I said that Peterson doesn’t provide any justification for his generalizations because… he doesn’t. If it’s based on his clinical…
You start off by criticizing the motives of someone in order to justify your criticisms of their statements. That’s what we call the ad hominem fallacy in philosophy. I disagreed with what Peterson said about anger, and provided my reasoning for doing so. It wasn’t my intention simply to critique him for the sake of it but even if that were true it wouldn’t make any difference to the validity of the points I’ve made.
I said that Peterson doesn’t provide any justification for his generalizations because… he doesn’t. If it’s based on his clinical experience (which I doubt) he doesn’t say so. I have thousands of hours of clinical experience as well and it conflicts with my observations. The fact remains that he makes these generalizations without substantiating them.
I understand that you don’t like what I’ve written but you would have to back that up by providing some sort of justification for your opinions otherwise it’s not really relevant to anyone else.