Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[Checkmite]

I think this discussion is beside the point without realizing it. I don't think being poor is causing the families to think their kids are witches. I think that being poor is causing the families to realize that they cannot continue to sustain themselves as long as the child is there; they therefore get rid of the kid, and subsequently claim 'witchcraft' so that other people won't look at them so badly for kicking out the kid. The tone of the article (written, presumably, by someone who's actually there and thus would know) suggested this from the outset; at least, that's the way I read it. Witch scares are certainly real, and have existed in the past; yet, there isn't some vast, organized movement amongst religious leaders in that country to investigate and root out this "witchery" that, according to some here, those people so heavily believe is plaguing them. The likely reason for this is that nobody says anything when the kid is kicked out initially, and when later asked, the family makes something up on the spot. "We threw him out...because....he was a witch. Yeah, that's it."

 

[Gurdur]

I think this discussion is beside the point without realizing it. I don't think being poor is causing the families to think their kids are witches. I think that being poor is causing the families to realize that they cannot continue to sustain themselves as long as the child is there; they therefore get rid of the kid, and subsequently claim 'witchcraft' so that other people won't look at them so badly for kicking out the kid.

Without wanting to get involved in a long argument on exactly what constitutes causation, I would say you summed up what the entire first point of the OP was, the other points being that it is non-productive (by virtue of being totally irrelevant) to try telling people in such situations to grow up.

In the common real-life way one describes complex causational probability chains, it suffices to say that:
the situation is what gives rise to the accusations of witchcraft, and not that the accusations of witchcraft give rise to the situation.

Oh, and BTW, telling people who are desperately on the edge of famine and utter destitution to just grow up may well do wonders for the ego and for getting one's rocks off, but it's also terribly irrelevant and misguided.

So, you know, I would kind of disagree completely with you that the discussion is beside the point, the point including just what you have described in your own words.

 

[Slimething]

The holidays have done you a lot of good, Slimething. This is priceless!!! I thought that your first third-world competion was inimitable, but you actually managed to improve upon it, and you even heard that John Wayne was neither a scientist nor a skeptic! Hilarious. Not even John Cleese could make something like this up if he tried. I welcome John Wayne to my corner:

This is a rebuttal? Are you conceding or can you not defend your position any longer?

 

[Slimething]

A few days of rest didn't do you any good, apparently. So not only your students allegedly agree with with you, but now "others communicating via pm" do too? Very convincing!

Dann, you're the one who's playing the popularity side of things. You exhort others who have taken your side and then wavered to disallow any such doubts of your position.

No others "start threads about their superiority", which I allegedly do?

Yes. How condescending is telling a group of people to grow up? You even repeat your amazingly ignorant arrogance by insisting that those who believe you are wrong read some magazine article that will magically prove you right. I do agree that life should be more like the movies, TV and magazines but they're not.

And every "statement from Dann or Gurdur's mouth" (we've actually got two, you know!) only amuse you, which is why you appear to be so very amused!

They sure amuse me but none can hold a candle to you, dann. Gurdur means well but isn't too bright. Athon can't remember which facade to use on any given day. And you, boy, you are just a classic charicature of a pompous sophist. Like I told you before, I am enjoying your meltdown.

 

[Slimething]

Bravo, Slimething--and rest assured, there are very smart people on this forum however none of them start threads about their superiority--nor do they attack all of those who disagree. Rest assured (and I've heard from back channels) that many people feel as you do. If nothing else, the irony of almost every statement from Dann or Gurdur's mouth provides unending amusement. Plus you gotta love the flailing and mud slinging and drama etc. they go through to keep their silly claims afloat and each others' egos afloat.
They are asking for it--and I haven't got the patience. But I do appreciate your tenacity and all the tantruming that ensues.

Thanks for your support, articulett! This is a labor of love. It's not often that I find a pompous fool setting himself up just so.

Just think about what dann and his ilk are up to: Dann doesn't like what Randi wrote or what a contributor to the newsletter wrote so, instead of taking Randi head on like a responsible, educated human, he decides to post some drivvel about poverty and tell all of us skeptics to grow up. For one, I would have loved to see what Randi would have done with him.

