Politicization of JREF

[Lonewulf]

Should the JREF not criticize branches of government for funding unscientific or unnecessary research into the paranormal because government funding is a political issue?

That is entirely different than saying, and I quote:

"The question of gun ownership by U.S. citizens, not so incidentally, is also something most of Europe and rest of the very puzzled “free world” now seems to be asking about a seemingly politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy America."

These were not Randy's words, but naturally everyone is apologizing them for him as if they were.

If he said that all Democrats or Republicans (or both?) were morons, people would probably still apologize for him. That's what comes with fame...

If Randi really did say the words above, I'd be all for him having the "right" to say them. But my opinion of him would have definitely changed.

The above line was not a "skepticism" comment. It was an attack. There's a difference.

Just like there's a difference between me questioning religion, and Moochy calling all religious people morons and imbeciles and all that stuff.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If he said that all Democrats or Republicans (or both?) were morons, people would probably still apologize for him. That's what comes with fame...

...snip...

No they wouldn't, people might say he can say what he wants, that it's his commentary, that he is is right and so on however that is not "apologizing". "Apologizing" would be if Randi was for example guilty of a certain action and people said "oh because it's Randi it doesn't mater". I've never seen anyone do that.

As for this recent comment - I've often seen him make and include comments from others that are distinctly political in nature.

 

[tracer]

I'm just tired of the trying to rewrite the constituion ideology that permeates from both parties.

Skeptical thinking needs to be applied to everything. Even the Constitution. The moment you start thinking of the Constitution as some kind of sacred document, you leave yourself open for all sorts of nonsense.

By far the biggest kind of Constitutional woo-woo I encounter is people who insist on knowing the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. "The Framers clearly meant X, as evidenced by Federalist #n!" "No, no, you moron! The Framers meant Y, as evidenced by this draft proposal from the first Congress!"

Sheesh! Who the hell cares what the intent of the Framers was? What matters is, is X or Y better for the country as it exists today?

 

[Dean Morrison]

Speaking as a Brit I think it's funny that you yanks consider discussion of gun control 'politcal'.

Over here it's just plain common sense - which is why only 50 people a year get murdered with guns here, compared to more than 8000 in the States - not to mention all those gun suicides and 'accidents'.

Amongst civilised developed countries you are the 'odd one out' and you just can't see it - Randi is doing you a favour by pointing this out...

 

[Moochie]

Skeptical thinking needs to be applied to everything. Even the Constitution. The moment you start thinking of the Constitution as some kind of sacred document, you leave yourself open for all sorts of nonsense.

By far the biggest kind of Constitutional woo-woo I encounter is people who insist on knowing the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. "The Framers clearly meant X, as evidenced by Federalist #n!" "No, no, you moron! The Framers meant Y, as evidenced by this draft proposal from the first Congress!"

Sheesh! Who the hell cares what the intent of the Framers was? What matters is, is X or Y better for the country as it exists today?

Precisely. I tried to draw the similarity between religion, which somehow remains invariable over 2000 years, and the "hands off" attitude some have toward the Constitution, as though that document were somehow sacrosanct. Did those men (I'm unaware of any female framers) really know what would be best for the country for all eternity?

M.

 

[brodski]

Speaking as a Brit I think it's funny that you yanks consider discussion of gun control 'politcal'.

Over here it's just plain common sense - which is why only 50 people a year get murdered with guns here, compared to more than 8000 in the States - not to mention all those gun suicides and 'accidents'.

Amongst civilised developed countries you are the 'odd one out' and you just can't see it - Randi is doing you a favour by pointing this out...

It’s political because it is a debate abut the best way to order part of society.
The questions are,
1) would reducing the number of legal weapons in the USA significantly educe gun crime and gun deaths, and
2) is that a reduction in crime significant enough to justify reducing the availability of weapons.

Some people take the view that no amount of benefit could justify impinging on what they regard as an essential freedom.

Others think that any gun crime is enough justification to ban all guns. Most people fall somewhere between the two extremes, and there is no real way to determine what the "right" answer is, it is a matter of personal preference, the assumptions one makes and in the end the importance one places on various political principles and theories.

