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

[Amarok]

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

Go ahead and my statement has not changed in content and yes i have supported my point 

I'm not sure why you think that backpedaling and re-framing your ideas makes them any less credible.

Too bad for you my key argument remains unrefuted thus i'm doing none of they above 

 Even now, you are just copying what I've recently said to you--

About the harassment that implied in the original statement the fact i put it to the foreground does not change the central argument nor demonstrate it was not in background the original statement 

 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.

No to all they above but i imagine your just projecting

[bennyboy]

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

I don't really get this one.  I suppose he elaborates in the book.

I kind of like the second rule.  It's pretty often that I'll go the extra mile to do what's right for my family or friends, but sometimes I really get lazy when it comes to taking care of myself, or to developing myself in life.

[RoadRunner79]

---

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.

---

I think I heard an interview with this guy before. They talked about an interview where the person kept prooftexting him, and twisting everything he said. Even when corrected, the interviewer kept going, ignoring whatever he said. I wonder if it’s the same interview?

I’m not too familiar with Peterson’s work, but the clips (or quotes) from the interview where pretty bad. Anyways it sounds familiar.

As for Tiz, he will keep can keep going like this forever, and won’t provide anything that can lead to actual discussion or back up his claims. You can shame him for it, he will just call you names, and keep repeating the same crap. Even when shown otherwise. HenryP had a similar experience not too long ago.

[Amarok]

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.

Nope what i do is watch the whole video then use the pink squishy thing in my skull to process what he actually said in an unbiased and literate manor and completely understand it .Then i put it in my reasonably words because it's what he said .Intellectually speaking i have kicked your ass and i can only imagine the derp that will follow .

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.

Look as fun as it is beating up the dishonest clown cultist fool that you are . From now on when you ask for anything i will pretend you don't exist and continue stating the truth while you  futility rage at me.You will decide nothing of anything and i will laugh .That's how this will work . Because paint drying is a threesome compared to speaking with a clown like you .

---

As for Tiz, he will keep can keep going like this forever, and won’t provide anything that can lead to actual discussion or back up his claims.

 Considering all the times i have spanked you on this forum .Shut Up 

You can shame him for it, he will just call you names, and keep repeating the same crap.

You only shame because you can't win 

  Even when shown otherwise. HenryP had a similar experience not too long ago.

Henry didn't show dick no matter how many times you insist he has

[Whateverist]

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

Especially annoying ones riding on busy streets.  It is one of the few allowed methods of extreme late term abortion.

[bennyboy]

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

I don't really get this one.  I suppose he elaborates in the book.

I kind of like the second rule.  It's pretty often that I'll go the extra mile to do what's right for my family or friends, but sometimes I really get lazy when it comes to taking care of myself, or to developing myself in life.

Okay, pretty interesting, actually.

[paulpablo]

This is a quote by you....




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.

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

This is a different claim to what you originally said but it's also wrong.  He explained that make up and high heels are sexual signaling.

I think that make up and high heels are sexual signaling but don't believe I should be able to sexually harass women and they shouldn't complain about it.

[Amarok]

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

This is a different claim to what you originally said but it's also wrong.  He explained that make up and high heels are sexual signaling.

I think that make up and high heels are sexual signaling but don't believe I should be able to sexually harass women and they shouldn't complain about it.

This is a different claim to what you originally said but it's also wrong

No it's not too both 

 He explained that make up and high heels are sexual signaling.

I already addressed that 

I think that make up and high heels are sexual signaling but don't believe I should be able to sexually harass women and they shouldn't complain about it.

I know you don't tihnk that because unlike Peterson your a decent person

[robvalue]

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?

The book is saturated with it. One of his main themes is to equate chaos with the feminine, and order with the masculine. He starts off talking about symbolism but quickly dives into the literal. I'll type up most of the second paragraph, from p41:

Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection. Women are choosy maters (unlike female chimps, their closest animal counterparts). Most men do not meet female human standards. It is for this reason that women on dating sites rate 85 percent of men as below average in attractiveness.

...

It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, "No!" For the men, that's a direct encounter with chaos, and it occurs with devastating force every time they are turned down for a date. Human female choosiness is also why we are very different from the common ancestor we shared with our chimpanzee cousins, while the latter are very much the same. Women's proclivity to say no, more than any other force, has shaped our evolution into the creative, industrious, upright, large-brained (competitive, aggressive, domineering) creatures that we are. It is Nature as Women who says, "Well, Bucko, you're good enough for a friend, but my experience of you so far has not indicated the suitability of your genetic material for continued propagation."

As well as being misogynistic tripe, this is also a complete load of balls. The idea of women saying "no" and men respecting that is a very recent concept, so can't possibly have accounted for our evolution in the way he claims.

[Amarok]

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?

The book is saturated with it. One of his main themes is to equate chaos with the feminine, and order with the masculine. He starts off talking about symbolism but quickly dives into the literal. I'll type up most of the second paragraph, from p41:

Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection. Women are choosy maters (unlike female chimps, their closest animal counterparts). Most men do not meet female human standards. It is for this reason that women on dating sites rate 85 percent of men as below average in attractiveness.

...

It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, "No!" For the men, that's a direct encounter with chaos, and it occurs with devastating force every time they are turned down for a date. Human female choosiness is also why we are very different from the common ancestor we shared with our chimpanzee cousins, while the latter are very much the same. Women's proclivity to say no, more than any other force, has shaped our evolution into the creative, industrious, upright, large-brained (competitive, aggressive, domineering) creatures that we are. It is Nature as Women who says, "Well, Bucko, you're good enough for a friend, but my experience of you so far has not indicated the suitability of your genetic material for continued propagation."

There is that too .Good thought my friend .