But, anyway, this bozo attacks all of us in toto and then has the temerity to complain about ad hominem attacks!!! Then he finds these other two to back him up no matter that how absurd his responses get. This really is too enjoyable.

 

[dann]

How condescending is telling a group of people to grow up?

It took you a very long time, Slimething, but I never gave up hope that you would get my point eventually! It is very condscending!
You still seem to have a few other problems, though:

But, anyway, this bozo attacks all of us in toto and then has the temerity to complain about ad hominem attacks!!!

Why would it be a "temerity" to criticize all two of you "in toto" or even skeptics in general if they happen to be wrong? You and articulett appear to think that I should make a careful distinction between two groups of people: skeptics and the rest of humanity. It is temerarious to criticize skeptics, but it is OK to call others bozos, and if they complain about ad hominem attacks, it ought to be clear to everybody that they are just plain wrong! Something which skeptics cannot be! You just don't criticize the (imaginary) elite! And on their own board! The horror!!!
For the past 2½ weeks I have attacked mainly two alleged skeptics, articulett and you, and not the skeptics in toto. When I asked my questions in the opening post, I actually feared that most skeptics would react like you and articulett:

“I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that skeptics sometimes tend to ignore quite obvious truths when looking at reality, something they appear to have in common with Christian Scientists in this case and with many others: ”superstitions (!) breed homeless people””

I feared how people on this board would answer my questions:

”Is that really all that skeptics have to offer? A much more rational way of starving?
Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner? Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?”

I was actually surprised to discover that I am not more or less alone on this one and that you and articulett are as isolated as you are. You are an embarrassment to the skeptical movement, Slimething.

 

[dann]

Poverty & Superstition – a very potent cocktail

yet, there isn't some vast, organized movement amongst religious leaders in that country to investigate and root out this "witchery" that, according to some here, those people so heavily believe is plaguing them. The likely reason for this is that nobody says anything when the kid is kicked out initially, and when later asked, the family makes something up on the spot. "We threw him out...because....he was a witch. Yeah, that's it."

I think that we agree, Joshua, except for a minor detail: I don't think that the parents or other members of the family just make "something up on the spot." Remember that they are people, basically like us. And they have to do a very horrible thing: abandon their children! This is not something that they haven't thought about until somebody asks them. They are ashamed about doing what they do and therefore find it necessary to come up with an excuse for their own behaviour to assure themselves that they are not bad people. And the easiest thing to do is to blame the victims. They, the children, are possessed, they are witches, creatures that are part of their system of belief in this community.

There are many other examples of the connection between poverty and superstition and other calamities:

”If they are not yours and you cannot feed them, they are possessed.”

Superstition, Poverty & Witch-Hunts

Poverty, Superstion & Bird Flu

Poverty, Superstition & Bird Flu

Superstition, Poverty & AIDS

Poverty, Ignorance, Foreskins & HIV

Poverty, Superstition & School

 

[Gurdur]

...I was actually surprised to discover that I am not more or less alone on this one and that you and articulett are as isolated as you are. You are an embarrassment to the skeptical movement, Slimething.

A small suggestion: there is a great deal of substance here to work through, including all the questions you put to me, which I will be answering soon, and some very interesting avenues of thought to explore.

That being so, and this discussion very long from over, then I would comment that since slimething and articulett seem to have totally given up any form of substance and are now only trolling, then it would be a very good idea not to respond to the trolling flames, but to stay on track. Anyone with a modicum of sense of irony is well able to follow the thread and the positions are very clear, so I suggest we simply stay on track.

 

[Gurdur]

Oh, and BTW, Dann, I may have easily missed something, but if I haven't missed anything (if), then I am amazed you have not brought up the parallel between the Xhosa and the Ghost Dance episodes (including Wounded Knee) of the Lakota Indians; I would have thought the parallel was more than striking.

Fritz Fanon in his The Wretched Of The Earth also commented at length on how oppressed groups will become very violent and turn that violence on each other inside the group; worthy of being looked into in this context.

 

[Slimething]

It took you a very long time, Slimething, but I never gave up hope that you would get my point eventually! It is very condscending!

