paste.

4. Again. . . learn what context means, and then provide some for your quotes.

You have a lot to say for a guy who so far has watched a 1-minute video clip and spent about 5 seconds googling.

You have a lot to say for a man who slaps up a video up then proclaims his lord and savior has defeated all comers and he has deep and complete understanding of him and then screams "out of context " at every criticism like a religious zealot . So spare me the lecture.

Hmmmm. . . that's a strangely fictional account. It seems you think your made-up narrative for what happened is a fair proxy for real events. That seems pretty typical of your ideology-- it doesn't matter what is true, only what you can find a way to get hysterical about.

The only thing I've "proclaimed" about Peterson is that he's addressed these issues in a much more measured and thoughtful way than you credit him, and that the videos I linked would be likely to demonstrate that.

[Amarok]

1. You seem not to know what the word "context" means.

2. ?

3. Apparently you would NOT prefer that. Why don't you watch the videos I linked, so you can see him actually address the issues you are talking about? You and I both know you won't bother, but that's because you can't come up with ideas that you can't copy and paste.

4. Again. . . learn what context means, and then provide some for your quotes.

1. i'm aware of what it means and have used it properly

2.I made that clear too

3. Already watch all his crap video's and equally crap responses including the one you linked it changes nothing and no he never addressed them he played games a dodge the issues or backpedaled to cover his ass . And my idea's are my own the fact i express them through quotation mean nothing .

4. I know what it means and my quotes are fine as is

[emjay]

Well I hope everyone is enjoying the back and forth here. It makes me realize how little I've skimmed the surface of that book or the videos. But I don't think I'll be reading much more of this book but I will take a look at a couple of the recommended videos provided they hold my interest. I share my strong bias with Homeless Nutter, self help gurus give me the creeps too.

For losing interest in the topic I brought up which started the shit storm, I'll just go stand in the corner a bit.

Is this Sheldrake all over again?

[Amarok]

Hmmmm. . . that's a strangely fictional account. It seems you think your made-up narrative for what happened is a fair proxy for real events. That seems pretty typical of your ideology-- it doesn't matter what is true, only what you can find a way to get hysterical about.

Nope totally accurate and nope your comment fits your ideology not mine i'm afraid .The only difference is instead of false claims of hysteria you have true claims of dogmatic apathy and denalism.

The only thing I've "proclaimed" about Peterson is that he's addressed these issues in a much more measured and thoughtful way than you credit him, and that the videos I linked would be likely to demonstrate that.

Nope you have been an apologist and little else and no his responses are garbage weaseling nothing else .And the video is just more of the same. Sorry your cult figure is not snaring any new converts here .

[bennyboy]

Hmmmm. . . that's a strangely fictional account. It seems you think your made-up narrative for what happened is a fair proxy for real events. That seems pretty typical of your ideology-- it doesn't matter what is true, only what you can find a way to get hysterical about.

Nope totally accurate and nope your comment fits your ideology not mine i'm afraid .The only difference is instead of false claims of hysteria you have true claims of dogmatic apathy and denalism.

I think hysterical positions like yours are actually an excellent example of the kinds of psychology the guy is talking about-- and what he's faced in his own life.

You fail to actually have any point, to generate any ideas of your own, or even attempt to make any philosophical argument in this thread. Instead you are raving about my "ideology," which I'm pretty sure I haven't expressed and which you don't know (unless, that is, your memory is good enough to go back to when I fought against the crowd in defense of the idea that the ownership by white people of dream catchers might be considered a hostile act by an oppressive majority).

Remember that, bud?

The only thing I've "proclaimed" about Peterson is that he's addressed these issues in a much more measured and thoughtful way than you credit him, and that the videos I linked would be likely to demonstrate that.

Nope you have been an apologist and little else and no his responses are garbage weaseling nothing else .And the video is just more of the same. Sorry your cult figure is not snaring any new converts here .

There's really no arguing with you, because you aren't actually making any rational points that you haven't copy-pasted. It's pretty clear at this point that you don't know any of his positions, and you don't know what you're talking about. You're the equivalent of the Fox-watching dummies who keep shouting "Fake news!!!"

