Politicization of JREF

T'ai Chi said:
Hi Drysdale, all very true what you say.

First, the question of 'getting more political' which might be unanswerable as stated was broken down to a simpler answerable question of 'are some words typically used in talking about politics being used more frequently?' and it doesn't address whether they are Randi's views alone- just if they are presented in general in the Commentary more.
Click to expand...

What's the value of that?
 
discombobulate!

must remember that one. Have my kids in stitches it will. :D
 
Moochie said:
I see. And what do you suppose the term means, precisely?

M.
Click to expand...

Moochie, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at...are you saying there's no such thing as the skeptical movement?

The dictionary.com definition of 'movement' is: "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal."

Using that definition, I think skepticism definitely qualifies as having a 'movement.'
 
Reager said:
Moochie, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at...are you saying there's no such thing as the skeptical movement?

The dictionary.com definition of 'movement' is: "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal."

Using that definition, I think skepticism definitely qualifies as having a 'movement.'
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't see skeptics as particularly organized, nor favoring a "generalized common goal."

M.

ETA: As for skepticism "having a movement," well, what can one say? Don't forget to flush?
 
Last edited:
Moochie said:
I disagree. I don't see skeptics as particularly organized
Click to expand...

Reread the definition:

"a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group" = doesn't have to be "particularly organized."

nor favoring a "generalized common goal."
Click to expand...

Would you agree that most skeptics involved in any such movement would have the "generalized common goal" of, uh, promoting skepticism (at the very least)?
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, the phrase "sceptical organization" is often used and that definitely sounds like an oxymoron.

And if it has a charismatic leader as well....
 
Totally useless personal opinion --

I don't give a hoot about the chaps politics so long as he keeps entertaining and educating me. I disagree with P&T's politics, indeed with almost everyones i'm guessing - so what? We can always compensate, and hearing a dissident contrary voice is often useful. I joined the Republicans over on Christian Forums, as their opinions were directly contrary to mine on most things, and I learned a lot from them - nice folks.

What does impress me is Tai Chi's dedicated analysis!

all the best cj x
 
Reager said:
The dictionary.com definition of 'movement' is: "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal."

Using that definition, I think skepticism definitely qualifies as having a 'movement.'
Click to expand...

Reager, I'm not sure that definition is particularly useful. Workers at rush-hour or lunchtime would qualify as a movement. So would barhoppers, thieves, ... just about any group of people trying to do the same thing.

I think this one is more better, found here:
a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end; "he supported populist campaigns"; "they worked in the cause of world peace"; "the team was ready for a drive toward the pennant"; "the movement to end slavery"; "contributed to the war effort"
Click to expand...

Using this definition, skepticism is not a movement. It is a philosophy or a practice.
 
I detest labels. They pigeonhole people. Most people I've spoken to about politics are a fairly random mix of "conservative", "liberal" and "centrist" viewpoints. I've met NRA members who are for gun control and very religious people who are very against mixing church and state. Address the issue and focus.

Having said that, Mr. Randi can write anything he wants. It's his site, organization and forum. No one is forced to read it. If you agree. good; if not, good. That's what the Forum is for.
 
Slimething said:
Having said that, Mr. Randi can write anything he wants. It's his site, organization and forum. No one is forced to read it. If you agree. good; if not, good. That's what the Forum is for.
Click to expand...

Having said that, Sylvia Browne can do anything she wants. It's her job, organization and books. No one is forced to read them. If you agree. good; if not, good.

;)
 
Slimething said:
Reager, I'm not sure that definition is particularly useful. Workers at rush-hour or lunchtime would qualify as a movement. So would barhoppers, thieves, ... just about any group of people trying to do the same thing.

I think this one is more better, found here:


Using this definition, skepticism is not a movement. It is a philosophy or a practice.
Click to expand...

I think this definition of 'movement' (using your link) is more appropriate to this discussion: "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals"

"common ideology" - Skepticism is certainly not so ill-defined that many thousands (dare I say millions - even if they don't know it) of people would agree that they share it as a common ideology. That doesn't mean every aspect of their thinking on skepticism or any other issue is in lockstep, but there are certain tenants (adherence to the scientific method, naturalism, etc...) that most would probably agree constitutes "skepticism" and a foundation of their worldview.