Not so fast, dann. Your point was that Randi should not have criticized these people's superstitions because they were poor and poverty caused the superstitious behavior. I understand that you are quickly distancing yourself from that idiotic posit because it's so stupid but you did put it out there.

You still seem to have a few other problems, though:
Why would it be a "temerity" to criticize all two of you "in toto" or even skeptics in general if they happen to be wrong?

The only person you've prooved wrong is yourself, dann. I have shown you several times that your operating hypothesis is fallacious. Case in point: you have yet to link the Maleus Malificarum witch hunts to poverty.

It is temerarious to criticize skeptics, but it is OK to call others bozos, and if they complain about ad hominem attacks, it ought to be clear to everybody that they are just plain wrong! Something which skeptics cannot be! You just don't criticize the (imaginary) elite! And on their own board! The horror!!!

Nice try, dann. I'm not going to let you generalize this. Your post is obviously aimed at all skeptics, not merely articulett and me. And, I am not part of, nor do I have any knowldedge of, any elite. This is just you and me. I called you a pretentious, pompous bozo. No one else, just you. Prove me wrong.

Now, let's get back to the Maleus Maleficarum, shall we? Please show the linkage between poverty and superstition there, please.

For the past 2½ weeks I have attacked mainly two alleged skeptics, articulett and you, and not the skeptics in toto. When I asked my questions in the opening post, I actually feared that most skeptics would react like you and articulett:

Now, you are admitting attacks. You really are a very poor debater, dann. You attack and then you fear reactions. Very intelligent...NOT!

I feared how people on this board would answer my questions:

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?

See? There you go contradicting yourself again. I emboldened the operative language for you just in case you forgot. You did seem to forget because, at the beginning of your reply, you said your main point was that Randi told these idiots to grow up. So, which is it?

I was actually surprised to discover that I am not more or less alone on this one and that you and articulett are as isolated as you are.

Like I wrote earlier, I am fairly new here. Most of the more experienced skeptics here probably know to ignore you but I did not. Nevertheless, I am challenging you and you are evading. Moreover, the quality of your support is not daunting.

But, nevertheless, what were you saying about this thread becoming a popularity contest? That you didn't care? So, you slip up again! Big deal, I'm used to it by now.

You are an embarrassment to the skeptical movement, Slimething.

Oh, well! I am what I am. Thanks for letting me know because no one from that camp has said so.

Now, shall we talk about the Maleus Maleficarum persecutions and how they were caused by poverty?

 

[Slimething]

That being so, and this discussion very long from over, then I would comment that since slimething and articulett seem to have totally given up any form of substance and are now only trolling, then it would be a very good idea not to respond to the trolling flames, but to stay on track. Anyone with a modicum of sense of irony is well able to follow the thread and the positions are very clear, so I suggest we simply stay on track.

Gurdur, you really are amusing. First, you accused me of not knowing the definition of "reductionism" and I sent you to WP so you could educate yourself. Now, you accuse me and my fellow skeptic of trolling a skeptical forum.

How many words do you have in your vocabulary that you actually know the defintions of?

 

[dann]

I am amazed you have not brought up the parallel between the Xhosa and the Ghost Dance episodes (including Wounded Knee) of the Lakota Indians; I would have thought the parallel was more than striking.

You are right, the Ghost Dance is a very obvious parallel, but not one that I know much about. I was hoping that one of the chapters in Steve Kowit’s book The Seductions of Belief (the Xhosa article is a chapter from this book) would be about this theme, but it hasn’t been published yet.

Fritz Fanon in his The Wretched Of The Earth also commented at length on how oppressed groups will become very violent and turn that violence on each other inside the group; worthy of being looked into in this context.

I never heard about The Wretched of the Earth, but it sounds very interesting. Nor did I ever hear about Frantz (!) Fanon
His other books, Black Skin, White Masks, A Dying Colonialism and his collection of essays Toward the African Revolution also sound interesting. I have ordered them from Amazon. I’m glad that you mentioned Frantz Fanon in this context. He sounds a little like a black Che Guevara. I have to admit that I’m not too crazy about his distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ nationalism, though. This is where most third-world revolutionaries tended to go wrong, I think. (And the modern first-world protesters against globalization and its impact aren't very different.)

A small suggestion: there is a great deal of substance here to work through, including all the questions you put to me, which I will be answering soon, and some very interesting avenues of thought to explore.

As mentioned above, I have a lot of reading to do, too.

That being so, and this discussion very long from over, then I would comment that since slimething and articulett seem to have totally given up any form of substance and are now only trolling, then it would be a very good idea not to respond to the trolling flames, but to stay on track. Anyone with a modicum of sense of irony is well able to follow the thread and the positions are very clear, so I suggest we simply stay on track.

Slimething and articulett trolling???! You cannot be serious!!!

 

[Gurdur]

Frantz (!) Fanon

Fine, fine, you pwned me. Comes with me relying on memory at an antique age of millions of texts read decades ago.

OK, I really ain't that old; I plead too much whatever has destroyed my brain.

 

[Gurdur]

..... I have to admit that I’m not too crazy about his distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ nationalism, though.

However, some form of distinction is vital.
Witness: the Hutu militias in Rwanda.

This is where most third-world revolutionaries tended to go wrong, I think.

The fact that almost all first-world, second-world and third-world revolutionaries go badly wrong somewhere is not however a proof of the wrongness of their initial premises, that something needed radical change.

And the whole revolutionary cast of mind is especially pertinent here; since skeptics see themselves as a revolutionary minority in many ways, struggling in non-violent ways against a society gone wrong with woo, they are prone to all the mistakes that can be made in that frame of mind. Rather .... relevant.

 

[articulett]

And, I am not part of, nor do I have any knowledge of, any elite. This is just you and me. I called you a pretentious, pompous bozo. No one else, just you. Prove me wrong.

Well, actually, I may have called him a pompous bozo too-- not necessarily in those terms ...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2215637#post2215637

How was I to know he'd take it personally?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have not read this entire thread, but I would haughtily admonish everyone to watch out for cause and effect.

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?

How do you know that this is the cause and effect situation?

~~ Paul

 

[dann]

I have not read this entire thread, but I would haughtily admonish everyone to watch out for cause and effect.

That is indeed haughty of you without reading the arguments in the thread. Or is this something that you just do? Drop by and tell people in threads you haven't read to watch out for cause and effect?

How do you know that this is the cause and effect situation?

Read the thread, Paul!

 

[dann]

Frantz (!) Fanon

Fine, fine, you pwned me.

Well, it's just that I thought: 'Fritz Fanon? He must be German!' So instead of missing the things that might have been lost in translation, I decided to buy the original German version at www.amazon.de where they did not seem to have heard about this particular Fritz.

 

[dann]

However, some form of distinction is vital.
Witness: the Hutu militias in Rwanda.

I know very little about that particular conflict, but wasn't it based on the repercussions of the racism introduced by the former colonial power, discrimination based on alleged racial traits?

The fact that almost all first-world, second-world and third-world revolutionaries go badly wrong somewhere is not however a proof of the wrongness of their initial premises, that something needed radical change.

No, I can agree with those initial premises.

And the whole revolutionary cast of mind is especially pertinent here; since skeptics see themselves as a revolutionary minority in many ways, struggling in non-violent ways against a society gone wrong with woo, they are prone to all the mistakes that can be made in that frame of mind. Rather .... relevant.

Like a persecuted and at the same time superior minority? Interesting idea ...

 

[Gurdur]

I know very little about that particular conflict, but wasn't it based on the repercussions of the racism introduced by the former colonial power, discrimination based on alleged racial traits?

No.
While that is often mooted, it is crap; witness how the first victims of the Hutu militias were moderate Hutus, and after that anyone who was remotely better off than their neighbours was accused of being Tutu.

Additionally, apart from the Tutsi, the Hutu militias also wiped out (90% genocide) another minority tribe, one who had never ever been favoured by the former colonialists, so the idea that it was all because the Tutsi had formerly been favoured is quite obviously incorrect.

Like a persecuted and at the same time superior minority? Interesting idea ...

To be much more precise, needfully, a minority who feel persecuted albeit superior, but are not in actual fact persecuted in any meaningful way at all.