Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism 

She actually did 😂 . . . . Jordan Peterson became a Global phenomenon after this Interview.

We should thank her for that

This video is what made me a fan. Seen almost all his vidz.

So, what you are going to say is, that no one on this planet knew Jordan Peterson before?

@@googlesu they did because of that law wannabe in Canada. But not as many as they do now because of Cathy's interview

Good one. This is exactly something Newman would say.

😂

Noice

I like your comment but I'm not gonna hit like because of the number of likes you have.

magyar?

😂😂

Jordan: "No i'm not saying that, I never said that @@ronroyes2375

lol

😂

"and yesterday's morning, was it not a good morning Jordan?"

She had a set goal

Absolutely. But such are too many debates with too many ideologs these days, be it about gender, pay gaps, religion, politics... doesn't matter. People are just too lazy to think and have normal conversations, generally.

So your saying... 😂

​@malasc12 😂😂😂 that was my thought exactly.

Is'nt it?

Good one dude. But no for real, it's honeslty so pathetic, it made me so mad

I'm not super into Jordan Peterson, I mainly watched this video out of curiosity. You could fill a book with the words she put into his mouth. God awful "journalism".

Unbelievable!

thedrizzle313 exactly. I found myself on many occasions saying” that is not it all what he said, lady”

thedrizzle313 Exactly! I found myself on many occasions saying” that is not at all what he said”, lady.

haha great.

Yes, that sums up the theme of the 'interview' perfectly.

Lol😂😂😂

Fucking thank you

so youre saying that dogs and cats get more privilege than other animalss?

JP, Ben Shapiro & Robert Greene are some of the best to listen to

@@RayPenber933 Certainly not Ben Shapiro.

he's beefing with elmo

He seems very Canadian 😂😂

​@@maxkho00Agree, not Ben

Bro peterson destroyed her

Shows the utter lack of self-awareness of these "woke" journalists.

@@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739 Pretty crazy, and nice profile picture.

Big mistake!

Michael G. Scott - She's a Feminist.

@@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739 Unfortunately there's nothing passive about her aggressive demeanor. It's evident that she's engaged in a "Gotcha" contest, in which Peterson won't stoop to engage.

steve rapatas 😂 best line

Man I died when he said that xD

HeadShoot, LOL!!!!

Biggest mic drop...

OHHHHHH! *Guy falls forward, hands on face, eyes rolled back and jaw wide open.

Totally. I'd lose it. She was so frustrating because nothing she was saying was in relation to what he was saying

It's been at least 4 times for me.

👍 😎

Murad Babaniyazov 😂😂😂😂

I really like this comment. It really described and gave a summary the whole debate. 😂

JP: No, I did not say that at all, I merely asked what was in it?

@@LTG22 so you're saying that women should just stay at home looking after their miserable children?

@@jamesf8864 No, I merely was curious of the contents of the salad.

Perfect summary of this whole half hour

fucking funny haha

over and over again ... shes not very bright, and shes bitter, _and_ shes 'on a mission' the dizzy blonde. >_

That sums it up, what a horrible interviewer talk about someone that got their job because of gender not merit.

Exactly what i was thinking. Peterson is way too smart for this lady though

It’s quite a well known debate technique. She just miserably fails at doing it correctly.

Let me offend the “laydees” for ya. But that’s what women do 🥴

@@bj1783 you’re no Jordan Peterson. 😄

Straw men

@Patrick J Mims nice 👍

That's what feminism means

abhishek mittal you’re degenerating it. all the assumptions she made came from statements he led. Only he was smart enough to not let them out of his mouth.

😂😂🤣

@@gjinkalla7121 He is no doubt very smart guy and a superb articulator. But for the anchor, pin pointing every other word is not smartness that the anchor was doing

@@gjinkalla7121 No, all of the assumptions she made were leaps in logic. Using logical fallacy in a recorded debate is what makes her look unintelligent. It seems like you weren't able to understand anything JP said just like the reporter. He isn't arguing based on opinions, he uses purely factual arguments.

I watch this interview once in a while to remind myself how not to offend the person I talk to.

This made me laugh thank you.

It doesn't matter what you are saying

I love that she asks "don't you just stir people into an angry frenzy?" The perfect response would be, "no...that's just you."

