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

[LadyForCamus]

Tiz, this is getting silly, and you know better. You made a positive claim, and your job to support it with external, corroborating evidence. That is logic 101. Simply saying, “it’s true” over and over isn’t providing evidence, and you know that. You need to put up or shut up. There is no shame in admitting you were wrong about something. It’s really not a big deal.

[Foxaèr]

I haven't been keeping up. I don't even know what Tiz is supposed to be positively claiming.

Someone catch me up real quick.

[Amarok]

Tiz, this is getting silly, and you know better.  You made a positive claim, and you need to support it with external, corroborating evidence.  That is logic 101.  Simply saying, “it’s true” over and over isn’t providing evidence, and you know that.  You need to put up or shut up.  There is no shame in admitting you were wrong about something.  It’s really not a big deal.

 And i stand by my statement if he doubts what i said he's free too look it up if he does not that's his choice . And why would i admit to something that's not the case?

[LadyForCamus]

Tiz, this is getting silly, and you know better.  You made a positive claim, and you need to support it with external, corroborating evidence.  That is logic 101.  Simply saying, “it’s true” over and over isn’t providing evidence, and you know that.  You need to put up or shut up.  There is no shame in admitting you were wrong about something.  It’s really not a big deal.

 And i stand by my statement if he doubts what i said he's free too look it up if he does not that's his choice . And why would i admit to something that's not the case?

You haven’t provided any evidence.  Period.  You can “stand by it” for as long as you like, but if you can’t back it up, then you’re standing by nothing more than a bald assertion.

---

I haven't been keeping up.  I don't even know what Tiz is supposed to be positively claiming.

Someone catch me up real quick.

I barely know, lol, but he claimed this Peterson guy made a bunch of misogynistic statements, and when asked for evidence, he just repeats his claim and tells other people to find the evidence themselves.  Which, Ofc, is ridiculous as he well knows.  If a theist were debating this way he’d be all over them.

[Foxaèr]

I barely know, lol, but he claimed this Peterson guy made a bunch of misogynistic statements, and when asked for evidence, he just repeats his claim and tells other people to find the evidence themselves.  Which, Ofc, is ridiculous as he well knows.  If a theist were debating this way he’d be all over them.

A feminist philosopher makes the case against Jordan Peterson
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2018/6...philosophy

Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style...-life.html

Why Are So Many Young Men Drawn to Jordan Peterson’s Intellectual Misogyny?
https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/wh...-misogyny/

Seemed easy enough for me.

[LadyForCamus]

So, he should have done that. That’s how this works.

[Rev. Rye]

Okay, Tizh, since you're not going to give an example of what you're mentioning, I will:





About 2:20
"If I was part of an organization that built entire dozens of careers on sexual provocative-Ness I would be very careful about like waiving the ethical flag in the sexual wars."

Admittedly, he hedges his words a bit more than you've outright said, and he does do his trademark backtrack but that subtext really seems to shine through. He doesn't outright say that victims of sexual harassment shouldn't complain, but he does talk a great bit about how they're complicit in their own harassment if they at all sexualise themselves.

Seriously, if your opponent is saying they have any trouble looking up sources they look up, point them in the right direction. If you have to, show them exactly what you're talking about.

Also, I'm not sure about how much of his remarks about not knowing the rules about how men and women should work together is mere sophistry and how much of it is the expression of his being legitimately confused about social interactions (the Bible Reloaded guys hypothesised he was on the autism spectrum in the video I posted of them last night, and now I'm starting to believe it; I can relate to legitimately not knowing what the rules are in male-female interactions, especially in these MeToo days).

[Amarok]

I barely know, lol, but he claimed this Peterson guy made a bunch of misogynistic statements, and when asked for evidence, he just repeats his claim and tells other people to find the evidence themselves.  Which, Ofc, is ridiculous as he well knows.  If a theist were debating this way he’d be all over them.

A feminist philosopher makes the case against Jordan Peterson
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2018/6...philosophy

Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style...-life.html

Why Are So Many Young Men Drawn to Jordan Peterson’s Intellectual Misogyny?
https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/wh...-misogyny/

Seemed easy enough for me.

