Jordan Peterson crushed like an insolent fly by panel of judges

Not getting younger

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2022
4,572
2,463
113
Is it actually under their code of conduct. Or do a chosen few get to make up the rules when and as they see fit.


2.1 General Conduct
Members must conduct themselves so that their activities and/or those conducted under their direction comply with those statutes and regulations that applyto the provision of psychological services.

And their claim of “hurting” clients.
1) not clients. Not sure why people gloss over this… Reality check. Argument should end right here….Their own code, in black and white, say…..when his conduct falls under their domain. Is it simply because you don’t like him?

2) who made them god. That they can say what we, the public, find is acceptable to hear, is good for our health, however you want to word it.

Funny, as a member of the public I don’t recall giving them authority over me. Do you?
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,282
22,073
113
Funny, as a member of the public I don’t recall giving them authority over me. Do you?
This line, stupid as it is, sums up your argument.

Of course the college has zero authority over you, they have no power over anyone who isn't a member of their club.
But its their club, their rules and they get to say if someone broke them.
If Peterson wants to be a member of that club and not just an internet troll he has to play by their rules.

What authority do you think they would have over you?
 

Not getting younger

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2022
4,572
2,463
113
Good. He's a complete nutjob
Hopefully you won’t take this personally Symphony. It’s not
They should investigate that school trustee Dr Nili Kaplan Myrth in the Ottawa area. That chick is nuts. If they went after JP and this is suppose to be a non partisan investigation than they should go after her for how she acts on Twitter. But we all know why they went after Jordan

Dont Know her, or of her. I’ll take your word.

The stuff with JP, at brass tacks is about people’s emotions. They don’t like him, or what he has to say rather than, the rule of law ( or code as the case may be). And as far as this latter goes. I don’t ever remember consenting to them having authority over what I get to hear/think should I choose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Grabembythepenis

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,435
1,760
113
Is it actually under their code of conduct. Or do a chosen few get to make up the rules when and as they see fit.
First off, there is no Code of Conduct and you've been referring to the wrong thing this whole time because, despite being told you would foolish if you didn't, you still haven't read the Court's decision. You're referring to the STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (2017). Which is called "the Standard" in the Court's decision. "The Code" is actually Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. The Standard is barely referenced in both the decision of the CPO and the decision by the Court. It's the Code that the college is saying Peterson violated, and the Standard merely says the Code applies.

2.1 General Conduct
Members must conduct themselves so that their activities and/or those conducted under their direction comply with those statutes and regulations that applyto the provision of psychological services.


I'm not sure what you think you've stumbled on here. Are you trying to say the Standard (and also the Code) only apply when providing psychological services? Because your highlighting seems to imply that, but read more closely and that's not at all what that section says. It says the statutes and regulations that are relevant are those that deal with the provision of psychological services, not that members are only subject to them when providing psychological services. In other words, members don't have to follow the Code of Ethics for Professional Engineers, because that isn't related to the application of psychological services.

And their claim of “hurting” clients.
1) not clients. Not sure why people gloss over this… Reality check. Argument should end right here….Their own code, in black and white, say…..when his conduct falls under their domain. Is it simply because you don’t like him?
But again, that's not the Code, that's the Standard, and it does apply. Check the APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS in the Standard, and you'll see this:

Public Statements: statements in any medium that include, but are not limited to paid or unpaid advertising, grant and credentialing applications, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal resumes or curricula vitae, comments for use in media including print and electronic transmission, statements in legal proceedings and contained in the public record, lectures and public presentations, and published materials.

It applies to his public statements. That's why thats in "APPLICABILITY". This is also on the Court's decision that clearly you still refuse to read. See lines 41, 54 and 55 specifically in the Court's decision.

2) who made them god. That they can say what we, the public, find is acceptable to hear, is good for our health, however you want to word it.
First off, they aren't saying you aren't allowed to hear anything. They're saying a member of their association, while identifying themselves as a member of their association and using the authority as a member of their association, can't say certain things. They didn't send notice to Joe Rogan, who participated in one of the incidents that is cited in the decision, that he can't say whatever he wants. It regulates members of the College, not members of the public. And if Peterson refuses to take their training and loses his license, the only thing that they will have authority over him saying is that he will no longer be allowed to claim to be a member of their College, and he'll be free to say anything else he likes.

As to who made them "God", their authority to regulate psychologists literally comes from the laws that pertain to the provision of psychological services. There is a statutory mandate that the College regulates the progression. Line 5 in the decision you still refuse to read no matter how many times you look silly. From the Standard (not the Code) that you keep citing, you are referred to the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 38. It's worth noting that in 2021, Ontario passed the Psychology and Applied Behaviour Analysis Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 27, Sched. 4 and repealed the Psychology Act, 1991, but the 2021 act doesn't come in force and therefore the 1991 act is not repealed not until July 1, 2024. Either way, both mandate that the College oversea the professional conduct of its members.

Funny, as a member of the public I don’t recall giving them authority over me. Do you?
I don't. But then they aren't exercising authority over you. They're exercising authority over a member of their College as they are required to do by law and as Jordan Peterson agreed to let them do when he joined the College and further, I might add, that he agreed they have the authority to do in court case he just had which is the topic of this thread. All of which is explained in the decision if you would just read it. It's 18 pages. Unless you suck at reading, it's like 5 minutes. It would have taken you less time to read it than it has taken for you to make all these ridiculous posts making arguments that are all addressed and answered in said decision.

