[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

Do you really not see the difference? I explained why I thought he was a loon. You've just confidently asserted bare opinions over and over without any justification.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

Let's see if this is statement is credible, based on your posts. Here's something you said.

I guess the better question is: why should [CBC pay attention to Peterson]? He espouses views that are mostly poorly thought out and presumptuous, betrays his own world of logic constantly, and is generally not nearly as important as you make him out to be.

Here's another.

I’d also suggest that toxic masculinity covers the same field that Peterson often talks about, without the scent of Strauss’ “Game.”

If Petersen wants to read that book and develop an academic theory out of it, he’s free to.But his education and work history doesn’t preclude intelligent Canadians from recognising a man gone off the rails into the unacademic and illogical.

And another.

I don’t know why you need an intellectual heavyweight to debate Peterson, considering he’s not one himself (at least in the realms of philosophy, culture, history, and politics, all of which he spends the majority of his time talking about).

In all of these cases, without exception, you make strong assertions without any support, and you do so in rebuttal to another poster's view that this is a person worth taking seriously and listening to, as if you're arguing with them about that point. And now you're objecting to me taking issue with that style of argument? You're plainly trying to make a case about Peterson and his importance to the public discourse, and doing so based on nothing but denunciations. Now you say those were just random, personal opinions that no one needs to take particularly seriously because you weren't claiming any authority. Well, that's sure not what it sounds like. It sounds a lot like you're strongly convinced that you're right about Peterson's value as a commentator, and that the people you're replying to (and everyone reading) should listen to you. If you're not claiming to know what's best here, why would anyone agree with those utterances? Invective and indictment of the guy is all you've offered, at length, over and over and over again.

I mean if all you were trying to do in this thread was express the opinion that you're not a fan of Jordan Peterson, one wonders why you felt the need to get into an argument with anyone about anything in here or why you needed to post twenty times. Just say so, once.