Oh but kit those are all out of context .Remember anything that paints Peterson in a negative light is just his enemies smearing him .Any quotes you present of him are out of context or quote mines. And anytime you watch his videos and you come to negative conclusion it's just because have not watched enough because Peterson has already refuted your objections and his words are what you are to believe over your own mind .

---

You haven’t provided any evidence.  Period.  You can “stand by it” for as long as you like, but if you can’t back it up, then you’re standing by nothing more than a bald assertion

What i said is true period and will stand by it .It's already back up by the fact it's true .So call it what you will .

---

If I was part of an organization that built entire dozens of careers on sexual provocative-Ness I would be very careful about like waiving the ethical flag in the sexual wars. 

Admittedly, he hedges his words a bit more than you've outright said, and he does do his trademark backtrack but that subtext really seems to shine through. He doesn't outright say that victims of sexual harassment shouldn't complain, but he does talk a great bit about how they're complicit in their own harassment of they at all sexualise themselves.

Seriously, if your opponent is saying they have any trouble looking up sources they look up, point them in the right direction. If you have to, show them exactly what you're talking about.

Now watch Benny scream out of context your misquoting him his philosophy is far too broad for mere mortals to understand you have to watch a billion hours of video and 10 books by him to understand a basic point and lastly he didn't say he was having trouble in fact the total opposite because benny understands him so well as he keeps claiming.

---

So, he should have done that. That’s how this works.

Nope my way works just as well

---

 If a theist were debating this way he’d be all over them.

Not really because i have been told by theist  too look it up and i have which is why i know what their saying is wrong .

[bennyboy]

Okay, Tizh, since you're not going to give an example of what you're mentioning, I will:





About 2:20
"If I was part of an organization that built entire dozens of careers on sexual provocative-Ness I would be very careful about like waiving the ethical flag in the sexual wars."

Admittedly, he hedges his words a bit more than you've outright said, and he does do his trademark backtrack but that subtext really seems to shine through. He doesn't outright say that victims of sexual harassment shouldn't complain, but he does talk a great bit about how they're complicit in their own harassment if they at all sexualise themselves.

Seriously, if your opponent is saying they have any trouble looking up sources they look up, point them in the right direction. If you have to, show them exactly what you're talking about.

Also, I'm not sure about how much of his remarks about not knowing the rules about how men and women should work together is mere sophistry and how much of it is the expression of his being legitimately confused about social interactions (the Bible Reloaded guys hypothesised he was on the autism spectrum in the video I posted of them last night, and now I'm starting to believe it; I can relate to legitimately not knowing what the rules are in male-female interactions, especially in these MeToo days).

I gotta say, I think the interviewer is doing a good job of both listening carefully and presenting a thoughtful counter-case. Personally, I feel the rest of this thread could be productively spent on this clip. There are certainly plenty of provocative ideas here to mull over. Here are a few that stood out for me:

1) Makeup and high-heeled shoes are definitively sexualized, and any evolutionary biologist would agree with that
2) Between an environment with a non-sexualized uniform, and a more free environment, he'd choose the freer one.
3) Wearing makeup and high heels makes harassment "more likely"
4) (12:53) There are other solutions to harassment than limiting freedom of dress.
5) Tizheruk is a gerbil-hating Nazi.

My first question, right off the bat, would be-- is it really a slam dunk among evolutionary biologists that makeup and high heels are sexualized? If so, and if he's stating a position considered fact in that field, then he's really said very little to be upset about. If, on the other hand, he's pulling that out his ass-- then it looks like grandpa making stuff up, and is very likely a misogynistic jerk (as Tiz claims). I googled it, and pretty much straight away found this, which involves an actual experiment involving not only attractiveness but even gender attribution:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ber...ttractive/

The following link is an except from a seemingly female author, which talks about both high heels AND makeup in a single page:
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=2XH0...es&f=false

Obviously, I haven't really gone into it much yet, but a cursory glance seems to indicate that evolutionary psychologists do hold these beliefs in general, and they are not specific to Peterson.

So the fact that he talks about this very forthrightly, whereas most of us never would, seems to be that he simply is more educated in that field (remember he is in fact a reasonably renowned psychologist even without all the hubbub), and feels safe saying things that he feels are known to be facts, which to many not familiar with those fields would definitely be taken as misogynistic.

[Amarok]

He thinks Feminists who are not overly critical of Islam secretly crave male dominance