You ever notice how the individual who is wrong in and argument/debate is always the one who interrupts? Shes following an agenda here, peterson is simply revealing the conversion for what it is, yet she wont let that happen by interrupting with " so what you're saying..." follwed by some abstract mis-interpretation of his words.

She rephrased what he stated so many times it's a wonder he was on this program at all. She kept seeing the phantoms in her mind and trying to build a narrative that is unsupported by reality.

Good summary.

Jordan is too smart for her

Yes pretty much

ru-vid.com/show-UClLNqr9kTEehlf7jSiSLJVg

sounds like my wife when we get in an argument hahaha

😂😂😂😂

Lol

Hilarious 😂🤣

This wins😂

Precisely this😂😂

Here is yet, another example of 'Cathy' not understanding or letting Mr Peterson finishing his thought/statement! Cathy's behavior looks like, sounds like and smells like a lot of liberal Gobbledygook! Again, these people need to Close Their Mouths and open their ears.

no words, she is a rat...

Does this woman still have a job ?

@@xfiles5913 she better find something she is good at.

Azai Thou bold of you to assume that she is good at things in general

The "pink tax" was a desperate myth. You can still find it, look at deodorants for men and deodorants for women. Probably the one for women will be more expensive. Here is where the feminist brain stop working and they say it is inequality, discrimination, "pink tax" and so on, but if you actually pick up one of each products and look at the contents, you'll quickly find that the product for women is of higher quality and/or contains better ingredients. If we think a bit further then we quickly realize that men and women have different skin. Men have thicker skin, literally, and their skin is not as sensitive. This is why you find "5 in 1" hygiene products for men, because their skin can take it. On the opposing side, you have women who have 5 different products for their skin. There is no pink tax, there is only men and women and their own choices. And women dominate the market.

Lol

So you're saying we have finally achieved equality 😅

So which one did you buy?

@@user-ej4ip9el1w pink of course

I feel bad for Jordan here. The host is clearly looking for a dramatic angle to push on, and he's not giving her one. "Are you saying that..." "No I'm saying.." Over and over and over.

Tenkos Came here to say just that.

Peterson: facts facts facts Interviewer: so, you're a sexist bigot racist then? Next question. XD

Lol perfect summary of the interview. This is one of those women who think being belligerent and bitchy is strong and intelligent. WRONG

Someone should remind Cathy this tactic is also known as lying

Yes, and it’s Sammich.

Damn right I am!

Correct spelling would be: sammich

sudo make me a sandwich

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Yes, everybody is a liar. And that's a fact.

I remember watching this live and fell out of my chair laughing at that part, too. It's still hilarious!

not a logical response by Peterson

@@drdrdrfloydhow so?

@@drdrdrfloydhe’s saying that he’s going by the clinical literature

​@@TheJohnCooperShow I know what he is saying. And as a clinician and clinical researcher, I know (a) that he is overstating his opinion as objective, and (b) that he is wrong and a liar. Moreover, as a matter of objective fact: his opinions about - any - given population or individual are arbitrary and intuition-based, and those opinions are not - whatsoever - generalizable to any population or other individual. (Setting aside that fraudsters like Peterson do generalize, beyond the immediate patient, the fraudster's arbitrary and intuition-based opinions.) That the opinions of the Jordan Petersons of the world are arbitrary and intuition-based is common knowledge among Peterson's big brothers in psychiatry. Evidence of this includes, for example, statements by neuroscientist and psychiatrist Dr. Thomas R. Insel, and psychologist Dr. Joshua J. Chauvin, in their 2018 journal article, "Building the Thermometer for Mental Health." That is available for free through the National Library of Medicine. --Dr. Dr. Dr. Floyd

She listened quite well. Her catastrophic failure was attempting to twist his words into straw man arguments that were immediately shot down. That's the difference between an interviewer and a debater, the debater will always win because they know a straw man argument when they hear it. When someone says "So you're saying...", be prepared for a argumentative fallacy.

I suppose, if that's what you call listening. However, I feel that if she was actually listening, she wouldn't draw ridiculous conclusions and have to say, "so what you're saying is..." Or maybe she was just trying to find a reason to be triggered. Either way, what he actually says is typically very clear.

So are you saying women aren't good listeners? And that they should be happy just being low paid lobsters?