"achieve certain general goals" - IMO, "promoting skepticism" would qualify as a general goal of the skeptical movement. Specific goals (battling creationists, science education, paranormal challenges, etc...) designed to help foster the general goal are undertaken by various individuals and organizations within that movement.

"try together" - Through supporting organizations like the JREF, SS, CFI, supporting skeptical authors and scientists, participating in clubs and meet-ups, and promoting skepticism in their own lives, many skeptics try to achieve the goal of promoting skepticism. Granted, not everyone involved in these activities does so with the express purpose of "being part of a skeptical movement," but many do. That some people reject the idea they are part of a movement doesn't mean they are not.
 
Last edited:
T'ai Chi said:
Having said that, Sylvia Browne can do anything she wants. It's her job, organization and books. No one is forced to read them. If you agree. good; if not, good.

;)
Click to expand...

Yep...and you can even make a StopSylviaBrowne site to keep her from deceiving people. Free speech:--it ain't just for thee, but for me too!
 
T'ai Chi said:
Having said that, Sylvia Browne can do anything she wants. It's her job, organization and books. No one is forced to read them. If you agree. good; if not, good.

;)
Click to expand...

While I agree with the sentiment that forum posters should express their opinion on Randi and his articles, and that I generally don't like the influx of politics...

I have to disagree with the comparison. Randi is not attempting to actually deceive people. Sylvia Browne is a charlatan, a liar, and a con artist.
 
Lonewulf said:
I have to disagree with the comparison. Randi is not attempting to actually deceive people. Sylvia Browne is a charlatan, a liar, and a con artist.
Click to expand...

What is it about the not-subtle difference between "write" and "do" that confuses tai chi? First Amendment vs the definition of tortuous activity? Is that too much of a stretch for simple folk? Oh, hell, I answered my own question!
 
Slimething said:
What is it about the not-subtle difference between "write" and "do" that confuses tai chi? First Amendment vs the definition of tortuous activity? Is that too much of a stretch for simple folk? Oh, hell, I answered my own question!
Click to expand...

I'm still a bit confused here, though.

Why are people still talking about the First Amendment?

Are people seriously trying to advocate government interference with the website? Please point me to the person or post that does.
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
While I agree with the sentiment that forum posters should express their opinion on Randi and his articles, and that I generally don't like the influx of politics...

I have to disagree with the comparison. Randi is not attempting to actually deceive people. Sylvia Browne is a charlatan, a liar, and a con artist.
Click to expand...

But then you misunderstand the point. THe point is that if some get something (whether you disagree with that something is besides the point) and are willing to pay for it, your opinions of charlatan, liar, con artist, quack, whatever, are irreelvant. If she is those things, it is your responsibility to bring forth evidence, show it to the proper law enforcement agency.

The actual actions (as opposed to hot air) the organized skeptical community shows on these issues seems truly contradictory, given their claims against people like Sylvia.
 
Lonewulf said:
I'm still a bit confused here, though.

Why are people still talking about the First Amendment?

Are people seriously trying to advocate government interference with the website? Please point me to the person or post that does.
Click to expand...

I'm not using the First Amendment in that sense, Lonewulf. I was pointing out that tai cheat can't seem to understand that what Randi is doing is protected by the First Amendment while, surprise, what longnails is doing is actually prohibited by criminal code (fraud) and civil law (theft by deception).

I can't help you with whatever other posters have written.
 
T'ai Chi said:
THe point is that if some get something (whether you disagree with that something is besides the point) and are willing to pay for it, your opinions of charlatan, liar, con artist, quack, whatever, are irreelvant.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary but I won't lead you through the legal ramifications because I'm sure you wouldn't understand them.

If she is those things, it is your responsibility to bring forth evidence, show it to the proper law enforcement agency.
Click to expand...

Working on it. Only a matter of time. Bank on it. Unfortunately, it's not as easy to prosecute con artists as you believe it is. Caveat emptor rules until extensive ironclad evidence exists. My guess is that Saliva will be out of the country by then but, that it itself would be a victory.

The actual actions (as opposed to hot air) the organized skeptical community shows on these issues seems truly contradictory, given their claims against people like Sylvia.
Click to expand...

You've been asked many times previously to identify this "organized skeptical community" but have failed to do so. I can only conclude that it's another of your woo fantasies. But, as such, what is this woo fantasy's actions?

(BTW, "actual actions"? You should be ashamed! Write to this website as they are seemingly in need of your talents.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom