Why Jordan Peterson makes no sense

A critique of Jordan Peterson by Dara McGrath
Here is a video: Why Jordan Peterson makes no sense

Video at 2m 50s:
Did Cain and Raskolnikov exist? Peterson conflates two interpretations of the the word ‘exist’: the concrete physical and the metaphorical. This is important because it allows discussions that imply real world substance, and hence real world implications, to myths and fabrications, and thus blur the meanings in serious discussions, misleading the logical narrative. When a fundamentalist religious person makes moral and actionable claims based on the ‘reality’ of religious narrative serious social decisions can be made based on a false understanding of reality. This also allows Peterson purchase on both sides of an argument, seemingly advocating both religious and non-religious points of view: a demagogic tactic devised to increase audience base.

Video at 13m 57s:
Sam Harris discusses ghosts and Peterson’s equivocation on the meaning of ghosts pointing out that Peterson substitutes different meanings for the convenience of his argument. His substitutions have an inherent plausibility but alter the case of an upcoming point of argument. This is intentionally deceptive and is a problem if we expect truth and understanding to have priority in a discussion.

Video at 17m 12s:
Peterson self identifies as being both a Christian and a believer of the resurrection.

Video at 19m 34s
Peterson asserts to an avowed atheist that this other person is in fact not an atheist.

The bigger issues are how do we establish the integrity of our sources of information; how can we guarantee that general narratives align with truthful argument; and how do we reveal, explain, and correct intentionally misleading arguments that affect serious issues in the public domain.