But guess what? People like you will allow people like them to exist forever. That's because when you disengage from actual words and start to make everything a campaign of willful ignorance, they get to do the same-- then it's just about who can get themselves to believe bullshit more strongly, rather than those who carefully measure and consider points.

Don't believe me? Let's go through one of his long-form videos, step by step, word by word, and see what he actually says, and see if anything you're saying now holds up to the light of serious inquiry. I'm willing to spend time digging for the truth-- but I'd bet $100 that you aren't.

---

Here, watch this, and we'll see whether he's being sexist, or whether he's just being accurate.

[Amarok]

I think hysterical positions like yours are actually an excellent example of the kinds of psychology the guy is talking about-- and what he's faced in his own life.

Nope sorry Peterson personnel fairy tales apply to his own broken perceptions of the world not any real person .

You fail to actually have any point, to generate any ideas of your own,or even attempt to make any philosophical argument in this thread. 

Nope put plenty of my own and yes i have despite you denials

Instead you are raving about my "ideology," which I'm pretty sure I haven't expressed and which you don't know

We have discussed your ideology plenty elsewhere.But funny your so quick declare mine though

 (unless, that is, your memory is good enough to go back to when I fought against the crowd in defense of the idea that the ownership by white people of dream catchers might be considered a hostile act by an oppressive majority).

Remember that, bud?

Yup and what has that to do with this?

---

There's really no arguing with you, because you aren't actually making any rational points that you haven't copy-pasted. 

Yes i have the fact i expressed them through quotes does not invalidate them 

It's pretty clear at this point that you don't know any of his positions,

Yes i do i would say better then you most likely  and there shit 

 and you don't know what you're talking about. 

Yes i do more then you do 

You're the equivalent of the Fox-watching dummies who keep shouting "Fake news!!!"

Nope that would be you scream "quote mine" or "out of context"

But guess what? People like you will allow people like them to exist forever. 

Nope rational like me will strike them down sycophants and apologist like will see them remain along with your guru pope 

That's because when you disengage from actual words and start to make everything a campaign of willful ignorance, 

Good thing that's not what i'm doing .You on the other hand....

they get to do the same--

Again that will all be on apologists like you 

then it's just about who can get themselves to believe bullshit more strongly

Yup that's the motto of Peterson cultist 

rather than those who carefully measure and consider points.

Of which Peterson is incapable  and his followers would never recognize even if they saw it 

Don't believe me? 

Yes because it's not true 

Let's go through one of his long-form videos, step by step, word by word,

Already seen this one it was shit so why would i watch it again .it was painful enough the first time.

and see what he actually says

See what excuses you can conjure up to cover his ass 

 and see if anything you're saying now holds up to the light of serious inquiry.

What slander you can cook up to defend him and attack me for daring to challenge  your pope 

 I'm willing to spend time digging for the truth

Spend time lying for Peterson which is all that will happen 

but I'd bet $100 that you aren't.

I will happily pay you 100 dollars to not have to sit through one more of Peterson vapid ramblings  

Here, watch this, 

Already seen this video on the Gender Wage Gap .It's 100% bullshit .

and we'll see whether he's being sexist, 

He is 

or whether he's just being accurate.

He wouldn't be accurate on an issue of social justice if his life depended on it .And you buy this video you clearly are the same .

[bennyboy]

I think hysterical positions like yours are actually an excellent example of the kinds of psychology the guy is talking about-- and what he's faced in his own life.

Nope sorry Peterson personnel fairy tales apply to his own broken perceptions of the world not any real person .

How would you know that? On what observations can you claim that? You have stated that you aren't willing to actually sit through a long discussion of his views, and you've insisted on quote-mining out of context. So by what process can you possibly have arrived at your position about him? I know exactly how, because it's painfully obvious-- you're parroting the opinions expressed by someone else.

I've offered to look at the evidence-- consider what he has actually said, and discuss whether it's sexist, or anti-LBGTQ or whatever, and you have in no uncertain terms refused to do so.

Do you not see the parallel to the "Fake News!!!" crowd? You refuse to engage in the process of fact gathering, but you confidently assert your position anyway. On what basis do you make any claim about someone whose opinions you clearly are not willing to listen to?

