While I applaud Dan for following the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, why won't DCP follow the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding the Book of Mormon?
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
Speaking of, a paraphrastic note from the ongoing files:
It’s always weirdly fascinating to see how how [gemli is] currently being attacked on [my blog that doesn’t like to be called a] message board that has been significantly devoted to attacking [gemli] for [Midgley’s] roughly entire [posting] history.
(To an astonishing degree, [gemli is our] raison d’être. If [gemli] didn’t exist, [we] would have been obliged to invent [him]. Which, in a very real sense, [we] actually have [based on Midgley’s stick-figure imaginations of his entire life history, all the way back to grammar school].).
The question each morning isn’t whether [gemli will] be attacked as both a ludicrous [atheist, dogmatic meat-wad (my creation-you’re welcome] and a vicious, angry, unprincipled, and hateful [cockroach and scientism follower (Midgley’s inventions], but, rather, what purported justifications will be chosen (or invented [almost always by Midgley but I happily take my turn when he doesn’t beat me to it]) for the new day’s attacks and exactly what form those attacks will take.
Well what do you know, my files contain sources! How odd for paraphrasisms. At least, according to some blog owners.
I thought he said he was going to ignore the board? Hasn’t he encouraged others like his lap dog Lyin’ Lounatic Midgley to ignore the board? Yet he obsessively follows every jot and tittle that’s posted here, even after the disastrous mismanagement of the board’s continuing technical issues which has resulted in a decline of user participation, he still gobbles up content as if he were noshing at Sizzler.
I think the answer to the OP's original question is contained in Professor Peterson's response… He has no stake in the matter.
It's interesting he said he had no political stake in the matter. He ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus where he has a lot of religious stake in the matter. I suppose it is good that he doesn't have as much political stakes in idiotic areas as so many on the extremes do.