Peterson is really pushing hard on his "Evidence" posts to justify his movie. For example, in his third blog entry devoted to 'evidence', he states this:
“Evidence can be divided into two general types,” says one legal website devoted to the topic:
“Testimonial evidence is a statement made under oath. An example would be a witness pointing to someone in the courtroom and saying, ‘That’s the guy I saw robbing the grocery store. This is also called direct evidence or prima facie evidence.
“Physical evidence can be any object or material relevant in a crime. It can be any tangible thing, large or small. This is also called real evidence.”
Or, to use their title, it is the "Coatesville Area School District."
If you go to their home page, they feature regularly changing quotes, such as:
"My favorite part of school is lunch, because I eat ice cream every day...."
Javier. 5th grade student, Reeceville Elementary School
Adorable. Apparently, the definitions of evidence Peterson is relying upon are taken from a text designed for use in a children's school class. This is Prof. Peterson's "legal website devoted to the topic."
And finally, note what the second learning objective is for this children's chapter he quoted:
Objectives
After reading this chapter, you will understand:
.... That eyewitness accounts have limitations.
You canNOT make this stuff up.
What an absolute howler! Epic.
One wonders how many legitimate websites the "Witnesses" Executive Co Producer/President of Interpreter had trawled through to get to one that said (or rather that he thought said) something that would support the ridiculous claim he was trying to make in bolstering his argument for why his Witnesses film should be taken more seriously than it seems to be being taken. He must have been desperate to have had to publish a quote from a fifth graders textbook and try and pass it off as a serious legal resource. Not only that, he obviously hasn't been able to find a better one as he's left it up and is now trying to say he used such a low brow reference to cater for his critics! Hilarious.
Last edited by IHAQ on Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Did DCP stealth edit his blog thanks to Lem's sharp eye?
- Doc
Apparently so. The stealth edit:
“Evidence can be divided into two general types,” says one educational website in a very straightforward passage devoted to the topic, simple enough even for some of my most determined critics to understand:
Compared to the original:
quote]
“Evidence can be divided into two general types,” says one legal website devoted to the topic:
And the link still goes to a pdf of the middle school textbook, and the source is still the school district website where the front page features fifth graders who like lunch.
It cracks me up that when caught referencing a children's textbook, not only does Peterson STILL reference the kiddie source, but he doubles down by saying his source is "simple," as though that were a positive attribute. How in the first place did he come to think that the middle school link was "a legal website devoted to the topic"????? And even now, he still relies on the kiddie source that says a main objective is to learn that eyewitness accounts are problematic. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.
A middle school text on witnesses takes down the whole premise for DCP's movie, and HE is the one who posts it.
The Desert News sure lost a good one.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
If witnesses really established religious truth, what about the guy who has witnesses that he has now translated the missing 116 pages of the Book of Mormon?!........
Has Peterson ever discusses the witnesses with anyone in the Bahai faith?! Now THERE is a challenge! How come none of them convert, they LOVE witnesses!!!
Philo,
I think it makes sense to try and evaluate witness testimony rather than simply say I do not trust them. What might a witness actually know and what might they only think they know..
I am familiar with Bahai faith and do not understand what you are thinking of when referring to their love of witnesses. Could you clarify to help your point?