She had pre-set notions, with little to back them up. By their own professions, he listens more and she talks more. She listened for words that she thought she could use to formulate arguments against him. I agree that she she attempted to "talk over" him, and it seemed as if she wasn't listening. And yes, she was trying to "trigger" him, hence her admission of "Yes, you got me". She was basically unprepared for him, both argumentatively and factually. There's a difference between "listening" and "understanding". She didn't listen to understand, she listened for argumentative "potholes" in his words, and then attempted to tell him what he actually meant, or create arguments that had nothing to do with what he said. She's just poor debater with preconceived ideas that had no chance. She did try, I'll grant her that much.

She had to be listening very well in order to quickly attempt to twist his words and just as quickly realize that his rebuttals to her queries were sufficient enough to stop the line of questioning. But just as ctyragdoll pointed out, this was not a discussion.

It's hard to watch, but damn I keep coming back to this shitshow

Actually, that is a valid argument. The sky is not always blue, the wind doesn't always blow, and the grass doesn't always grow. But I see what you mean: this interviewer was definitely looking for a confrontation.

@@BigBri550 but he didn't specify the "always". He might've meant "now", which could be more or less likely depending on the context - if you're discussing the weather for example.

@@simeonstoyanov5226 Well, the OP is a characterization anyway, but here’s how it works: “The sky is blue” is an absolute statement even lacking the word “always.” So if Cathy were to retort, “So you’re saying sunsets don’t exist,” she’s not exactly wrong. If an absolute statement can be interpreted as exclusionary, it is invalid unless it happens to be true under all circumstances. To conclude otherwise is assumptive.

😂 yeah, just like that

It's called playing the devils advocate! A very useful tool :)

@@Glacialvoid devils advocate is when you argue a fifferent or opposing argument to the one that is being debated. It is not when you reconstruct the oppositions words and pervert their meaning. The worst part is that she knows she is misinterpreting him, and it is clear in her tone of voice that she is acting/pretending. She is not being honest, and her whole being knows this ....but she is doing her best to conceal it. She is lying, and thats what makes this interview so embarrassing.

@@lightsoutlena To be truthful, to be an effective devils advocate, you can "pervert" the words in any way you want as long as the meaning is retained. Especially if the perversion leads to the questions being as emotional as possible. Im not at all saying this to defend her, in fact her perversion does go too far, any journalist shouldnt interpret anything beyond trying to understand the essence of something. Journalists SHOULDNT play the devils advocate. I am just saying, that this does give us something positive. Jp is really good at shutting things like that down, and they're both helping us to do that ourselves.

@@Glacialvoid i can appreciate that.

lena trackburn yup, there’s a term for that. The strawman argument.

Lol

Brilliant lol

No doubt lol

@rumpleforeskin73 good reasoning. Besides, she seems to be blaming him for everything that is wrong and demanding him to justify history facts!!! Making him responsible for crisis everywhere!! How silly!!, as he said!!!.

@rumpleforeskin73 she isn't very bright

Been friendly before was part of the strategy to put him unprevented to what was coming

You know, I don't particularly gush and fall over myself repeating "Oh, Jordan, Jordan, you're SO smart" but you know, compared to most people I've seen/met/married/argued with/listened to, this guy has a fucking neuron or two actually fucking firing somewhere deep in the recesses of his anterior cingulate medullary fomentum-you know, actually *demonstrating* the oft-trumpeted claim that human beings at some point diverged from the apes, UNLIKE around ninety-nine point nine percent of the tetrapod-like organisms that come under the designation "humanity".

😅

@@kamakirinoko it would amuse me to have a clip of you voicing this comment in person included at the end of this video footage.

@@kamakirinoko Your comment regenerated my dead brain cells :))))

@@grillGrilla Tee hee; I would be hilariously happy to oblige. Each and every single day I am struck with the realization that the vast, VAST majority of human beings have only the vaguest notions of the existence of modes of thought about science, history, the sum of human knowledge up to this point or really, ANYTHING AT ALL beyond their Facebook pages and the latest engrossing conspiracy theory. That's when they're rationalizing why they shouldn't vaccinate their kids, if indeed you can dignify the term as "rationalizing."

why doesn't this comment have more likes

In France, public restrooms are used by both.

So your saying it doesn't bother you that male bathrooms are sexist towards females. Females can't enter the bathroom. That seems pretty unfair.

Rishi Sivakumar Good one!

I have noticed female toilets at malls are predominantly closer than male toilets.

Pretty much the logic used in the homosexual agenda.

