Forum menu
Yep he’s forgotten the fact that the people you should be scared of are the ones in your own home
Or that monogamy doesn't seem to magically cure violent tendencies, kind of one of his central themes in that argument. If there are flaws that early on in the research how can you be drawing the conclusions he is?
No idea mate I wasn’t defending his position on that point at all
I was pointing out that you can’t expect to criticise a bloke with nonsense
not that you did mind you but it’s happened in full effect in the thread
Yep so nobody has an answer to that one then. You can see why people are criticising though, holes in his arguments you can park a bus in.
It could be said that all that does is give those with a tendency for violence a handy victim?
Show me where he says victims of domestic violence should stay in a violent relationship?
Show me where he says victims of domestic violence should stay in a violent relationship?
Show me where he addresses the domestic violence stats when suggesting monogamy is a good thing for reducing male violence. That is the point there, but well done for the deflection argument.
So you can't then. Reducing does not mean eradicating.
I mean, statistics, lobsters, it’s obvious, really, honestly it must be though I’m not saying you should.
Sorry, I’m not saying I necessarily agree with his point here, but his detractors use the forced monogamy thing to say he’s suggesting women should be forced into marriages or sexual relationships which is not what he saying. He’s saying collectively society should form monogamous relationships. It’s two different things. He’s not saying only women should accept that that they should have a partner. It equally applies to men who may think they should be shagging as many women as possible. What’s happened though is the lonely marginalised men have taken this as though they have a right to a partner, and his detractors are saying he’s supporting that which I don’t believe.
by all means argue against the point he’s actually trying to make, that’s completely the right thing to do, but people are misinterpreting what he’s saying here and whether his actual point is right or wrong is of course entirely debatable
I can yes mike absolutely but the ones who shout the loudest need to do better 👍
So you can’t then. Reducing does not mean eradicating.
Yes but if he has not even addressed that point in his talks or writing does that mean he has not considered it or chosen to ignore it completely (it is a little inconvenient for his theories)
He’s not saying only women should accept that that they should have a partner. It equally applies to men who may think they should be shagging as many women as possible.
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
He’s saying collectively society should form monogamous relationships.
Given we have a high divorce rate, plenty of adultery going on and breakdown of relationships why should we be forming monogamous relationships? Tradition?
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
Everything and nothing.
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
Theres no point in asking me. I’m not saying I agree with him. I’m merely pointing out what his actual point is. I have no interest in debating about what he’s actually saying
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
Because it doesn't make for stable relationships. Do you honestly believe that a society doesn't benefit from the majority living in good relationships ?
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to choose how they live, only that a rejection of stable loving relationships is pure nonsense.
Well the make up at work thing for example. It is a fact that it’s a sexual trigger for men isn’t it?As already hinted at not sure he actually has much of a narrative of his own, he just jumps on inconsitancies in other people’s. Which makes him a difficult target.
no offence tinribz, but that isn’t quite what I had in mind when I asked for a crystal clear example of him
“having a habit of winning arguments with facts”
what was the argument, who was it with, what undeniable fact did he “win”the argument with?
If that’s the best you can come up with, then I’m just going to presume that your talking bollx about his legendary use of facts to slay his opposition 🙄
<div class="bbcode-quote">
no one at Oxford University takes the Oxford Union seriously. It’s well known for having a certain type of Oxford student as its membership.
</div>
What type ?(Genuine question, I haven’t got a clue)
I think Nerd is being a bit unfair, whilst it is certainly true that many at the university have little time for it and call people involved in it "hacks" (or did in my day), there is no doubt it has some fantastic debates and attracts some very good speakers. It appeals to those with an interest in politics and isn't particularly white or male, you only have to look at recent presidents to see that there are plenty of non Anglo saxon names.
Nerd is also wrong about the absence of a student union, there is one OUSU but it is not a major focus as it is in many universities as you tend to look to your college first and foremost as Nerd suggested.
Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm
In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage. That is a key finding of a new study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.
Because it doesn’t make for stable relationships. Do you honestly believe that a society doesn’t benefit from the majority living in good relationships ?
It many do many things but it doesn't seem to address his violence issues.
Currently divorce is at 42%
https://www.rainscourt.com/interesting-statistics/
Which doesn't even cover those who are not married but in relationships.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have the right to choose how they live, only that a rejection of stable loving relationships is pure nonsense.