 

[Dean Morrison]

Most people here don't 'fall between two extremes'.

Most people here think that alllowing everyone free access to machines with no other purpose than to kill people is a very bad idea indeed.

On way you could 'work out what the right answer is' would be to look at some evidence.

Such as the murder by firearm rates ( and total murder rates come to that) between the US and other developed countries.

Then perhaps have a sensible discussion about how you intend to get your murder rate down to that of the rest of the world.

Instead of which the NRA and their sympathisers seem to want to close down debate by claiming this is 'politics', or because of their interpretation of the constitution.

If you as a nation decide that the 'political principal or theory' of the 'right' to carry guns is more important than the right to life - then I think you should admit that those kids in Virginia and the 8000 other Americans that will be shot and killed by other Americans is a price you are willing to pay.

 

[Lonewulf]

No they wouldn't, people might say he can say what he wants, that it's his commentary, that he is is right and so on however that is not "apologizing". "Apologizing" would be if Randi was for example guilty of a certain action and people said "oh because it's Randi it doesn't mater". I've never seen anyone do that.

As for this recent comment - I've often seen him make and include comments from others that are distinctly political in nature.

I don't get the red herring of the "freedom of speech" argument, though. No one is suggesting that Randi's freedom be infringed upon. So saying that he's "free to speak" is not the point. No one is suggesting that he be silenced through government intervention, which is about where "freedom of speech" ends.

And while it has been pointed out in this thread that I do not have a "freedom of speech" guaranteed in this forum (I.E., I can be banned for my opinion), I would also point out that I still have my freedom of speech to express my opinion; but I am not guaranteed a forum for that speech. So I can say what I want (unless it presents a Clear and Present Danger, is against an Obscenity law, or is an act of Slander or Libel), and the government cannot infringe on that; but those that own private property can force me off of that property if they do not like that speech.

So he includes comments that are political. That in itself I do not mind; it is the attacking of those that have a different political mindset. It is the belligerant name-calling. But Randi has not participated in such, he quoted someone that did. Thus, my respect for Randi has not been diminished.

Anyhow, criticizing a comment is not, in itself, an attack on free speech. So the entire argument that it is "his right" to make the comment is a red herring, or is misrepresenting the OP. (Or, it's simply a mistake, reading more into the argument than exists; which falls under "misrepresenting the OP", but unintentionally).

 

[T'ai Chi]

Randi has not ever participated in name calling?

Are we reading with the same type of eyes?

 

[Lonewulf]

Randi has not ever participated in name calling?

Are we reading with the same type of eyes?

I never stated that he had never "participated in name calling".

Sometimes the target is what matters.

For instance, it's more acceptable to call Hitler a "disgusting pigsack", than it is for Mother Theresa.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?

I've saved each commentary (and before that the Randi Hotline) stuff as .txt files since 1992, and separated it by year.

If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking about politics to a high degree (such as 'politics', 'President', 'Congress', etc.), I have a program that can count the number of occurances, and we could see the trends from 1992 to 2007 in the counts of those words.

 

[Lonewulf]

I've saved each commentary (and before that the Randi Hotline) stuff as .txt files since 1992, and separated it by year.

If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking about politics to a high degree (such as 'politics', 'President', 'Congress', etc.), I have a program that can count the number of occurances, and we could see the trends from 1992 to 2007 in the counts of those words.

...

Obsessed much?

 

[T'ai Chi]

...

Obsessed much?

Took a whole minute.

Now, do you have a more rational way to examine "Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?" ? other than looking at political content of past commentaries?

If not, and you probably don't, then I suggest either trying to, or trying a harder hitting ad hom and hope it sticks.

 

[Lonewulf]

Took a whole minute.

Now, do you have a more rational way to examine "Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?" ? other than looking at political content of past commentaries?

If not, and you probably don't, then I suggest either trying to, or trying a harder hitting ad hom and hope it sticks.

