Why react so strongly to Dr. Daniel C. Peterson?

[_marg]

He jumped into the discussion, asked me to produce sources for my assertion, and then, upon reading the sources I provided at his request, decided he would leave the scene while hurling insults over his shoulder. A typical apologetic maneuver we've come to appreciate from the FARMS/FAIR types. He questioned my emotional, intellectual and spiritual state, and used this as an excuse for his departure. It seems clear DCP was intending to stick it out because he thought this was battle he could win. All I did was post sources at his request, and then suddenly he changes his mind and leaves.

This is what you perceived to have happened, but is it the full story? You have not really assessed the validity of your argument and motivations. Are you saying that you acted correctly with regards to your intellectual and spiritual argument? Was your argument intellectually and spiritually sound?

Geez, I don't remember studying what makes an argument "spiritually" sound in my logic's course. And I know the text didn't mention it. So what course on logic did you take, from which school, and which text did you use, which mentioned "spiritually" sound arguments?

[_Pumplehoober]

Geez, I don't remember studying what makes an argument "spiritually" sound in my logic's course. And I know the text didn't mention it. So what course on logic did you take, from which school, and which text did you use, which mentioned "spiritually" sound arguments?

I suppose that depends on how the term is used and the context. It appears, to me at least, that in this case the term “spiritual” seems to relate to the underlying emotion and ethicality behind the argument. Dr. Peterson says…

“I see no point. I see no effort to understand a religious or historical phenomenon on its own terms. Rather, I see a passion to condemn that can never, until the intellectual or emotional (or even spiritual) state of the critic is fundamentally altered, be stilled or satisfied.”

It would seem Dr. Peterson is implying that there is a spiritual flaw in an argument that is based on a “passion to condemn that can never…be stilled.” This is reemphasized in the comment about the “vitriolic contempt for Muhammad, Islam, Arabs, and Muslims.”

So the question would be, was the argument made in an emotional void, without underlying emotion, or in an attempt to condemn and attack, regardless of truth. This appears to be the context of the comment, regardless of the acceptability or unacceptability of the term.

[_dartagnan]

This is what you perceived to have happened

Yes, and for good reason; because that is what happened. I have brought it to Dan's attention on numerous occasions and he has never expressed regret for saying it, nor has he expressed any regret that I have "misunderstood" it. He has had ample opportunity to retract, clarify or apologize, but that would first require accepting the possibility that one is wrong.

but is it the full story?

Here we go with the subtle implications that I am hiding information; should I just cut through the charade and call you David? It seems clear you signed up here for the sole purpose of challenging my perception of the incident in question.

The exchange is there for anyone who wants to read it. I’ve linked it to posts and even an article I wrote on this matter and nobody has yet to challenge my take on it; Dan Peterson included.

You have not really assessed the validity of your argument and motivations.

My argument was valid and my motivation was genuine. Who are you to suggest otherwise?

Are you saying that you acted correctly with regards to your intellectual and spiritual argument? Was your argument intellectually and spiritually sound?

What in Sam Hill is a “spiritual argument”? How does one determine “spiritual validity” of said argument? Dan dragged my “spirituality” into this mess illicitly, and that is why I found it offensive. Now you’re trying to act like he was justified because my argument wasn’t really “spiritually sound.”

If my argument wasn’t “intellectually” sound then Dan would have demonstrated it. Does anyone really believe he wouldn't have? Dan absolutely loves the opportunity to prove people wrong, especially when they are critical of things Islamic. He knew that by leaving the way he did, his participation was counter-productive to what he had intended to accomplish. That is why he left in dramatic fashion.

[Guest]

I suppose that depends on how the term is used and the context. It appears, to me at least, that in this case the term “spiritual” seems to relate to the underlying emotion and ethicality behind the argument. Dr. Peterson says…

“I see no point. I see no effort to understand a religious or historical phenomenon on its own terms. Rather, I see a passion to condemn that can never, until the intellectual or emotional (or even spiritual) state of the critic is fundamentally altered, be stilled or satisfied.”

It would seem Dr. Peterson is implying that there is a spiritual flaw in an argument that is based on a “passion to condemn that can never…be stilled.”

It doesn't seem that way at all. Dan clearly said the spirituality referred not to the argument, but to the “state” of the critic (i.e. “intellectual or emotional (or even spiritual) state of the critic”). In other words, it was my “spiritual state” that ran him off. Dan left the argument behind and focused on me instead.

This is reemphasized in the comment about the “vitriolic contempt for Muhammad, Islam, Arabs, and Muslims.”

Which is just mumbo jumbo based in his chosen escape route: bigot baiting. I stated a historic fact about Muhammad and he leaps to the conclusion that I have “vitriolic contempt” for Arabs! What the hell is this?

So the question would be, was the argument made in an emotional void, without underlying emotion, or in an attempt to condemn and attack, regardless of truth. This appears to be the context of the comment, regardless of the acceptability or unacceptability of the term.

Since neither you nor Dan is in a position to determine what my “spiritual” or “emotional” state was at the time, the question is irrelevant. Even if you could make such a determination, it would still be irrelevant since this doesn’t mitigate the fact that he was offensive in suggesting I had emotional, intellectual and spiritual deficiencies.