Are all stable relationships loving? How many are? How many people are unhappy in theirs?
So far way more questions than simplistic answers. Again it's topics I'd expect to see covered in a serious discussion on the topic
but people are misinterpreting what he’s saying here and whether his actual point is right or wrong is of course entirely debatable
Misinterpretation is part of the game here, how else could someone like Peterson distance themselves from the actions of others who may have acted under the influence of his book selling tours?
Even people with half a brain can see that.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">taxi25
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
Because it doesn’t make for stable relationships. Do you honestly believe that a society doesn’t benefit from the majority living in good relationships ?
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have the right to choose how they live, only that a rejection of stable loving relationships is pure nonsense.
Shagging lots of people =/ rejecting stable loving relationships, far from it. Exclusivity isn't a requirement for a stable or loving relationship, or "good" one. In fact relationships with more flexibility can be more durable, even in a social climate that mostly assumes that exclusivity is at the heart of a relationship.
Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures
and as this one has come up before... which cultures is he referring to? (good headline rather than a good example)
and as this one has come up before… which cultures is he referring to?
He'll be reffering to Muslim cultures. As that's what would be most relivant to problems affecting western society. But you knew that didn't you. Again it's an observation, Google the subject. You'll mostly find articles by Muslim writers discussing the "negative" affects of polygamy in the modern world.
This again?
Let's get some facts in order:
1. Do we know was Alek Minassian's motive to commit mass murder? *
2. What was his background?*
3. What would 'enforced monogamy' look like and how would it have 'cured' him?
and
*4. Do you think it important to know these things before deciding if (or which aspects of) Canadian society is to blame for 'creating' Minassian?
You just keep posting ambiguous toss
You accuse me of being ambiguous whilst quoting me asking someone to be more specific?
What ****ing more do you want? My first born?
winky emoticons
Yeah, it seems to have escaped the attention of most that I made a rape joke...
and refusing to tell us what you actually think
I haven't been asked you bell end. Seriously! With the exception of mikewsmith, who I answered.
I 'm comfortable that you are enshrined in your views, but don't tell tales.
Well the make up at work thing for example. It is a fact that it’s a sexual trigger for men isn’t it?
Is it? In some circumstances it may have an impact on some men, but don't clothes, words, smiling also all have an effect, some women women who're sexually attracted to a man might chose food or just conversation instead. But that doesn't prove anything, as you have to "prove" that the same man wouldn't be attracted to the same woman without make-up, and I don't think that experiment has been done. Plus All make up? All men? All women? what d'you mean, be specific. Be, in fact, factual...
It's this sort of "Not actually a fact, but just an opinion, fact" that JP specialises in, (See also: Lobsters)
He’s saying collectively society should form monogamous relationships
But he says that because he believes in a society based around Christian teaching/beliefs, and fits his "facts" around that belief, which obviously is anathema to the scientific method, and why both the left and the right find his statements confusing, annoying and in bad faith (excuse the pun) , and why I think he chooses to obfuscate all the time.
Plus All make up? All men? All women?
That's quite a high acceptance criteria. Including all men and women in a study may push the budget. But there have been plenty of studies done and the criteria for each is quite clear. Just Google for them.
some women women who’re sexually attracted to a man might chose food or just conversation instead.
What's this food thing, am I missing a trick?
The level of hate on here and from other places is more than a bit odd and sumwhat disturbing. Do people really go through life so angry, it must make things so hard
Not hate at all. I just feel that every time JP is presented on STW as the new messiah by Geetee, I feel, in the interests of balance, that I ought to point out that he spends his time spouting some very unpleasant misogynistic views (mainly surrounded by drivel dressed up as science to give them an air of credibility). He's a very slick operator (JP), one of the highest earners on Patreon website (into millions), and he know exactly what he's doing - pandering to a rich vein of disaffected white males who can't relate to women as anything other than sex objects (which has a big cross over with Alt-Right demographic).
Agree with footlaps.
He seems to be attempting to use "science" to justify sexism, in much the same way people tried to use science to justify racism or even genocide... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Yes that pesky 'science' with its evidence and facts. 😉
The level of hate on here and from other places is more than a bit odd and sumwhat disturbing.
If you want a proper demonstration of hate I would suggest you look at some of those holding him on a pedestal.