Can’t believe they aired this lol I’m so glad they did 😂

@Adolf Hitler Everybody is equal under the Law/Constitution. Any additional laws specifically for some groups of people are just special privileges, which creates the very thing you guys are supposedly fighting against, which is inequality.

@Adolf Hitler Radical left have agenda

@@texeltexel2009 Hear, hear!

You didn't have to say that, sweetheart. It was just so obvious - me

that's why I love the comment section 😂

That was his warning to her...but she didn't realise and got had later on. BOOM!

Sums it up

This comment section keeps giving and giving, even after two years. So satisfying, lol.

Underrated

Goated comment

Underrated

I completely disagree with this statement. Cathy would more likely say something along the lines of "So you’re saying dead Women are irrelevant?"

@@Caspricocious 😂😂😂😂

Brothers grimsby

Haha. That made me laugh

OMFG

Rape means a lot of things these days. If you tighten the pickle jar too tight your wife might scream "oh my God, you're raping me!"

Ahahahaha

LOL

she did that atleast 10 times

color morale 37 times.

Vincent Rodriguez you're joking

Womansplaining at its finest.

Lol

But theres one thing tho girls arent video games.

Girls can play sports Foxy Boxing WWE Bra and pantie fights

jan_teigen_ lol

@@huskiehuskerson5300 To₹

it isn't over yet

peterson claims the hierarchies of capitalism are based on competence. he is demonstrably WRONG. the hierarchies of capitalism are /\ pyramid shaped, while every natural hierarchy of competence is a bell curve, with few at the top and bottom and the majority in the MIDDLE. /\ pyramid hierarchies are artificial and integral to capitalism/profit, there has to be a very large base in a capitalist hierarchy in order for profit to be generated, profit is not possible in a natural bell curve hierarchy. capitalism is UNNATURAL and abusive because of that fact.

@@Stafus I’m not taking the time to go through it all in yt comments, but you’re wildly incorrect. Concentrated accumulation of resources is ubiquitous throughout the natural world, and thank goodness capitalism helps the middle and lower classes at the same time.

@@BigupSlime firstly that's not true about the natural world, secondly even if it was , aren't humans meant to be better than beasts of the field ?

She's just a feminist propagandist.

when she had that moment of enlightenment that her right of free speech could upset someone and that it still is a right you gotta defend, i knew she has to be plain stupid. i mean it even took her a while to wrap her head around that thought.

I suppose, she doesn't want to

@@INFINITY_99 If you answer the question why she doesn't want to understand him, it'll lead you to the point where she has to be stupid. She got a fundamentalists few of gender inequality. Fundamentalism per se means that one has to be stupid, because it means that you are aiming for that one and only simple answer about a certain thing, not allowing any other answers. Fundamentalism is a way to avoid thinking. I don't know how that isn't stupid.

@@biedl86 You seem very preoccupied and judging. I definitely see your point. However, I will not support your in accusing her to be stupid - that would be overhasty. The central problem is that she stands in for a viewpoint that is very extreme and that can be refuted quite easily to some extent. That's the reason why Jordan Peterson smashes her in this debate. She just doesn't have clear evidence that supports her thesis and, on top of that, her strategy wasn't thought out so well. This doesn't change the point I am making right now, though. You shouldn't be so fast in judging someone.

I'm so grateful that Channel 4 never turned off the comments for this.

Feminism is Cancer.

Feminism is worse than cancer. It's hate, distilled into a childishly aggressive ideology, directed towards 50% of the human population, in an oversimplistic bid for power. This is truly the misguided basis for the ideological ignorance that led to the most horrifying events of the 20th century, and more deaths than cancer caused in the same time frame.

She might as well have led with the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Or children, or slaves, etc.

@@iamyouarei9497 👌👌👌

lol!

Hahahaha

“So your saying...” “You mean...” “But you just said...”

HAHA BEST ONE!

Yes 😹😹😹

so true, well spotted.

I'm sure she's partially doing it for the sake of the viewers. Don't you think this interview would be boring if she didn't get J. Peterson to elaborate his point in a way that the average viewers can get? It also helps him to debunk his detractors.

Mark Campling not really it’s very obvious

Fributes Very typical move for feminists

Folks keep getting mad at Newman here, but Petersen uses implications in the things he's saying to communicate a lot of stuff indirectly. And he's doing it on purpose. It's a very manipulative tactic, one that works really well against someone who isn't prepared for that.

And that's sexist, isn't it?

😂😭

@@schlimmbotg472 Patriarchal tyranny, in fact 😂

🤣🤣🤣

@@schlimmbotg472 obviously, everything a man does is sexist. They slowly want to criminalize having xy chromosome

@Damian Thomas yeah, like “women who wear lipstick in the workplace are asking to be sexual assaulted”

@@huhhuh364 you use quotations but he never said that. Add a source with that quote included or stop spreading false information.

@Lou aaaand he never responded. No surprise there lol

@@huhhuh364 please validate what you’re saying. Word of advice, think before you speak

@@moelarry8088 there is a vice interview in which he says the reason that women wear makeup is to be sexually provocative, that’s obviously untrue and can instantly be debunked by offering similar examples of accessories men use for confidence like nice clothing or shoulder pads. He then goes on to say that them wearing said makeup is inviting sexual harassment in the workplace, he then does his bullshit way of speaking where goes “I don’t know” after stating something that he obviously believes. Jordan Peterson constantly take bullshit arguments that he backs up with unrelated empirical evidence so that people like you believe him. For example claiming that gay couples raise their children worse than straight couples and having no evidence to back that up (because it’s statistically completely incorrect), instead he uses unrelated data of single parents raising children worse than couples. The man is openly transphobic and homophobic, but uses the thinnest veil imaginable to act like he is a liberal (Also cultural Marxism is literally a dog whistle to cultural Bolshevism, which the nazis said Jews were doing in the 1930s)

No one: Absolutely no one: Peterson: Newman: so your saying I shouldn't exist?

So clearly you arent aware he is there speaking on a book she has read hahahahahahahaha

Jordan Peterson: I had bacon and eggs for breakfast. Cathy Newman: So you are saying kill all vegans?

@@Vorzilla a book she has read and clearly has not understood.

@@tayloresc90 oh she understands it well enough to ask him questions that make him uncomfortable and he isnt prepared to answer thus he talks in circles thinking it will confuse her and she has to keep bringing him back to his hypocritical conclusions.

sundin57 I fucking laughed out loud after reading your comment

Amusing

*Hitchslapped

Savage

Jordan Peterson dodges bait like a Matrix Fish

Yeah this is a good one

"So you are saying" introduce straw man argument here.

A perfect example of putting words in someones mouth. He handled every response with such skill and intelligence, I would love to chat with him for a while. He can articulate and express his ideas succinctly and clearly. Total bro-mance right now! LOL

@Joe Arguin Yes, many were angered, including me, but she did it so many times, with almost every question, that it became comical and exposed her as a fraud for trying to debate with logical fallacies not giving a genuine interview.

@Joe Arguin I guess she is used to putting stuff in her mouth she figured she would try it on someone else.

Great comment, gives back hope. P.S. are you related to Dinesh?

Yeah, it's a shame when someone so repugnant claims to speak on behalf of all women

@@KevinPetrusNL No relation. Wish I was! :)

They never are just like the gq intervew. These as it just happens to be women are representative of a leftist political stance. They both got destroyed. Don't worry nobody believes this is representative of all women's views. Thank you for your comment.

I'm a woman, and I was just so annoyed. Respect to Jordan for keeping his cool with such a long and painfully ridiculous interview.

I just ordered it too!

Cubeologist same!!

I got it on Audible. If you enjoy listening to Dr Peterson talk, it's like a 15hour podcast lol

Added to the wishlist. It was great to watch him school Channel 4 news.

Just waiting for my next credit to come in and I'm all over this.

More like he dismantles them.

Actually, he wasn't evading them. He was destroying them!

YES

Nawwwww. C'mon. How did he know it was a trap? She opened her mouth.

@MastersMasterson full fash?

Willingness to take on work further from home and take on more dangerous work.

Having children . Being a traditional wife that want to take more care of their children so less hours

like who wouldnt, why the fk is she even trying to argue with that? Like wtf

@roger gerritsen yeah please let me know which show xD

FINALLY.. Yes.. you got one right cause all of your other (So you are saying) was like, like... you were talking to someone else.... Your replies were not even part of the same conversation.. Then this.. YES you got totally owned and thrown away on your own show.

"Power is Competence" is a profoundly beautiful statement.

@@liamream9029 it is indeed. There are many times people have power without competance.