Moreover, if I were so obviously spiteful, it would have been clear previously. But Dan only decided to leave when I produced the sources he asked for. This suggests his departure had more to do with the content of my post (which merely cited Islamic sources) than it did my so called “vitriol.” Complaining about my so-called vitriol was just readily available cop-out he has been accustomed to use.

[_Pumplehoober]

I am just trying to explain how two individuals can have completely different sides of a story. Do you think your provided information was based on intellectual study and not on prejudice? I do not think Dr. Peterson left because of the strength of your argument, but because of the argument nonetheless. There are always two sides to a story. I think Dr. Peterson found conversation with you fruitless and was actually mild in his disapproval.

[_dartagnan]

I am just trying to explain how two individuals can have completely different sides of a story.

Yes, we’re aware of this, and as soon as you get Dan’s side of the story, be sure to tell us what it is. Up to this point he has never argued what you’re now trying to argue. He doesn’t claim I misperceived something that wasn’t there; at least not to me.

Do you think your provided information was based on intellectual study and not on prejudice?

Yes, but even if I grant you your premise that I was a vitriolic attacker of Islam (which is a misperception by those who cannot argue intellectually), this still doesn’t mitigate my point. All you’re doing is saying Dan was right in his attack on my character.

I do not think Dr. Peterson left because of the strength of your argument, but because of the argument nonetheless.

Do you even understand what the argument was? I merely made an assertion and Dan challenged me to produce back up. Once I did, all of the sudden I became a spiritually defunct individual whom Dan detested so much that he had to leave.

There are always two sides to a story. I think Dr. Peterson found conversation with you fruitless and was actually mild in his disapproval.

Again, this apologetic defense of Dan is entirely undermined by the fact that Dan only decided to back out once I provided sources. There was no vitriol involved in my last post, so what was it that made Dan suddenly do a complete flip flop? If he thought I was vitriolic, then he would have discerned that beforehand from my previous posts. Yet, he stuck around anyway. That is, until he realized I wasn’t going to be some push over.

[_Pumplehoober]

Kevin, you are digging yourself a hole here. Here is a timeline of events…

You said, "Muslims under Muhammed would rape women before their husband's own eyes."

Dr. Peterson replied, “Do you actually mean to assert that this was Muhammad's general policy, and done with his approval? Source, please.”

You then replied on March 29, 2004, 37 minutes later, with a number (4) of quotes.

The problem is you simply plagiarized an anti-Islamic site…

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Sila ... ptives.htm

You simply cut and paste without any effort to actually research the issue, or reference it for that matter. You have repeatedly said that your opinion was based on intellectual study, but your version of intellectual study is looking for the first negative reference you could.

The Middle East is a complex area, with different mores and a complex social system and you have made no effort to understand this on its own terms, but jumped on the first negative website you could and referenced everything you could on it. Your idea of research seems to consist on referencing anything negative, not actual intellectual research, and as such seems to indicate that prejudice, not truth, is your primary motivating force.

Did you think no one would notice that you simply plagiarized an anti-Islamic website, do you think that plagiarism of anti-Islamic websites is scholarship, or do you think such activity is justified?

Based on what appears to be shoddy scholarship and clear prejudice, what else was Dr. Peterson supposed to do? He walked away without commenting on your presentation, which would have been embarrassing to you. I think he was clearly trying not to make you look silly and intellectually vapid. He seems to have been kind.

[_harmony]

The Middle East is a complex area, with different mores and a complex social system and you have made no effort to understand this on its own terms, but jumped on the first negative website you could and referenced everything you could on it. Your idea of research seems to consist on referencing anything negative, not actual intellectual research, and as such seems to indicate that prejudice, not truth, is your primary motivating force.

Did you think no one would notice that you simply plagiarized an anti-Islamic website, do you think that plagiarism of anti-Islamic websites is scholarship, or do you think such activity is justified?

Based on what appears to be shoddy scholarship and clear prejudice, what else was Dr. Peterson supposed to do? He walked away without commenting on your presentation, which would have been embarrassing to you. I think he was clearly trying not to make you look silly and intellectually vapid. He seems to have been kind.

Wait a minute. Are you saying because the Middle East is a complex area, it's okay for women to be raped right before their husband's eyes? Or raped at all?

It may be negative; that doesn't mean it's wrong.

[_Dr. Shades]

You said, "Muslims under Muhammed would rape women before their husband's own eyes."

Dr. Peterson replied, “Do you actually mean to assert that this was Muhammad's general policy, and done with his approval? Source, please.”

A question for you, Pumplehoober: Was it Muhammad's general policy to allow his underlings to rape women before their husbands' own eyes, or wasn't it?

Y/N

[_Pumplehoober]

Wait a minute. Are you saying because the Middle East is a complex area, it's okay for women to be raped right before their husband's eyes? Or raped at all? It may be negative; that doesn't mean it's wrong.

I suppose one could overlook the intentional misrepresentation and attempt to create an argument where none existed. Such activity is juvenile and silly. Nevertheless, the Middle East is a complex area and understanding it on its own terms, without applying 20th century mores retroactively in attempt to be smugly superior. Others may not feel this need.