dartagnan wrote:Wade, I noticed you’re just doing the same thing over again. Whenever your ability to properly psychoanalyze is brought into question, you go into denial mode again and blame the observer you wish to analyze. You still have not addressed your hypocrisy and obvious agenda, which is manifested in the fact that your buddies at MAD are not being offered your services. If I insisted on using self-depreciating signatures (like DCP does) by my online nemeses, then maybe you could make a case that I could benefit from therapy. You and I joined this forum on the same day. I have yet to break 150 posts while you’re already over 800. Who need therapy?
To be sure, thus far all you have done is spin things to suit your apologetics. You’ve always been about apologetics wade and nothing seems to have changed. Your claims to actually care about individuals and about striving for objectivity, is just another ruse. But maybe you don’t expect intelligent people to realize it – perhaps even yourself.
The truth of the matter is, I greatly admire your intellect, your sharp wit, and your seemingly in-exhaustable passion. I think you have an enormous amount of good to offer humanity in general, and you and your family in particular.
It is just that I think it a complete waste for any of us to ruminate and obsess counterproductively over past issues--particularly those issues that are rather petty in the whole scheme of things, and to interact in a belligerant and dysfunctional ways.
I think we both can learn much from Dr. Peterson's approach, even given his self-depricating humor. There is a reason that he is widely sought-after for discourse and is thought highly credible by members and critics alike--and this in spite of the sustained and vicious character assasinations and smear campaigns marshalled by certain quarters.
And, there is a reason the same may not be as true for me and you. Sure, we may have been able to draw the interest of others like a crowd amassing around a fight. But, in all honesty, I get the impression that people have had to hold their noses when interacting with or observing us, and it is everything they can do to keep from bolting because of our repelling behavior. Both of our credibility has gone into the crapper. In short, our approach (governed in large part by our insecurities and defensiveness) hasn't worked. What we intended for good, has been for naught or for bad.
For my own part, I began to recognize this a year or so ago, and I have since attempted to change, and to emmulate some of the approaches of people on both sides who have been socially successful.
However, for whatever reason you seem to have gone into denial about this, and are locked into the bad habits, and seem stubbornly resistant to letting go.
Granted, there are other apologist who are similarly disposed to whom I have yet to offer my services. That actually is by design, rather than "hypocrisy". I figure that the best way to effect a change in them, is to first demonstrate a measure of success derived from change in myself.
The problem comes, though, in demonstrating the success. If I change for what I believe to be the better, and it doesn't effect a positive change in those I interact with (in other words, if I raise my level discourse, and the critics I interact with don't raise their's), then they (the apologist similarly disposed to you and I) may not have reason to change, but will continue status quo.
In other words, if you and others don't like the way that certain apologists have been treating you, then you may encourage them to change by elevating your discourse with me. And, if you do elevate your discourse, I promise that you will, at the very least, feel and think better of yourselves, but also greatly improve your chances of better relating with others.
That wonderful mind, wit, and passion that you have, will then be a functional instrument for doing good and marvelous things.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-