An explanation for Diogenes
Luminous,
Can you understand that we might find your debating tactics a bit confusing.
You claim skeptics dismiss things out of hand. You demand that we present detailed examples of our counterpoints, but when we ask you to back up what you present as evidence, you are unable to, for one reason or another..
What we hear is ' what you remember ', or ' how you see things '..
I'm sure you understand, that all of that is cool for a fireside chat, but it does nothing to further the contention that there is a non-human North American primate roaming around in our forests, or that one was actually captured on film 40 years ago ..
Diogenes,
This letter starts out explaining what I encountered when I first came here. But at the end, I explain why I have respect for you.
Just for the record, I have never claimed that skeptics dismiss things out of hand. I don't know where you got that idea from, but it's not true.
When I first logged on to these forums, there seemed to be a lot of childishness and game playing. I quickly began to realize that these were not skeptics at all, these were immature individuals who enjoyed the adrenaline rush of heated arguments and personal attacks. They weren't able to control their emotions and I could see it in the frenzied way they would post.
I could not call them skeptics, because they did not act like any of the skeptics I have met. But I noticed that they were contrary to just about everything so I began to call them "contrarians."
I had met contrarians before. These are the type of people who always take the opposite position on virtually every issue just to be contrary and to stand out in the crowd. These were immature and adolescent attention seekers who used finely tuned and much practiced tactics to make sure they always came out on top, even at the expense of the truth.
I began to notice patterns to these tactics. As I wrote them down, one by one, I soon realized that no true proponent could have a healthy debate with these people. The majority of these tactics were dishonest, unethical and devious.
I was planning on writing down a few more of these tactics and then leaving, never to return. But as fate would have it, Kit pointed out some of the arrogant posts that I had made myself. I couldn't deny what he said, because it was true. So I began to make amends and apologize for my own behavior. Truth is truth, and it applied to me, who was I to deny it?
Anyway, I decided to stay and give it another shot. I'm glad I did, because I've had some great conversations with Kit and yourself. I honestly enjoyed our last debate. I believe we were both honest and true to our convictions, and I didn't see any immature maneuvers at all.
I apologize for coming off as though I was dismissing things out of hand. But I did consider each of your points. Your points challenged me to think. The Bigfoot proponent is strong in me, however. It's hard to overcome. Just as you see a man in a costume, I see a living, breathing animal that has yet to be catalogued. This time around, you didn't present strong enough points for me to stop in my tracks and say, "Hmmmm, I think there's something to this." There seemed to be a natural explanation for everything you pointed out.
The man in a suit theory seems forced, whereas the flesh and blood theory seems very natural to me. I don't want you to give up on me. Challenge my beliefs. That's what I'm here for. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so at this time. Who knows, something you say in the future may stop me in my tracks and cause me to reconsider my current stance. It just hasn't reached that point yet. Maybe it never will. Then again, who knows? People can change.
Thanks for your patience with me concerning these matters.
I'm looking forward to more healthy debates,
Luminous
(Just kidding... I think...)