I don't see how that makes his argument very lousy or unenthusiastic, there's nothing wrong with pointing out potential problems with your solutions.
I've yet to see Peterson do the same kind of underhanded tactics ASparkle implemented, so I don't think that benefit of the doubt would be deserved, in fact I feel it would be down right naive. Not only that, ASparkle has also had several opportunities to defend his/her actions, and has chosen not to. It's one thing to state something that could be interpreted as controversial depending on how you look at it, it's another thing to be obviously disingenuous and misleading.
You're right, but it also highlights the severe problem of paraphrasing things out of context, as the original argument and reasoning were either gone or twisted in all of ASparkle's examples to fit whatever narrative he/she was pushing.
If you mark part of the text and hit reply (not the post reply button) it should create a quote from just the snippet of text you marked instead of the entire post. Don't know if you can directly edit it though.
Oh, wow, thank you!
I think we've reached a point where we're just disagreeing on minor things. I think a call to action could have included some comment like "but I hope they will" or really anything resembling encouragement, hope, or trust. I don't disagree that ASparkle's post may have been unfair, from the beginning I was responding only to what Sgman91 was saying about that specific interview. I have barely any experience listening to Peterson talk, but I felt that I could argue against what was said using the direct words that Peterson said in the interview. It may be that Peterson isn't using the 'same kind' of underhanded tactics, but I think his vagueness - which I've seen others point out is a frequently recurring and seemingly intentional theme with Peterson - should similarly make you wary about giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Np.
And I agree, I think it's time to put this to rest. I would suggest checking Peterson out if you haven't yet, his debates are occasionally pretty entertaining. I consider myself to be a leftist/atheist, so there's plenty of stuff I disagree with him on, but I still feel like he makes some pretty solid points now and again. Especially on free speech.
I'm sorry, but what? Jordan Peterson is crazy and evil? That's a pretty wild stretch.
I don't know what he's been up to in 2018, but back in 2016 and 2017 he was among the few people who actually did make sense, and remained about as non-confrontational as one could in the forum of public discourse. Maybe crazy NOW insofar that the stress of constant global exposure and harassment from both political left, right and mass media elements has finally gotten to him and his sanity is crumbling, what with this strange new point of view. But dude, please. he isn't evil.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
