Jordan Peterson says Ontario psychologist licence may be suspended over public statements
- Thread starter Knuckle Ball
- Start date
Well, Wyatt, its all to do with your answers and phrasing, where you asked 'is it wrong to question authority' when I asked you about the CPO findings.
When you said 'I just don't know' that was likely the most accurate answer from you but the question then becomes, if you want to question authority and don't know or understand the CPO findings why didn't you do some research?
Valcazar and I have both posted links to the CPO statements, you can find the CPO website and standards if you looked and you could have checked out other sources.
Instead, after 400 posts in this thread about the subject you come out as someone who has strong opinions yet won't do the basic research to find out if those opinions are justified.
And yes, lots of right wingers go all cancel culture when they find don't do well in debates. Lots of people who argue for free speech also seem to be the first to want to ban people or stifle their free speech.
Name a professional organization that obligates you to report speeding fines.
Last edited:
I'm looking forward to the tiktok which says "punctuality is a symptom of white supremacist" thinking becoming mainstream. Then I can sleep in and I can ignore 9:00 AM court.
Frank, I have been reading and I have been questioning. After 360 something posts in this thread, you have to do better than the experts at COP have spoken. Where are you in this thread? The whole thread has been those who challenge the COP and those who support them.
Huh? You challenged me and I firmly explained why I thought you were errantly tracking me for whatever reason you have rationalized. I can't help you if you think people are trying to ban you or stifle you.
As always, you and all of us would do well to stay in the conversation as much as possible and not get over our skiis trying to challenge specific members for various motivations.
Wyatt, I posted the CPO findings and you (or it could have been someone else, it was a couple of hundred posts ago) asked why I would post something boring and off topic.
That is the level of discourse here from the Peterson supporters.
Over 400 posts and not one went to the CPO website, press releases or findings to try to actually understand what is the CPO position.
Imagine if they dedicated the same amount of time as say, 200 posts, to doing basic research.
They wouldn't just be arguing whether or not its ok to question authority, they could specifically state 'JP said this, the CPO says this, the CPO is wrong'.
Instead its just:
You yourself could cite specific instances that the COP noted and make your case. That doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with your findings. That's the nature of public discourse.
And no, I didn't say anything criticizing your posting of CPO findings. I have found the COP supporters to be generally vague. I hear a lot about how much money Peterson's making.
I dont think so. I would challenge these polls, the demographic groups it was targeted, the inherent bias involved etc.,
In my career, I have always seen women trusting and preferring to work with women, than men. Infact I have explicitly been told that multiple times. I quote a female colleague I once had - "Women prefer working with women because we are not afraid to be vulnerable with each other, which creates more trust".
I have also almost always seen organizations in which the leader is a female, the subsequent positions are all filled by women, not men.
I could, but that would be once again doing your research for you.
The point is that you didn't do any research and refuse to do so now.
Your mind was made up before you found all the facts.
I would listen to D'Souza talk about anything like I would listen to my toilet talk about anything.....
That's double talk Frank.
You make your best case instead of thinking you're going to hand out research assignments.
362 posts and I get this nonsense "You don't accept the findings of the CPO, who know the profession and what Peterson said?" And now I have to do more research? Seriously, that's an early post in this thread that should've been directed more to general audience.
Incidentally, don't try to track me here and target your responses. That's a form of trolling whether you understand that or not.
Last edited:
What would you like me to do find a way to scrub the countless polls on the internet that support this finding because you feel there is inherent bias?
I can offer a anecdote of my own. I manage large teams and I always have to be cognizant of female managers to female staff dynamics. Guys, they don't give a shit about liking their boss, being friends with their boss, etc. They just get past that. I would say it's getting better because women are getting better at what I call team dynamics. No, we don't all have to be buddies to do the job. Still, I can take a group of male employees (including the female employees of course) who aren't friendly out for drinks. Women employees are more finicky about interpersonal relationships with female co-workers.
This is a generalization of course just like yours.
By the way, this seems like a bit of projection: "Women prefer working with women because we are not afraid to be vulnerable with each other, which creates more trust". Somehow the polling doesn't pick this up. I don't think you can find one study that supports your POV.
This video is in regards to a study in Australia. This female Australian researcher found that 80% women preferred working for men. So I know it's not just an American thing. In fact, she said ".......if you go to the literature, there's huge studies all replicating these findings. Gallup in the U.S. has tracked this for sixty years and we're still not shifting the data too much."
I would listen to Shapiro talk about anything like I would listen to my turds talk about anything.....
Many of us enjoy listening to your turds here.
You won't have to wait long. This Congresswoman is on the case.
