Reply With Quote
That's more of an argument for legalizing pros ution.
What a load of . Stand up straight, keep your head up is something all parents have been saying since the dawn of time. It's about giving confidence. Confidence breeds confidence. Everyone knows that. There is nothing new written in any self help book. It's how it's worded.
Mandatory monogamy? No. But the theory behind that? yeah. Go look up these high school shooter bios and let me know about all the poontang they were getting.
That's more of an argument for legalizing pros ution.
Parents telling kids?... wtf does this have to do with anything? You think a virgin male teenager turns into some sort of killing machine? They are already outcasts. Therefore more likely to not be found attractive. You think paying for a that tells them how good they are will turn the trick? Really? Cause and effect.
You can come into a room with your shoulders pinned back against each other and it does not mean if you act like a damn fool. We are not some rooster atoo species fluffing their feathers strutting about. Communicate, yes sir, no sir, look in the eye, yes of course. But then act the damn part out, we communicate further than body language. What is thisHorse ? Behave like a human being. This lying strutting Trump is out of control. Is this were we are? We got a bunch of shut in males that need this explained?
Autism is apparently alive and well after reading the above. There is much more to parenting that gives confidence before the pinning your shoulders back . A kid is gonna feel totally weird doing any of this if parents have not instilled much more important sense of self before standing up straight... cmon now... get real.
Last edited by pgardn; 05-19-2018 at 06:04 PM.
This just reeks of male insecurity.
snowflakey.
The guy has some good points I think.
But the focus on maleness just smells of inferiority.
You are bigger and stronger than the vast majority of females gentlemen.
Now Flex.
Then break the wrist and walk away.
So I made a mistake. Describing human behavior on the basis of lobsters having serotonin is compelling only to the idiotic nonetheless.
And it is cute that you talk about avoidance, hypocrite.
I love that movie.
Do you think anybody thinks I’m a failure because I go home to Starla at night?
Do you think anybody thinks I’m a failure because I go home to Starla at night?
I love how Rex KwanDo keeps slapping Napoleon’s brother upside the head.
Ive seen that movie way too many times.
Then he beat Napolean’s Uncle up when he appeared to make a move on Staria during a sale.
The steak fling to the head and Pablo keeps bicycling on... good stuff.
The first time I saw that steak fling, I spit my drink.
"crystal clear"
if blatantly clear "enforced monogamy" is the best articulation and vocabulary that Peterson can manage for whatever totally different concept he wanted to express, he's a ty Nutty Professor and writer.
Jordan Peterson laments the demise of patriarchy. Pining for its return is equipollent to promoting the subjugation of women, legally and culturally.
No wonder IDW epigones love him so much.
Free women scare them.
Peterson's idea of masculinity is puerile, at best adolescent, and is defective personhood.
white male supremacists are misogynists, so they support Peterson's white male supremacy and misogyny
his central idea of "enforced monogamy" has so many misunderstanding (he thinks) the phrase, says that he's an inarticulate phrase maker, a second-rate, at best, thinker, just like his fans.
I explained it to winehole and he persisted. Even after I explained it, he still thought it was "crystal clear". Perhaps be a little more open and not all in on a hit piece from NYT.
Because I do not agree with your interpretation does not mean that I have not heard, or that I do not understand. I disagree, is all.
Free women scare and disgust Peterson, your attempts to sugarcoat it totally notwithstanding.
Your interpretation is nonsense and not probable given who he is. Of course you think he's bad so your entire reality is off base. The article also mentions "some people" and states your view that you placed on Peterson. The writer could have just placed Peterson in that sentence if that was his view. Really that was just part of the slanted hit piece. I also posted a rebuttal that explained "enforced monogamy". So nothing was "crystal clear" unless you are completely biased and want to smear Peterson.
Explain it then.
That was regarding the article. Not the lobster. I've explained the article.
I've seen maybe one sentence of your own words explaining it. Everything else you've posted is either someone else's words or an article/tweet.
Give us a detailed explanation of the theory including specific steps that society should take to make its benefits a reality.
How is monogamy not "socially enforced" now?
Does anyone have the full quote? All I’ve been able to find is the one sentence quip from the NYT article.
Like I said before his statement was basically a status quo statement.
All you'll be able to find is what is in that NYT article.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions