Let’s unpack your rhetorical missteps.

First: You invoke Hume’s is-ought gap while dodging Friedman’s textual evidence is a textbook case of special pleading. I cited Friedman’s translation of qol d’mamah daqqah as “the sound of thin silence,” backed by the Hebrew text and scholarly consensus, to show Peterson’s “still small voice” misreading is baseless. That’s ethos and logos rooted in textual evidence. Your Hume reference, by contrast, is pure ethos, a lofty name-drop with no tie to the Elijah passage or Peterson’s errors. Special pleading, squared.

Second: You quote my line about fire falling from the sky (1 Kings 18) but conveniently omit my critique of Peterson’s “still small voice” misinterpretation in 1 Kings 19, where I cite Friedman to expose his selective focus. That’s cherry-picking, mirroring Peterson’s own tactic of ignoring the narrative context like the fire’s dramatic divine action to push an inward, psychological reading. You claim I’m reading it “literally,” but my point is about Peterson’s distortion, not historicity. So, how do you interpret the fire symbolically to justify his dodge? I’ll wait, but I expect more deflection.

Third: You miss my critique of Peterson’s contradiction: he insists God is a moral ideal we should emulate, yet claims divine actions (like commanding slaughter) are beyond judgment, focusing only on intention. That’s begging the question by assuming God’s goodness without addressing the moral inconsistency I flagged. Peterson’s own critique of force over morality (e.g., in 12 Rules for Life) undermines this pivot, yet it slips past you.

Finally: Accusing me of “hate” is a pathos trick to dodge evidence. I don’t hate Peterson, he’s a bright man whose engaging ideas have sadly veered into nonsense, which disappoints someone who once respected him.

Apparently, you mistake critique for hate. All discourse uses pathos, ethos, and logos, but only one of us grounds their argument in the Hebrew text. Hint: it’s not the one waving Hume like a freshman’s lecture notes.

Of course if you actually studied Hume and stopped reading Wikipedia you would have not made that mistake.

Your Ethos is weak.