Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion

[robvalue]

I know, right? I just can't figure out why he would do that. Trying to generate more controversy and attention? Does it get him off to wave it about under our noses, thinking no one will notice? It just ends up making him look stupid. Harris noted he says 90% wise, useful stuff (in general), and 10% "not so much". That may be the case, but the 10% is really awful. Straightforward lies, horrible ideas, dishonesty, evasion, and so on. This book... is not 90% good stuff however.

It's one more reason why I am less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on particular passages.

If I had to venture a guess I think he’s definitely one of those people that thrives on controversy. Not just ego wise either, but monetarily speaking as well.

Yeah. I think the bottom line is the bottom line, and maybe this was just as calculated.

Okay so far, we've got, in my estimation:

1) Villanous introduction: point standing

2) Conflation of mythological ideas of "chaos and order" with actual gender: point standing

3) Hitting children beyond spanking: point contested, paragraph is poorly written, on hold

I'll be happy to add in the absolutely useless, irrelevant religious preaching and Christian stories for debate, like in my recent humorous video. I don't know how that can be defended.