Double Standard--Question for Will, et. al. from MAD

[_Gadianton]

And your observation is even more redundant given that it seems no one on this thread believes Will for this very reason. Except me.

That doesn't reflect positively on you.

Have you PM'd Will yet on this?

Anything from Will that I would feel free to disclose here is something that Will can easily disclose himself.

Why should I be Will's go-between?

I feel no need to serve as Will's messenger, any more than I felt the need to "distance myself" from him or to pronounce public judgment on him regarding issues that neither concern nor interest me.

Will is Will. I am not Will.

Unbelievable. The fact that I believe Will doesn't reflect positively on me, my reputation being something you have a passing interest in. But the implication that Will is lying not to mention his crude language just happens to be something you have no personal interest in whatsoever, will is will, and you are you. I've seen you go down this path before.

If someone like my friend Tarski ever wonders why it becomes increasingly difficult to defend Dr. Peterson when sometimes critics cross the line with him and call names etc., this thread is the perfect example. It would seem, Dr. Peterson is sincerely grateful for the defense he gets from Tarski and others almost to the point that he expects it to happen. Yet, if someone like Will drops in and goes way, way over the line on personal insults, Dr. Peterson just has no interest in it one way or another. When Will's comments include Tarski and every other critic here, you don't see Peterson jumping in and saying, "hey, I think Will is going too far and certainly many critics that post like Tarski are intelligent, respectful and.."

Nope, never. When apologists or church members cross the line, Dr. Peterson is an island, a lone wolf not responsible or even the least bit interested in what the neighbor are doing. But if critics cross the line, he's the marginalized, mistreated member of the community. And it would seem the moral duty of the critics who take the high ground to speak in his defense and put the situation into perspective.

Honestly, I admire Tarski and others whose ethics aren't determined by the ethics of their interlocutors. But I'm a bad person. I admit it. I just can't bring myself to it.

[_EAllusion]

I don't have enough information to have an opinion on way or the other, nor do I care all that much, but I know I have seen Will just BSing with respect to his apologetics on several occasions. If it turned out he was just making stuff up in order to buttress his case, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. You have to take his character into account.

DCP -

Your analogy would work better if "Yankees" referred to past and present staff and players, not fans in the stands. The analog to fans is more like subscribers. Will obviously was implying more than simple subscribers.

[_cksalmon]

I feel no need to serve as Will's messenger, any more than I felt the need to "distance myself" from him or to pronounce public judgment on him regarding issues that neither concern nor interest me.

Will is Will. I am not Will.

Just for the sake of clarity, for me it's not about Schryver as a person (I'm sure, in person, he can be an agreeable, even charming, fellow), but about certain of his comments. There's certainly a distinction between the two, to my mind. I've never wanted you "to pronounce public judgment on him," but wanted to give you a conspicuous opportunity to distance yourself from his attacks. I realize that you're not interested in doing so (for your own reasons), and so, for me, the matter is essentially closed.

I post this only to state explicitly that I was never interested in your condemning William Schryver as a person. If, in some of the heated exchanges, that was the impression I made, it was certainly unintentional.

Happy Fourth, Dr. P.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It would seem, Dr. Peterson is sincerely grateful for the defense he gets from Tarski and others

Yes. I am.

And, particularly for the ex-Mormons and non-Mormons, I think it speaks well of them that they're willing to come to my defense sometimes.

almost to the point that he expects it to happen.

???

Yet, if someone like Will drops in and goes way, way over the line on personal insults, Dr. Peterson just has no interest in it one way or another.

He hasn't insulted me, and I haven't paid much attention to his posts.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but, since I recently reappeared here, I've been under heavy personal attack from morning until evening. It's kept me rather busy.

Anyway, I'm uninvolved in the vast majority of the threads and discussions here.

When Will's comments include Tarski and every other critic here, you don't see Peterson jumping in and saying, "hey, I think Will is going too far and certainly many critics that post like Tarski are intelligent, respectful and.."

Everybody and his dog here has been criticizing Will.

When Tarski says something charitable or reasonable about me, by contrast, his comments are generally pretty lonesome here, since virtually everybody else is busy criticizing me.

I myself have made it clear that I don't favor crude sexual jokes. I don't know why it's my duty to denounce Will Schryver to somebody else's arbitrary standard of intensity and explicitness, and why you and perhaps one or two others seem to want to fault me if I choose not to become involved in this spat of yours.

[_Gadianton]

Yes, it speaks well of someone from the other side to come to the defense of an opponent under too much fire. That's why it speaks well of Tarski. Since none of those criticizing Will are TBMs or apologists, what an opportunity it would have been for an apologist to point out that he's crossed the line. It would have spoke highly of you, had you taken a moment away from your personal battles and tempered your side of the fence purely out of your concern for others (without being asked to). Who knows, a little bit of generosity sometimes will go a long way.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've said that I don't endorse and don't engage in crude sexual humor.

That's pretty clear.

I'm sorry that you don't find it satisfying.

[_moksha]

I've said that I don't endorse and don't engage in crude sexual humor.

That's pretty clear.

I'm sorry that you don't find it satisfying.

I am satisfied. I have never read anything you wrote as being crude sexual humor. Your humor is always clean, wholesome and like all humor
can be a bit scathing at times. Keep up the good work you do. I realize there is no way for you to beat some sense into Will to stop using such
nasty insults.

[_Runtu]

I've said that I don't endorse and don't engage in crude sexual humor.

That's pretty clear.

I'm sorry that you don't find it satisfying.

Seems clear enough. I respect you for saying so. I wish I could say the same for Will. But then Will's agenda has never included a serious discussion of Mormonism. That's a shame.

[_Yoda]

This thread has rapidly devolved into a "let's beat up on Will and we don't believe Dr. Peterson" session. That was honestly not my intent with this thread.

My question that I was trying to throw out there was:

Do TBM's ever feel it is justfied to use crude references and mean-spiritedness in the interest of "the greater good"?

Will obviously says "yes", while Dr. Peterson says, "no".

Any others care to weigh in?

[_The Dude]

you don't see Peterson jumping in and saying, "hey, I think Will is going too far and certainly many critics that post like Tarski are intelligent, respectful and.."

Nope, never.

Senhor Peterson doesn't criticize his own kind. Nope, never.