Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

dl-tube.com/watch?v=UFwfJVv9P34#.Wvvtj8Hnqjk.link

Thoughts on this man......

Can I just say how much I'm enjoying being fms's bad guy?

Today is shaping up to be no better than yesterday but you are cheering me right up lovey.

Heh @Teacuphiccup

“I think that was a perfectly logical example to give.”

YES, that’s why it’s called a logical extreme – just because it’s a logical example/application of the original statement doesn’t make it valid reasoning

Also, it’s funny how you have to rephrase my example statement in order to suit your interpretation. Why is it so hard for people on this forum to actually address what people say without rephrasing or misrepresentation? I mean you’ve completely changed the dynamic of the original statement:

a) “I’m so lucky” (which is a positive) has been altered to a negative statement “I have no respect”
b) Always does the dishes, becomes “doesn’t do the dishes”
c) Then you’ve topped it off with “under any circumstances”

RE: always does the dishes” / “under any circumstances” It’s funny, because I already stated that “the absurd reply only tends to be used when people make definitive statements like "always", but really it doesn't need you to plump to the absurd to disprove the notion of "always"

Regardless, I don’t feel the need to debate this with you. It’s there in black & white on the wiki link and anywhere else that explains logical fallacies. I mean the clue is right there in the name “LOGICAL FALLACY”: just because something is logical doesn’t validate the reasoning

“A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people. Don't be fooled! This website has been designed to help you identify and call out dodgy logic wherever it may raise its ugly, incoherent head.” yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

I'd be very interested to hear from someone who does agree with that Peterson quote. I'd really like to know what you think he meant to say.

@Teacuphiccup “And I’m surprised so many Peterson fans are using the ‘what he meant to say was’ technique.”

By all means feel free to quote me where I’ve said “what he actually meant was”

Pointing out the many straw men eg the Cathy Newman style “so you’re saying”, and other logical fallacies is not the same as “what he meant to say was”

Erm yes, because I switched it to echo the statement that Peterson made.

It was you who switched it around when making an example of logical fallacies, so that the example didn’t accurately reflect what Peterson had said.

I wasn’t actually talking about you fms I was talking about the people quick to say that there’s an unwritten caveat in the quote.

No you absolutely don’t need to debate with me, the Peterson quote is blindingly clear.

Has fmsfms managed a post that doesn't either bang on about logical fallacy with handy links or explain he's leaving right NOW because we are not up to the required debating standard?

Mmm,

it's there in black and white on the wiki link

everyone knows that a hyperlink posted by some random on the internet counts as irrefutable evidence. END OF DEBATE.

@Teacuphiccup "No you absolutely don’t need to debate with me, the Peterson quote is blindingly clear."

Yes blindingly clear, that's why certain posters felt the need to drag dead people like Hawking and Gandhi into the quote, lol good one

"When men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there, especially if it’s a real conversation. It keeps the thing civilized to some degree. If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone [for] whom you have absolutely no respect."

All this makes me think is that he has a very low opinion of his own sex. He sees them as having an innate predisposition to violence. It seems odd, given his poor opinion of men that he is so hostile to feminism. Surely the logical endpoint of his argument is that it's time for men to step aside and let women take over.

Teacuphiccup

I wasn’t actually talking about you fms I was talking about the people quick to say that there’s an unwritten caveat in the quote.

Which would be me.

He has used those caveats elsewhere. I agree, he should use them more often.

fmsfms But what do you think he means? You're quick to criticise the debating tactics of others, but you are just criticising others and not contributing your position. I don't know if you think it's reasonable not to be able to argue with someone without an undercurrent of violence?

certain posters

Oohhh, my ears are burning

fms is just here to ensure we're talking in an approved manner flowers, it's not his job to contribute anything useful or interesting.

@flowersonthepiano

I did actually address those words yesterday evening (before the derails and the trolling). Here is what I said:

“Well for starters those logic and facts posts are the context of debate/discussion. Whereas the Peterson clip you've provided refer to someone who has "unfairly trespassed" against him, which isn't the same context.

