High rates of Divorce in Pak society and esp in Military class

[That Guy]

While talking to us in an informal manner, She is making a general observation about the society based on what she has seen, an observation that many people living here can resonate with, whether she presents "actual facts and statistics" or not, we know what she is talking about is actually happening here. She is not publishing a research study or making a formal claim that would require that kind of data. Imposition of such a condition and belittling the OP for not fulfilling it is absurd and reeks of bias.

Though even if a formal inquiry is made into the subject and facts and statistics are compiled from a large enough sample, the conclusions are extremely likely to be confirmed, when that happens, the progressive lot would simply deny them and probably go full ad hominem on anyone who presents those facts.




Anyone with an iota on common sense and who isn't biased can clearly see that these articles are little more than a smear campaign against that man while pretending to be critique. One needs to go no further than a couple of paragraphs deep to see that.
and you accuse them of being "far smarter than me and you"



lol through the interview, she comes at him from left right and center, uses every dirty trick in the book to attack him, trying to put words in his mouth, desperately trying to force him into a position where she can attack him, asking loaded questions that make false pre suppositions, trying to provoke, and despite all that, he kept his cool and calm, presented his views with integrity, and deflected or countered all her attacks and then took her to school to boot.



She(Cathy Newman aka 'So you're saying') starts the interview by asking him: “Jordan Peterson, you’ve said that men need to, quote, ‘grow the hell up.’ Tell me why.”
answering her question, he talked about this subject for the first 5 minutes or so which included bits about an overgrown child and growing up and adopting responsibility. This was not entire premise, only first 5 min or so, secondly, this opening part was set by the host herself due to her opening question, the professor was simply answering her question, thirdly, there's nothing really flawed about the views he expresses on the subject, they make a lot of sense actually.
Quite an amusing interview:

No wonder the SJWs and the like go after him like a vengeful ex wife.

Oh look, we got a peterson worshipper here.

You didn't read a single comment I made, and did exactly what you're accusing me of. Nice job.

Also, Cathy Newman did not strawman him, he was deliberately vague on almost all of his points, to the point that he had no clear stance on anything. Saying 'would you rather overgrown baby, or a responsible man's is not a stance, it's a shitty false choice, and you know it.

You dismissing those articles is basically you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I have zero doubt that you didn't actually read the articles, but sure,keep pretending you're some pseudo intellectual, anti-sjw black knight.

As for the OP, when you make a statement and say that it is factual, you better have facts to prove it.

And no, I wouldn't dismiss anything, so long as a legitimate study from a respected institution exists.

We both know what you're doing, stop it. You know you dont have a point, so youre just saying a bunch or random talking points.

Well, as i said you don't get it.

You feel the burning need to defend him when even he himself is not. You're thick for not getting the obvious message.

The lesson here is when you make racist, rude comments, you will get the appropriate response. We Pashtuns have our culture and values intact by and large because we're not insecure about ourselves.

I wish he really walks up to some woman thinking he's a knight in shining armour saving oppressed ladies in shuttle cock burqas from big bad Pashtun men. Would love to see what happens to him hehe.

I'm not defending him, so much as point out your illogical stance.

Also, what racist comments? You think Pashtun women are the only ones that wear the burqa? Do you really think the world revolves around you?

I've experienced racism, REAL getting-my-***-kicked racism. Stop trivializing the word.

The actual lesson here is that you're self centered and think the world revolves around you.

Finally, you still haven't answered my question,do you think that any woman who doesn't wear the burqa is naked?

 

[curious]

Oh look, we got a peterson worshipper here.

You didn't read a single comment I made, and did exactly what you're accusing me of. Nice job.

Yes not agreeing with your claims regarding him must make me his worshiper. Nice.

Also, Cathy Newman did not strawman him, he was deliberately vague on almost all of his points, to the point that he had no clear stance on anything.

Yes Cathy Newman did not strawman him, she tried to strawman him, but failed.
No he didn't look deliberately vague. Though the host without a doubt was attacking him throughout the interview.