I think the thing that really pisses me off is her inability to comprehend what he's saying. She, mistakenly, decided before they met who he was and what he stood for and no matter how many times he corrected her she still kept to her initial narrative.

Yh I think it’s because Jordan is so smart she has to dumb his words down to understand

Honestly, it seems more like a case of an extreme debater mind that has zero willingness to concede, almost as if she is trying to prove a point like their life depends on it. As a result of this mindset, she attacks ever single word that he is saying and attempts to construe it in a way that portrays him and his argument in the worst way possible. From my experience in sanctioned debates in school as well as adjudication from said debates, both in my school and other, her ability to honestly reason in a way that deduces common themes is absolutely pathetic. She would barely survive people in year 7-8 in terms of ability.

Are you saying a comet will hit this planet at noon??

Yeah, but I think she does a great job of criticizing Jordan - and I think he mentions it that she does a great job of not being afraid to offend him in search of the truth. I think the segment starts at about 22:14

@@MrMeszaros the problem is I don't think she was looking for the truth. at least not willing to let it be what it is. she had a conclusion she wanted to reach and she had to try to get him to go along with it. people do this all the time in politics. the give away is nearly always a bunch of questions involving "what you're saying is" and then an intentionally disingenuous statement. politicians do it for votes, news anchors do it for ratings. this is why youtubers like Joe Rogan, Uncommon Knowledge, Russell Brand and the like do so well. they ask questions and follow where they lead, they don't try to steer the answers.

"I haven't seen this many strawmen since Wizard of Oz" But the Wizard of Oz only had one strawman.... I have a feeling your comment made more sense in your head before you actually typed it out...

welcome to channel 4

You forgot the 9% pay gap.

so 49% is mansplaining...LOL

She did a good job of representing how mainstream ideologues would interpret what he is saying, and by doing that, gives Peterson a chance to respond to those interpretations.

haahahaha

😄

in all fairness, they do

[...] Cathy: so you’re saying that women consistently ask foolish questions? Jordan: only when that woman is you.

😂

@darkthought7860 hahahha, good point

Yeah, but she is too thick to realize that’s a bad thing.

This was so unfair lol

@Wo Jak I didn't say we don't learn from our mistakes I just made an observation that there are mistakes that never go away regardless of whether you learn or not

Lameck Wanyama quality comment

Lameck Wanyama- Jordan talked about this indirectly. He said that the first clip they showed on TV made her look better, so they happily released the full interview on RU-vid thinking it was a win for her. It backfired to say the least.

So I'm a therapist and I watch very little of JP primarily because we agree on most things and I get little out of it most of his content. But THIS .. no THIS was certainly a lesson for me! I may watch it several times just because of what you're saying. Holy cow! That is a Master's class on not getting distracted or overly-emotional and then sorting through out every point with surgical precision. That's something maybe we all need to study how to do. That said, I wonder if she understood his point on multi-variant research. I think he needed to spell that out if not for her then for the audience .. but I also think by describing it explicitly he could make much more clear the absurdity of trying to find single causes or single meanings for everything he was saying.

I'm not a clinical psychologist, or a therapist, but somebody who loves debate, and i have to say - the way in which he remained focused on his points but took it as funny when having his perspective confused, or twisted, was pretty inspirational. Often it's very easy to get wrapped up in the passion that it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that I am either ranting or in a overly emotional state.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

😂😂😂

😄😄😄

Jordan : no Cathy- so you're saying YES?!

😂😂😂

seriously. that's pretty commendable

The top executive got a letter from her to disable them but he realized the name on the letter was Cathy so he threw it out.

Well, yes and no. They can't take this down or disable comments because the blowback would be a scandal. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Yitzi Schweitzer right

From what I remember it's because they thought they 'won' the debate.

HAHAH

It’s not just Cathy that thinks that

don't encourage people to kill themselves haha

Emerson Are you trying to give me alcohol poison

LOL

I'm frunk as duck.

"so you're saying" and then she always gets it wrong and the Prof always tries to correct her and she usually ends up with "so you're saying" .... and so it goes on.

Jordan: im human Cathy: so ur saying women aren't?

Yes please and while she makes him one she can make another one for me

According to bull burr yes 🤣🤣🤣

@@iliarumenov3088 she'll make it wrong trust me

Jordan: "I like the Batman Animated Series" Cathy: "So you're saying that women should get back in the kitchen?"