What's ad hom? I'm not making any argument. I just find it curious how you saved every single commentary by James Randi since 1992. That seems a bit... weird... from my perspective. And my statement was not in response to counting the number of inclusion of politics, but the saving of every single commentary for such a long period of time.

Your getting defensive is interesting, though.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I just find it curious how you saved every single commentary by James Randi since 1992.

I wonder why you do find it curious and weird though why I find Randi's commentaries (which are put on the internet) interesting enough to save for a long time, especially one who is interested in skepticism and the movements' leaders.

Isn't a nice benefit of it that we can hope to answer queries like the one posed? Better than not exploring the question at all, like some would rather do..

 

[T'ai Chi]

You may find it weird and curious that the JREF makes them all available specifically in one location http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html

Why does saving them to a hard drive (they'd be cached anyway as well as cached at archive.org) make it weird and curious to you? Have you contacted archive.org to tell them about the weird and curious nature of all of this?

I'm still wondering how you'd better answer the question of are the Commentaries getting more political. So far you've ran from this question.

 

[Lonewulf]

You may find it weird and curious that the JREF makes them all available specifically in one location http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html

No, I do not.

Why does saving them to a hard drive (they'd be cached anyway as well as cached at archive.org) make it weird and curious to you? Have you contacted archive.org to tell them about the weird and curious nature of all of this?

No, I have not, nor do I plan to.

I'm still wondering how you'd better answer the question of are the Commentaries getting more political. So far you've ran from this question.

I honestly do not care.

As I stated, my issue was with personal (or broad) attacks, not with politics. I take no stance either way.

I'd also add that me saying "Obsessed much?" was based more in humor than anything else, which is why you are seeming quite silly right now. Just so you understand... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor

 

[SomeGuy]

All I can add to the discussion is that:

"<snip> a seemingly politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy America."

matches with the public opinion of the USA in my country (the Netherlands), I know from my many trips that most people in Europe (and Australia) feel pretty much the exact same way.

This was the full extent of the claim made by the person writing the letter, he didn't say America was: politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy, he said America was perceived as such in the rest of the "free world", which is something you may not like, which may not be fair, but is in fact true.

Having said that, Dean Morrison is right in that the deads of those 32 VT students and 8.000 other Americans each year, is the price you pay for having the right to carry arms. This is a valid opinion to have, but you have to be fair than and as a society say: "Your son's life simply isn't worth as much as each individual's right to carry a gun" to the parents of those VT-students.

On the other hand, the easy availability of guns is not the reason for the deads, it's the facilitator. Especially in this case failing mental healthcare, because of the inability to treat people against their will, a huge problem in my own country too, seems to be the biggest culprit. All the sign indicated that this person was "likely" to do something really destructive, yet he could not be helped because he wasn't actually proven to be life-threatening.

For their own sake and for the sake of society we must find a way to treat mentally ill people even against their will. Cho's mental condition may very well have been treatable, apart from his delusions I'm sure he was a smart if not very likable person, he could have been a contributing citizen....

On the other hand, fact remains that had he not been able to obtain a gun this easily he would not have killed 32 people, he might still have killed some... but not 32.

Also everyone saying "we don't know the effect of abolishing the right to carry guns", this is nonsense. Effects are known from places like Brittain, Belgium and Sweden. Gun related deads drop by 90% in the first two years, and over the long run they drop another 5%.

This means that with gun control out of every 20 people now dying a gun-related dead now, there would only be 1 person dying a gun related dead.

 

[CFLarsen]

I've saved each commentary (and before that the Randi Hotline) stuff as .txt files since 1992, and separated it by year.

If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking about politics to a high degree (such as 'politics', 'President', 'Congress', etc.), I have a program that can count the number of occurances, and we could see the trends from 1992 to 2007 in the counts of those words.

Try these: Moron. Fool. Idiot.

CFLarsen, stick to the subject in discussion and don't use insults.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer

 

[Gilmar]

If Randi keeps up all this talk about sports (particularly his disparagement of the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team), I'll take my skeptical online presence elsewhere. Intolerable!