Posted on 10/09/2018 7:08:52 PM PDT by abigkahuna
I’ll talk to you later nopardons...I really do have to finish this vocal recording...otherwise there will be nothing tomorrow over the system..
He is a little to cerebral for me, honestly, and I tend to gravitate towards more emotional people like Dan Bongino for analysis.
I have begun listening to Andrew Klavan, and I enjoy it simply because I find him to be quirky and oddly funny, but Klavan seems to go down the road that Peterson may be found at the end of. Geez, he had Max Boot on today, and I wanted to shout at him “WHY DON’T YOU CHALLENGE HIM????” but...Klavan doesn’t come across as one of those guys who wants to do battle either.
I think it is why I like Bongino. He has his sleeves rolled up nearly all the time these days, and isn’t afraid to mix it up.
Please stop and actually THINK about what he tweeted first and the inane EXCUSE, which you find somehow profound; which it isn't. It's a cope-out. "Oh I didn't do it, but if I did, it wasn't serious and though YOU might think that I am "wrong", I'm not and you're just nit as intelligent as I am" puffery.
+1
Some airy-fairy, living in a mind bubble of many different "options", sans consequences being discussed/claimed wrongly, is sheer insanity!
He just have come right ought and said: "I WAS WRONG." and leave it at that. But Peterson didn't do that.
I have watched quite a few of his videos; some are better than others, but he hasn't EVER sounded this STUPID before. American politics just isn't his area of expertise. Nor, I suspect did he expect hows many people would find one or bolth of his tweets as stupid as they truly are.
OTOH...you aren't going to convince me about ANYTHING at all about this and sadly, you refuse to view what I say as legitimate.
But here's something I'd appreciate you think about, prior to responding to me...:THIS IS NOT A CLASSROOM EXERCISE; THIS IS REAL LIFE AND ANY OPTION, THAT PETERSON COULD HAVE COME UP WITH, OTHER THAN WHAT DID OCCUR, IS JUST PLAIN OLD STUPID! And yes, I'm yelling! :-)
Oh...and it would have been far better, for him, to just have said: "I WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS" and leave it at that.
I like Peterson but imo he did not analyze this correctly. This issue is not as complex as he thinks and can be resolved simply by applying basic principles. Are the allegations true? In this case the accuser has changed her story numerous times and the people she claimed could corroborate her story did not do so under oath. Factoring in the obvious political motives for making the accusation it is highly likely it is untrue. The right thing to do in this case to continue the process, appoint him to the court, and punish those who lied under oath.
I don’t think he was nuanced in the first twitter where he crapped himself. He was like a new sophomore that just made pre-season All American. He is the new hot dog the last 18 months and now is too full of himself.
He stepped in it big time and now is rationalizing and writing about it in hopes that all his followers and readers will buy his rationalizations.
Social media is a dangerous dog — FR posts included.
Over the years I have always called our best politicians what they truly are in their jobs: Functionaries.
All these writers, pundits philosophers are just people, no better or worse than us. 20 years ago there were threads on here about how damn smart George Will was and now he’s dog crap. We need to think for ourselves and when some asshole acts like a dork he has to own it.
No reason to yell... Not trying to cinvince you of anything. Peterson’s tweets were a topic the other night and I found his blog post behind his thinking. I don’t agree with all of it and accept some of it. You mileage may vary.
He doesn’t have any stock in the matter one way or another so he more in likely looked at it through a different lense. Should he have relegated his “thought experiment” to a more privagte discussion with Eric Weinstien—yes.
Peterson screwed up here. I don’t know why you won’t take my yes for an answer. But that being said...do we dismiss Peterson for having a “thought crime?” Or just say in this case we don’t buy what he is saying. The decision is yours, freely. It’s okay to disagree with what the man said. Heck, I disagree with him...
Are you Class of 2004, or did you lurk before that?
Peterson is a valuable asset.
Been on FR for 21 & a half years.
You have to let this coffee percolate.
Then I started to see some FREEPERS heap adulation on him, which was, IMO, a bit over the top and a tad meritless in some instances.
I had seen the thread about the first tweet, so when I saw this one, I clicked on and read the article and then began reading the comments.
The fact that you don't agree with what he said is overshadowed by the excuses that you've made for him. And that is my major quibble with you.
His playing "mind games" with himself, re supposed options open to Kavanaugh, is not just stupid, but to have actually tweet what he did, out, was sheer stupidity at the highest possible level. And frankly, his "explanation" made everything even worse.
So yes, since he couldn't keep his mouth shut about something he is grossly inadequate to even begin to delve into, he should, as you stated, kept it private; on that point we do agree.
Re "dismissing Peterson"...well, everyone can do what they wish, re that. As far as I'm concerned, I found him, prior to this patently ridiculous and utterly STUPID adventure into a political debate, to be okay; not as impressive as others have found him to be, I'm guessing, but watchable nonetheless. NOW? Now I don't give a damn what he has to say.
I read philosophy, for fun and giggles when I wa sin high school, had to take a suddenly required class in it, in college, and since my salad days are long past, I suppose that I have a different view than others may have; or perchance not...re other posters' comments on this thread. :-)
Well as a research scientist ( which he isn’t) he failed to do one critical thing.....have all the facts
Required viewing.
I don’t care logical you think he is. He failed to understand the US form of government or the dim history of Borking republican nominees. In other words he did not have all the available information before blathering on
If not, you have NOT been on FR for as long as you claim to have been.
Me? I've been here more than the 20 years my signup date would suggest, because I lurked for almost a year before I signed up and began posting.
Though absolutely none of the above has anything at all to do with this thread, this topic, nor what you alluded to.
And don't tell others to "LIGHTEN UP" ( at least you left off the "FRANCIS" part :-) ), because that's impertinent, condescending, and plain old dumb.
Yes and it’s hardly “required viewing”!
Well, thanks for not yelling this time...
And his banal original tweet was/is inane and pathetic; not to mention illogical!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.