You claim to have watched so many videos in roughly the same way in which a Christian bullshitter claims to have deeply studied evolution-- you have, in fact, clearly NOT done that, but since I'm not sitting next to your desk, you feel comfortable enough making that false claim. The problem, however, is the same-- that someone who HAS taken the time to learn about something can easily infer that you haven't done so.

I can easily prove this. There are several philosophical themes which Peterson quite often turns to-- they represent the basis on which he builds his political positions. Can you identify even ONE of them?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru's 12 Rules For Life

1.  Nothing as a simple as it seems.  Act accordingly.

2.  Nothing is as complicated as you fear.  Relax.

3.  Good manners cost you nothing.  Behave.

4.  Cowardice avails you nothing.  Stand up.

5.  Some people will not be as fond of you as you are of them.  That's OK.

6.  You will encounter people whom you will dislike for no apparent reason.  That's not OK.

7.  People will always be advising you, 'Don't see this film' or 'Don't read that book'.  Ignore them.

8.  Make a bet every day.  You could be walking around lucky and not know it.

9.  Let small children beat you at games.  It makes you a hero.

10.  It's OK to be sad, not OK to stay sad.

11.  Same for happy - never trust people who never had a down day.

12.  Don't feel compelled to follow anyone else's list of 'Rules For Life.'  Including these.

Boru

[Amarok]

How would you know that? On what observations can you claim that? 

On the vapid bullocks he says 

You have stated that you aren't willing to actually sit through a long discussion of his views

I have already sat through his blather what is their ti discuss other then you making excuses for him .

, and you've insisted on quote-mining out of context.

Too bad i have done neither despite your fanatical insistence otherwise 

So by what process can you possibly have arrived at your position about him?

By having to sit through hours of his bullshit 

 I know exactly how, because it's painfully obvious-- you're parroting the opinions expressed by someone else.

Nope i wonder if the samr can't be said of you 

I've offered to look at the evidence--

You have offered to apologize away his mistakes 

 consider what he has actually said, 

Consider what you want him to say so your cult belief in not shattered 

and discuss whether it's sexist, or anti-LBGTQ or whatever

It is regardless of his or your excuses 

, and you have in no uncertain terms refused to do so.

Because i don't need too 

Do you not see the parallel to the "Fake News!!!" crowd? 

No but your chants of "out of contexts echo this thread 

You refuse to engage in the process of fact gathering, 

Because you have not interest in gathering facts just excuses to defend Peterson from his comments

but you confidently assert your position anyway. 

Yup because it's correct 

On what basis do you make any claim about someone whose opinions you clearly are not willing to listen to?

As i said i have listened to Peterson's tripe and excuses .They are just that.

You claim to have watched so many videos in roughly the same way in which a Christian bullshitter claims to have deeply studied evolution

Nope i claim to have watched his bullshit video's the way someone who has watched his video's would . And you like a creationist will engage in sophistry to defend your dogma .

you have, in fact, clearly NOT done that,

I have in fact done so and don't care if you accept it as you not my judge 

 but since I'm not sitting next to your desk, you feel comfortable enough making that false claim. 

If you were sitting next to my desk you would see no fewer then 37 of his videos(including chats)  8 of his articles and slide show he made to lie about bill C16 on my  book mark list and i have read and watched them all 

The problem, however, is the same

To bad there is no problem.Well for me at least because i'm telling the truth .

 that someone who HAS taken the time to learn about something can easily infer that you haven't done so.

Or someone who has an axe to grind and will infer what he wants to believe 

I can easily prove this.

No you can't 

 There are several philosophical themes which Peterson quite often turns to they represent the basis on which he builds his political positions.Can you identify even ONE of them?
 

His Misrepresentations of Carl Jung archetypes and  the collective unconscious .
His silly idea's about Canonical value structures (those evil post modernists)
His ridiculous views on Natural hierarchies (fucking lobsters) 
His utter lack of understanding of Marxism (Marxists are modernists) 
His utter lack of understanding of Post modernism (When he's praised people who were postmodernists ) 
His ridiculous views on Equality of outcomes (Good thing he's not consistent on that)


Now watch you lie for your man god to preserve your narrative i'm ignorant