Quote:
Originally Posted by V
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I find this sentiment incredibly naïve, and terrifying if kids actually believe it, so I'm hoping you can clarify. Are you arguing that if an issue isn't being covered by the CBC that issue isn't of value to the public at large?
You're a smart enough guy, so I'm probably reading this wrong. Just hoping for some clarification.
|
Not exactly.
To clarify, I think the issues are worthy, I simply think that Peterson’s value amongst his circle of followers in the issues which he is not an authority about are likely higher than to the general public. CBC has covered many of the issues Peterson brings up in fairly balanced ways and, I think, have done so with people who bring more intellectual value than someone who is simply very loud.
Simply not having Peterson is not the same as not talking about an issue, even if those who like him like him a LOT.
There are also many ways, especially to those young people who he attracts so often, to get that experience without the CBC. They simply do what they can with what they can, and I just think if it’s not a priority for them, it’s not a priority for them.
I’d be interested to see, though, how mentions and appearances by Peterson in he last two years ranks against some other talking heads. That could be interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Another classic Pepsifree strategy: "No, you! You're the problem you just described with my postings! It can't be something wrong with me!" The lengths people will go to avoid self-examination...
|
I just think you’re mischaracterising my presence in this thread. It should be implied that my opinions are opinions, and if nobody takes them as an authority opinion I simply wouldn’t know the difference. Nowhere have I acted like an authority. Further, I don’t have a “strategy,” I literally post for fun on issues that interest me and post what’s on my mind. Strategising posts seems to be kind of intense for a fun thing, no?
Either way, it’s silly for you to continually respond making judgements on my competence. It’s all the more wild and bizarre considering you referenced him as a “loon” (amongst other references to crazy), which is an ok ad hominem for you, but “not an intellectual heavyweight” is a dire slag that I haven’t the competence to make.
Again, I posted several articles that summed up the details of my issues with him in better words that I could say. Read them if you’d like... or don’t, but continuing this bizarre “I’m done with you! But wait, one more insult! Now I’m done!” thing is getting old. You’re just going to get this thing locked if you don’t quit making things so personal and weird.
I’m always game to debate if you want to, but the obsessiveness is weird. Debate the words, not the delivery, and let’s get on with it.