Saying 'would you rather overgrown baby, or a responsible man's is not a stance, it's a shitty false choice, and you know it.

No its not a "shitty false choice" because you say so, you need to substantiate it which you failed to do, and you know it. Again:
She(Cathy Newman aka 'So you're saying') starts the interview by asking him: “Jordan Peterson, you’ve said that men need to, quote, ‘grow the hell up.’ Tell me why.”
answering her question, he talked about this subject for the first 5 minutes or so which included bits about an overgrown child and growing up and adopting responsibility. This was not entire premise, only first 5 min or so, secondly, this opening part was set by the host herself due to her opening question, the professor was simply answering her question, thirdly, there's nothing really flawed about the views he expresses on the subject, they make a lot of sense actually.

You dismissing those articles is basically you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I have zero doubt that you didn't actually read the articles, but sure,keep pretending you're some pseudo intellectual, anti-sjw black knight.

Any unbiased person would dismiss those articles as a smear campaign. Its totally obvious. As i said before:
Anyone with an iota on common sense and who isn't biased can clearly see that these articles are little more than a smear campaign against that man while pretending to be critique. One needs to go no further than a couple of paragraphs deep to see that.
and you accuse them of being "far smarter than me and you"

As for the OP, when you make a statement and say that it is factual, you better have facts to prove it.

And no, I wouldn't dismiss anything, so long as a legitimate study from a respected institution exists.

Wonderful, you missed the point.Again.

We both know what you're doing, stop it. You know you dont have a point, so youre just saying a bunch or random talking points.

Wow your really full of it aren't you?
Making bold claims without substance to back them up, and this domineering, condescending manner, we all know what your doing, stop it. You got a big, ugly, smelly chip on that shoulder of yours, consider loosing it.

 

[That Guy]

Yes not agreeing with your claims regarding him must make me his worshiper. Nice.



Yes Cathy Newman did not strawman him, she tried to strawman him, but failed.
No he didn't look deliberately vague. Though the host without a doubt was attacking him throughout the interview.


No its not a "shitty false choice" because you say so, you need to substantiate it which you failed to do, and you know it. Again:
She(Cathy Newman aka 'So you're saying') starts the interview by asking him: “Jordan Peterson, you’ve said that men need to, quote, ‘grow the hell up.’ Tell me why.”
answering her question, he talked about this subject for the first 5 minutes or so which included bits about an overgrown child and growing up and adopting responsibility. This was not entire premise, only first 5 min or so, secondly, this opening part was set by the host herself due to her opening question, the professor was simply answering her question, thirdly, there's nothing really flawed about the views he expresses on the subject, they make a lot of sense actually.




Any unbiased person would dismiss those articles as a smear campaign. Its totally obvious. As i said before:
Anyone with an iota on common sense and who isn't biased can clearly see that these articles are little more than a smear campaign against that man while pretending to be critique. One needs to go no further than a couple of paragraphs deep to see that.
and you accuse them of being "far smarter than me and you"




Wonderful, you missed the point.Again.



Wow your really full of it aren't you?
Making bold claims without substance to back them up, and this domineering, condescending manner, we all know what your doing, stop it. You got a big, ugly, smelly chip on that shoulder of yours, consider loosing it.

Haven't made a single claim, all I've done is ask for evidence, and nothing more.

All you've done here literally repeat yourself, nothing more. You didn't actually address my points, so much as dismiss them.

Also, learn what the hell a strawman argument actually is, because it's clear that you don't.

When it comes to the question (you literally repeated yourself here), the answer was shit, regardless of the question's setup. Opinionated answers dont have to give false choices "man baby or grown up"? What the hell kind of choice is that? It's like only two kinds of men exist in his world.

This is why I hate peterson fanboys, they're so full of shit, that they shut their ears, and repeat themselves constantly, until the other person just gives up.

I repeat, peterson is a psychologist, not a sociologist. If you want an educated opinion on sociological issues, don't go to Peterson for them.

By the way, I didn't miss any point, you're just pretending I did, because you have no point to make, other than defending your lord and emperor jordan peterson, and a silly unsubstantiated and unproven point by the op.