But there have been plenty of studies done
Sexual selection in animals is a notoriously difficult discipline to begin with. Add in thousands of years of culture on top and you've significantly reduced your chances of coming to simplistic "facts" like the reason women wear makeup.
Anyone who tells you simple "truths" is probably willfully misleading you, or making it up to suit an agenda
The level of hate on here and from other places is more than a bit odd and sumwhat disturbing.
If you want a proper demonstration of hate I would suggest you look at some of those holding him on a pedestal.
This +1
The level of hate on here and from other places is more than a bit odd and sumwhat disturbing.
If you want a proper demonstration of hate I would suggest you look at some of those holding him on a pedestal.
I'd obviously agree, but why sink to their level, try and be better. Which I'd guess is what Peterson would say. I'd imagine he's more embarrassed and annoyed about the wackjobs than anyone else.
Basic rule: Follow the money.
I’d imagine he’s more embarrassed and annoyed about the wackjobs than anyone else.
He still takes the money without question
If he was worries about the nutjobs following him he would stop pandering to them
But he revels in the adulation and the controversy plus of course the money.
I’d imagine he’s more embarrassed and annoyed about the wackjobs than anyone else.
Then you'd think he'd spend more of his time voicing that opinion, rather than just ignoring the issue. Especially given that he'd not usually shy about telling people what he thinks...
When he does occasionally deny that he’s deliberately nodding to the incel lot or being misogynistic, he has that air about him like Putin saying he absolutely, definitely didn’t send anyone to Salisbury to bump anyone off
All that’s missing is a Ronaldo style wink to the camera.
He’s a proper smug ****! And he knows exactly what he’s doing.
Then you’d think he’d spend more of his time voicing that opinion, rather than just ignoring the issue.
I'd agree, I was probably being naive about his concern over the abuse directed at his detractors. But it's not common for any person or orginization to do much more than put out a blanket statement abhoring such abuse. Political parties are prime examples.
I’d obviously agree, but why sink to their level, try and be better.
Apart from it really isnt the same level is it? It is a tad false equivalence.
Which I’d guess is what Peterson would say
Why imagine? If he did really think that and wasnt fussed about the rather large amounts of cash rolling in he could stop being so vague and come out repeatedly and unambiguously that he is opposed to the Incel and other nutters.
Oh look a massively white privileged male, discussing with other white privileged males about how to keep the masses from gaining a 10th of what white privilege has got them.
It's great that we can generalize about white men and make assumptions about them based on their race. Also we can hold the entire white male population accountable for the actions of a minority.
Just like we can with black people. Hmmn.
It’s great that we can generalize about white men and make assumptions about them based on their race.
Where would that be?
he could stop being so vague and come out repeatedly and unambiguously that he is opposed to the Incel and other nutters.
When does anyone ever do that though. The abuse surrounding him flows both ways, who's speaking out against the abuse coming from the left ? Ultimately were all responsible for our own actions. I doubt anything he could say would make much difference, and it wouldn't fit in with his take responsibility, stand up for yourself message.
P.s I'm no Peterson fan, I only heard about him on here and was curious as to why some people had got their nickers in a twist.
Overall I find his message quite positive but with some cringeworthy moments. I can see how he's upset some on the left. But so what, he's not a politician or anyone who has control over anyone's life but his own. You can follow his veiws with interest or ignore, perhaps the latters best if he offends.
When does anyone ever do that though
Well I would if I had those Incel fruitcakes quoting me.
The abuse surrounding him flows both ways, who’s speaking out against the abuse coming from the left ?
Sorry which "left" is happily dredging through his word salad to find similarly nice messages as the rabid right?
and it wouldn’t fit in with his take responsibility, stand up for yourself message.
Aside from listen to him get asked about pretty much anything controversial. He dodges and dives like nobodies business. He is an amazing case of projection
You can follow his veiws with interest or ignore, perhaps the latters best if he offends.
The only interesting thing about it is how he keeps being treated like a great sage by certain communities. Everytime I check to see if he has improved and is putting forward a coherent argument I am disappointed. I am not sure whether it is simply he cant or whether it is that he does have a clear message but chooses to mask it as a method of deflecting criticism.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">taxi25
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
The abuse surrounding him flows both ways, who’s speaking out against the abuse coming from the left ?
On the right, he inspires misogyny and hate crimes, and makes excuses for their terrorism. From the left, he inspires harsh language, and blames them for the actions of the right. Another false equivalence.