Then you are calling atavisms a “spectacularly stupid person”? (Atavisms Quote: How do you know they aren’t all manmade?) I would not go THAT far Cuddles!
No, I said no such thing. Atavisms did not claim that they are all manmade, he asked how you know they are not. Two very different things. If you want to argue, try to pay attention to what other people actually say.
The two questions are as LEGITIMATE as each other. My POINT was to SHOW that EACH was EQUALLY ridiculous in nature… got it now?
I got your point all along, the problem is simply that you're wrong. The two questions are certainly not as ridiculous as each other. Perhaps you should read up on the concept of "burden of proof" to help you understand why not.
My point stands then… You have just affirmed you should have added “Under specific conditions…”
No I didn't. Again, please try paying attention to what has actually been written if you want to argue with it. If I added that to the start of my original statement, I would be saying almost exactly the opposite of what I actually said. There may be some specific conditions under which identification
is possible, not some specific conditions where it is not, which is what you are trying to get me to say.
This is a sweeping generalisation without a shred of evidence in the context!
No, it's an established fact that I'm utterly amazed anyone would disagree with. I can't believe anyone who has spent any time researching UFOs would actually make the claim that people can tell the size, speed and distance of an unidentified object just by looking up at it with the naked eye. It's just such a stupid claim I never imagined I'd need to prove it wrong.
Oh… were you under some delusion that we were NOT talking about UFOs?
So “meteor” cases aren’t connected to “meteor” cases and “Venus” cases aren’t connected to “Venus” cases, etc for all your “established causes”? Do you people really think about what you post here? YOU CAN”T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! Either cases are connected in various aspects…or they are not!
What on Earth are you dribbling on about? Please try to make your posts at least vaguely coherent.
OMG… just read slowly through your statement and follow the logical implications… it simply does NOT make sense!
If I was arguing, I would not be arguing?
That is not what I said. Again, please try addressing what has actually been written instead of what you imagine might have been. What I actually said is that your claim of what you are arguing in favour of and the fact that you are arguing at all are in direct contradiction to each other. Skeptics say that the majority of UFO cases have mundane explanations, and that while we cannot be sure in a minority of cases, there is no reason to assume anything else. You claim to be arguing essentially the same thing, yet you constantly disagree with skeptics, give them abuse and use terms like "you people" to describe them.
Clearly you either are lying about what you actually believe or you fail to understand what anyone else is actually saying to you.
You people seem to have a peculiar bias about seeing conspiracies in everything. YOU show me ONE post where I have indicated I believe UFOs are NOT interesting…
Once again, you would do much better to address what is actually written. I never said that you do not find UFOs interesting. What I actually said was that most people consider the majority of UFOs, which have very obvious and well established mundane causes, are not interesting, and that assuming you are not in fact lying about your argument you should agree with that.
..and the last half of the last sentence… follow the logic of the whole sentence, it makes NO sense! Ugh!
Your failure to understand a simple sentence does not speak well of you.
You are a complete antirationalist! Logic does not apply in the real world? I cannot believe what I am reading!
More to the point, you apparently cannot understand what you are reading.
Evidence?
You see, this demonstrates my point perfectly. If there is only evidence of black crows, claiming white crows exist is extremely stupid. If there is evidence that white crows may be possible but no-one has ever seen one, claiming one exists is not stupid but is not supported by the evidence. If someone actually shows a white crow, then claiming only black crows exist is stupid. This really is basic stuff. It's all about the evidence.
I give up… you have no powers of critical thought, logic or rationalism. It is pointless carrying this conversation further with such an illogical person. Bunk!
Given that you are apparently unable to understand a simple explanation of basic rational thought, I'm not sure you're the best person to be calling others illogical.
I challenge any critical thinker to state here and now that Cuddles statements represents their standard of logical and critical thinking in this forum.
OK. Cuddles' statements represent my standard of logical and critical thinking in this forum. Given that my statements are pretty much the basic definition of logical and critical thinking, you're probably going to struggle here.
Cuddles, come back when you have a rational, thought out position that is pertinent to my points.
My rational, thought out position was previously that you simply misunderstood what skepticism actually is. However, I am now forced to revise that and conclude that you have no idea what rational thought, skepticism, or indeed reality, are, and that your reading comprehension is so bad that you are unlikely to ever learn. I should note that that is only because I'm being rather generous, and the more obvious conclusions of trolling or genuine mental problems are not as charitable.