 

[curious]

Haven't made a single claim, all I've done is ask for evidence, and nothing more.

All you've done here literally repeat yourself, nothing more. You didn't actually address my points, so much as dismiss them.

Oh really? you haven't made a single claim? Shall i post instances from your posts where you do?
It has come to this now, flat out denial.
Even if i do, you'll just deny it and accuse me of pretending or some nonsense like that.
Your "points" were addressed refuted, dismissed.

Also, learn what the hell a strawman argument actually is, because it's clear that you don't.

Oh yes, there are a few things that are becoming clear...

When it comes to the question (you literally repeated yourself here), the answer was shit, regardless of the question's setup. Opinionated answers dont have to give false choices "man baby or grown up"? What the hell kind of choice is that? It's like only two kinds of men exist in his world.

You are repeating the same silly argument, getting the same answer that has already dealt with it. No,the answer was anything but "shit", and it wasn't a "shitty false choice". Given the question, the answer was quite reasonable and it made sense.
once more:
No its not a "shitty false choice" because you say so, you need to substantiate it which you failed to do, and you know it. Again:
She(Cathy Newman aka 'So you're saying') starts the interview by asking him: “Jordan Peterson, you’ve said that men need to, quote, ‘grow the hell up.’ Tell me why.”
answering her question, he talked about this subject for the first 5 minutes or so which included bits about an overgrown child and growing up and adopting responsibility. This was not entire premise, only first 5 min or so, secondly, this opening part was set by the host herself due to her opening question, the professor was simply answering her question, thirdly, there's nothing really flawed about the views he expresses on the subject, they make a lot of sense actually.

This is why I hate peterson fanboys, they're so full of shit, that they shut their ears, and repeat themselves constantly, until the other person just gives up.

Interesting, cutting out the first bit of the sentence, i.e. "This is why I hate peterson fanboys,"
You describe yourself quite decently there.

By the way, I didn't miss any point, you're just pretending I did, because you have no point to make, other than defending your lord and emperor jordan peterson, and a silly unsubstantiated and unproven point by the op.

So you say you didn't miss any point, then your just ignoring them or just pretending its not a point so they don't have to be refuted, while pretending to have valid points yourself while pretending superiority over the ones who differ with you and treating them in a domineering manner. Quite a tangled web you weave there.
It is you who has no point to make, using such antics to compensate for it is futile.

So he is my "lord and emperor" rather than the object of worship now? I'd say we're making progress here lol

 

[That Guy]

Oh really? you haven't made a single claim? Shall i post instances from your posts where you do?
It has come to this now, flat out denial.
Even if i do, you'll just deny it and accuse me of pretending or some nonsense like that.
Your "points" were addressed refuted, dismissed.


Oh yes, there are a few things that are becoming clear...



You are repeating the same silly argument, getting the same answer that has already dealt with it. No,the answer was anything but "shit", and it wasn't a "shitty false choice". Given the question, the answer was quite reasonable and it made sense.
once more:
No its not a "shitty false choice" because you say so, you need to substantiate it which you failed to do, and you know it. Again:
She(Cathy Newman aka 'So you're saying') starts the interview by asking him: “Jordan Peterson, you’ve said that men need to, quote, ‘grow the hell up.’ Tell me why.”
answering her question, he talked about this subject for the first 5 minutes or so which included bits about an overgrown child and growing up and adopting responsibility. This was not entire premise, only first 5 min or so, secondly, this opening part was set by the host herself due to her opening question, the professor was simply answering her question, thirdly, there's nothing really flawed about the views he expresses on the subject, they make a lot of sense actually.



Interesting, cutting out the first bit of the sentence, i.e. "This is why I hate peterson fanboys,"
You describe yourself quite decently there.



So you say you didn't miss any point, then your just ignoring them or just pretending its not a point so they don't have to be refuted, while pretending to have valid points yourself while pretending superiority over the ones who differ with you and treating them in a domineering manner. Quite a tangled web you weave there.
It is you who has no point to make, using such antics to compensate for it is futile.

