See that's the same exaggeration that I mentioned, it's everywhere these days. It's the same type that lead to people seriously saying gay marriage will lead to people marrying 6 year olds and animals. Regardless of the issue people extrapolate to some insane level.
Wait, a 50 year old man who is claiming to be a 6 year old girl is an extrapolation? It actually happened. Not an extrapolation. You might want to look up the definition. Sorry, I see what you did there. You cut out where I drew the comparison to claim it was an extrapolation. You are disingenuous. Your argument is flawed.
No, I cut it down to the part where you extrapolated because that was my point. I ignored your example because I didn't find it relevant. Your extrapolation and example is exaggeration because the proposed law didn't didn't affect any of those cases including the guy thinking he was a 6 year old. Please point to where in the law it covered your cases. Take your time if you want. Despite not agreeing with the law I find it weird how people can cram all kinds of nonsense into it that wasn't there.
There was no law in the quote from the person I was talking to. Where you get that I’m quoting law or how it affects people is how you say “cram nonsense”. I get the bill that was talked about in the video, but I didn’t respond to the video. I responded to a post. Even with the video, my example wouldn’t matter because the gentlemen I cited was in America I believe. You are continually misrepresenting who I’m talking to, and what I’m talking about.
Since the topic title was Peterson and his stances on Canadian law I'm not sure how I was supposed to know you switched the discussion to the US.
The OP’s topic had nothing to do with Canadian law. It was about the interview he did. Where I felt Mr. Peterson killed it. That other video which I’m not sure if the OP brought out had to do with something unrelated. Not exactly irrelevant though. Still, I never brought up any law. Even if I did, then here. If that POS 50 year old man expects, and the government mandates, like the similar law in the video presumably expects, both can cram it. A Doctor actually earns their title, but there’s no law saying you have to call them that.
I think that's where the confusion arose, to me Peterson is discussing his book and views on only Canadian law, feminism, personality etc. since I don't believe he's ever done research outside Canada. So while he occasionally comments on a wider view I'm dubious he's as informed about other countries as natives would be. As for 50 year old man, I still don't know the case but the Canadian law wouldn't have: treated him as a minor if he committed a crime, stripped his drivers license, issued a new birth certificate, and other issues so that's what led to my confusion when I thought you were discussing Canadian law.
Except the interview was conducted in the UK. They were both talking globally, not just about Canada.
And I don't think studying people in Canada makes him an expert globally, just on Canada. Him or her extrapolating onto the world was dubious to me. These days people somehow are created to be experts on huge issues. Hell, somehow Kim Kardashian becomes an empowered Mother figure because she fucked some guy on tape and Kanye had a list showing that he'll solve the world energy problems. Is Peterson as bad? No, but I've seen zero evidence that he's spent years researching the problems with feminism in say France, Argentina, etc. The current news and social media create different 'experts' or role models out of whoever is popular or controversial enough to get views. And create figures to fight or agree with. Like Oprah being held up as a great presidential candidate despite no one having a clue of her stances on anything. /rant off That's not directed at you, just the way 'celebrities' are created to opine beyond themselves
I appreciate that your rant isn’t directed at me. All the other people you cited here are celebrities except the big one. Peterson is certified in his field. That tends to lend credence to what they’re saying. It’s up to you if you believe them.
He's certified in Canada. As for the others I choose names we'd both likely know of. Another example might be Thunderf00t. He's certified in his science but became a big name anti feminist, but then got torn down over Brexit and other issues. People raised him up outside of his area of expertise, and depending on your opinion of the issue it lead to other problems. I agree with a fair amount of what Peterson says in relation to Canadians. I just extremely strongly doubt he's studied relationships in Italy, China for example. In your view why would a U.K. channel invite him on in the first place?
To try to discredit him. I believe they failed. It’s too late for me tonight. Thank you for the discussion, I’m going to bed.
men are dropping out because they're lazy or have issues but are too prideful to seek help. it's not because of "feminazis".
Well, I think Jordan Peterson is on to something, but he doesn't quite hit the mark. One of the BIGGEST mistakes he makes is with so called "dominance hierarchies" or "hierarchies of competence". You can find the explanation here, if you're patient. The intro is about string theory but you can skip to 9:00 and the video builds up from there. Basically, the "answer" to everything is the Normal Distribution, and you simply need to understand it to understand pretty much everything.