Your refusal to just read the damned thing is astonishing. Do you think reading a numbered listing of the facts, followed by a numbered listing of the arguments, followed by a numbered step-by-step analysis and finally a numbered conclusion is somehow beneath you? Why do you think you can offer intelligent opinion or insight into a thing that you have not read? It's ludicrous. Just read it.
 

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,435
1,760
113
They should investigate that school trustee Dr Nili Kaplan Myrth in the Ottawa area. That chick is nuts. If they went after JP and this is suppose to be a non partisan investigation than they should go after her for how she acts on Twitter. But we all know why they went after Jordan
According to her bio she's a member of The College of Family Physicians of Canada, not the College of Psychologists, so I'm not sure why you think the College of Psychologists has any authority over anything she says or does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

Not getting younger

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2022
4,572
2,463
113
Holy Fuck I thought I could be long winded.
I know you don’t like me Dinkle because you looked beyond stupid not long ago.

Even though I liked and said “now we are getting somewhere” aka “good post, agree”.
what is your major malfunction:)
 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
13,771
5,524
113
You didn't really understand my post, did you Richie?

Try again tomorrow morning and maybe you'll make a little more progress. Keep trying though.
not that hard to understand....specially coming from you....you know...i know...
 

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,435
1,760
113
Holy Fuck I thought I could be long winded.
I know you don’t like me Dinkle because you looked beyond stupid not long ago.
😂 if you say so. You keep referencing the wrong document and trying to debunk a court ruling that you haven't even read, and you think a professional body censuring it's members of somehow them controlling you, but I'm the one who looks stupid? 😂 if you say so.

Even though I liked and said “now we are getting somewhere” aka “good post, agree”.
what is your major malfunction:)
What does you agreeing with one older post have to do with the current posts? I'm quoting you and explaining why you're wrong. The fact that you liked that one thing I said that one time isn't relevant.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,991
2,475
113
TORONTO — An Ontario court has ruled against controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson, upholding a regulatory body's order that he undergo social media training.
Last November, Peterson, who is also an author and media commentator, was ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo a coaching program on professionalism in public statements.
That followed numerous complaints to the governing body of Ontario psychologists, of which Peterson is a member, regarding his online commentary directed at politicians, a plus-sized model and transgender actor Elliot Page, among other issues.
The college's complaints committee concluded his controversial public statements could amount to professional misconduct and ordered the social media coaching program – failure to comply could mean the loss of his licence to practice psychology in the province.


Peterson filed for a judicial review, arguing his political commentary is not under the college's purview.
The Ontario Divisional Court has dismissed Peterson's application, ruling that the college's decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression.
Peterson, a retired University of Toronto psychology professor, rose to prominence through his polarizing YouTube videos critiquing liberal culture and his successful self-help book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 23, 2023.
The Canadian Press

Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order (msn.com)
The Divisional Court blows it. On to the Court of Appeal. Such a country we live in. Canadians are proud to claim that we are a democratic country where citizens enjoy rights and freedoms, yet people like you, and MANY like you, cheer every effort to restrict those fundamental freedoms. Inexplicable.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,991
2,475
113
The courts have ruled against Jackass Jordan and all you hear from his sheep is "woke" this "woke" that. What a bunch of bullshit. Joran is a con man and the courts slapped the conman.
That's not what courts are for. Are you advocating that courts should act as a type of police, making sure to "slap" unpopular public figures?

The decision of the court actually says the opposite - that they will NOT interfere in a decision within the mandate of the profession's regulatory body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
20,476
14,998
113
That's not what courts are for. Are you advocating that courts should act as a type of police, making sure to "slap" unpopular public figures?
Um, Jordan brought the case to the courts, what did you expect them to do? Now he's talking about an appeal, hopefully, the appellate court tells him to go jerk off in a circle jerk with his sheep and stop wasting the court's time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,435
1,760
113
Better question.
What is the motivation behind your childish post

I know, but do you? Honest enough with yourself to answer?
What about my post was childish? I referenced the provincial statute, I referenced the Code of Ethics, I referenced the Standard of Conduct, I referenced the Court's Decision. I even gave line numbers for reference, and instead is a logical rebuttal, you said I looked stupid with no reference.

I don't know about you, but I'm not familiar with many children who receive laws or statutes. I do, however, know many children who comment on things they aren't educated about and who don't like to read things. 👀 😂
 

newguy20

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2011
1,269
1,515
113
JP's license is pretty much useless at this point.
1. Who would ever go see him.
2. He can make way more money doing his schtick.

He will fight to keep his license, only because him keeps him in the news.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,991
2,475
113
You are right in that the law should generally not meddle with social media unless its terrorism etc., But, in the case of JP, it makes sense. Would a woman having a career crisis want to go to JP given his very outspoken views on feminism? Or would someone trans feel comfortable with JP as their therapist? So in this case his social media comments does have an impact on his practice.
At least Peterson's views were made public, and your hypothetical woman could choose to engage his services or not. Instead, she'll end up going to another therapist who holds views she would disagree with or would be concerned about, and she'll never know. I guess that's the way that the College thinks the profession should operate! Insanity.
 
Toronto Escorts