I assume he's meaning it in the same context as the Lord's Prayer, e.g. Forgive those that trespass against us = do us wrong. He's basically referring to a confrontation that has transcended mere difference of opinion”

It seems he’s not talking about having a debate or discussion that can potentially progress into violence, but instead a discussion with someone that has committed a wrong deed – you go with the aim of addressing it and resolving it, but if the other person doesn’t back down or admit their wrong or any other peaceful resolution then there’s the possibility of it progressing into a physical altercation

I don’t think camper was changing the meaning of the quote, she was just pointing out how ridiculous the idea within the quote was.

The idea that men have no respect for other men that won’t fight is ludicrous, as there are many men who have lots of respect who wouldn’t find for one reason or another.
Gandhi and Steven Hawking are two who we would all
A) recognise
b) instantly be able to see why they wouldn’t fight
c) they are very highly respected by pretty much everyone.

It’s a bit better than ‘I have a friend who has taken a vow of ahimsa and everyone respects him’ which is what I said and is true but you don’t know that.

Come on fms, let's say it together:

It's possible that Peterson hadn't fully thought this statement through

I can hold your hand while we say it if it helps.....

you go with the aim of addressing it and resolving it, but if the other person doesn’t back down or admit their wrong or any other peaceful resolution then there’s the possibility of it progressing into a physical altercation

No you take it to the courts.
To have a society that uses physical altercation to settle disputes will always be unequal and led by men, as these are the people who are physically more dominant.
If he is unable to resolve issues without the undercurrent of violence then he needs to sort that out, as it means he is unable to have proper discourse with a large section of the population.
Male violence is not something to be accepted as just being the order of things.

And what teacup said

Male violence is not a fait acompli

The idea that men have no respect for other men that won’t fight is ludicrous, as there are many men who have lots of respect who wouldn’t find for one reason or another.
Gandhi and Steven Hawking are two who we would all

I think it's an insightful comment from JP about how some men act i.e. the threat is sensed by their opponent that they could use violence but are choosing not to (reminds me of brinkmanship and for some reason erotic asphyxiation). Dominant men use these tactics. That's how they get to dominate. JP is one of those males. The problem comes when JP proscribes that to all men. I thought some have become more couth than that but perhaps not ;).

I think that Gandhi was fighting very very hard but using unconventional methods - but the dominant males (Brits) respected the fact he was fighting them.

Hawking - upon reflection he fights hard but with ideas and concepts. I don't get the sense he is a "soft" male

I think JP has an underlying assumption that the soft skills that women tend to be skilled in are somehow not as relevant or important as the male dominance ones and shows. He may be talking about himself here and projecting that on the world. I am always surprised he's a clinical psychologist as he has so little insight into himself.

Yes Woman, and I partly agree with Patriarchy up thread.

I do have little respect for someone who would never fight. I enjoy a good ruck-it's possible that's coming over on this thread. But not all fights are physical. There are far, far more effective methods of fighting.

Dominant men use these tactics. That's how they get to dominate.

Do they? I can only think of a very few men in positions of power that are there from brute strength and they tend to be in very particular fields where brute strength is the name of the game.
Most dominant men are there because they have money, or power, or connections, or education, or intellect.

I think only a very particular type of man sizes up other men to see if they could fight them.

I know loads of gym head beef lads who could crush most men and they have hardly any status outside the gym.

I am always surprised he's a clinical psychologist as he has so little insight into himself.

He is very professorial in his manner. Which is a male dominated field with a big pay gap. (29% in the UK).

He is my age and he presents the male socialisation mind set of his age cohort to me.

He is my age and he presents the male socialisation mind set of his age cohort to me.

Agreed.

you go with the aim of addressing it and resolving it, but if the other person doesn’t back down or admit their wrong or any other peaceful resolution then there’s the possibility of it progressing into a physical altercation

Yes, that's what the law is for. Fisticuffs may be swifter, but it doesn't ensure justice in any civilised sense. It's a regression to animalistic behaviour.

It worries me that the reason for JP's popularity among young men is that the idea of a patriarchal society governed by dominance in that sort of brutal way appeals to them.