So he is my "lord and emperor" rather than the object of worship now? I'd say we're making progress here lol

This is the third time you've just repeated yourself, without actually addressing anything.

If you have no point to make, then keep quiet.

 

[curious]

This is the third time you've just repeated yourself, without actually addressing anything.

If you have no point to make, then keep quiet.

LoLs what an utterly pathetic response...as its coming from you, i am not surprised.

Ill leave it to the people reading this thread to decide whether it is i(or others) that you accuse here of having no point to make, that have no point to make, or if its you who has no point to make.

As for you Mr 'think tank analyst'
I repeat, You got a big ,ugly, smelly chip on that shoulder of yours, consider loosing it. Peace

 

[Pandora]

These are the effects of letting those libtards roam free in Pakistan. Even our TV dramas promote cheating and out of marriage relation which is the main cause divorces. It is not just with women but also men who opt to divorce women merely bcz they found some sort of angelic woman. I have seen so many disturbing cases where men opt for young women and discard life long partners with whom they spent 20 - 30 years of life.

 

[That Guy]

LoLs what an utterly pathetic response...as its coming from you, i am not surprised.

Ill leave it to the people reading this thread to decide whether it is i(or others) that you accuse here of having no point to make, that have no point to make, or if its you who has no point to make.

As for you Mr 'think tank analyst'
I repeat, You got a big ,ugly, smelly chip on that shoulder of yours, consider loosing it. Peace

Other people are making points, even ones I disagree with, like @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

However, you are not.

Go back to lurking, you're better at that than making actual points, fanboy.

 

[curious]

Other people are making points, even ones I disagree with, like @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

However, you are not.

Go back to lurking, you're better at that than making actual points, fanboy.

Hmm.. from worshipper to having him as lord and emperor to fanboy now, very nice, you making good progress here kid, keep at it.

People that have an actual point to make don't have to resort to such antics as attacking, belittling others who differ.

But sure, keep pretending & living in your little bubble.

 

[That Guy]

Hmm.. from worshipper to having him as lord and emperor to fanboy now, very nice, you making good progress here kid, keep at it.

People that have an actual point to make don't have to resort to such antics as attacking, belittling others who differ.

But sure, keep pretending & living in your little bubble.

Nah, you're all three. You are both a fan and worshipper of your lord emperor jordan peterson, but that's neither here nor there.

It's also ironic that you're accusing me of belittling you, considered you literally did that first.

I dont have to pretend to do anything, but you do, because your ego is so big that you refuse to admit that you dont actually have a point.

 

[curious]

Nah, you're all three. You are both a fan and worshipper of your lord emperor jordan peterson, but that's neither here nor there.

It's also ironic that you're accusing me of belittling you, considered you literally did that first.

I dont have to pretend to do anything, but you do, because your ego is so big that you refuse to admit that you dont actually have a point.

The pot calling the kettle black.
Its pointless to continue this any further. What me, you or anybody else said is there in the posts for everyone to see. Lets leave it to the readers to decide what is what and who is who and which is which.

 

[jamahir]

Our old grandparents are correct when they say Aurat ghar k andhar hi achi lagti hai....

How nice !! Your thoughts about women should also be adopted in near-future Mars colonies.

Feminism has gone wrong and we don't need it.

Western feminism should die

I agree. Western feminism should die. Instead, Humanism should be adopted.

 

[Maarkhoor]

How nice !! Your thoughts about women should also be adopted in near-future Mars colonies.

It does't applied to Indian, send half naked women on roads and wait for call from Police and enjoy or be a part of Indian national sports rape....by the way you are still Indian? after they CAA?

 

[jamahir]

It does't applied to Indian, send half naked women on roads

Man, what happened to you ?? You are slowly becoming a mullah.

by the way you are still Indian? after they CAA?

Yes, still Indian. There are many non-Muslims here who are protesting in my favor.

 

[Maarkhoor]

Man, what happened to you ?? You are slowly becoming a mullah.

From they day one I am in favor of pardah and likes women who stay at homes....rest showbiz girls...I like the most who shows more skin...