JREF a Gay Organization?

[Moochie]

FWIW, I don't believe U.S. or Australian politicians who advertise their "faith" in prime or any other time. There are good reasons for this.


M.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The Bush quote is, in fact, an urban legend. A total fabrication, but useful for militant atheists with a victim mentality.

 

[Piscivore]

The Bush quote is, in fact, an urban legend. A total fabrication, but useful for militant atheists with a victim mentality.

Evidence?

 

[zooterkin]

Evidence?

http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm

Although it might not be what AvalonXQ is hoping for.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Evidence?

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who insist Bush said it.

 

[Moochie]

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who insist Bush said it.

Cheap shot: Bush didn't say it, he did it.


M.

 

[dasmiller]

http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm

Although it might not be what AvalonXQ is hoping for.

Even if we take Bush's quote at face value (which I'm inclined to do), it's still a remark made 22 years ago by a member of a political party that's no longer in power.

So I'm not feeling all that threatened.

 

[Piscivore]

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who insist Bush said it.

I meant, what evidence leads you to believe he didn't say it when it was reported he did.

 

[Moochie]

I believe Bush was as human as you and I. What makes anyone think he was different?


M.

 

[MikeSun5]

I realize that folks here consider derision, ad hominems attacks and sarcasm "valid argument" and "addressing something..."

...so the proper reaction is to respond with insults and condescension?

See again, remirol and social skills intro.

Thirded. (post #346, btw)

The point I am making, and it still remains unanswered, is that special provision was publicly expressed to distance the organization from atheists.

First off, your point is not a question. The title of this thread is, and the answer is no. Your point is correct, but your anger is misplaced and your argument is an exercise in hyperbole.

 

[dglas]

...so the proper reaction is to respond with insults and condescension?

I give what I get. I was civil. Then I was attacked. Turns out the yapping jackals can dish it out, but can't take it. I can go back to the subject matter at any time.

Thirded. (post #346, btw)

Irrelevant and off topic. Claims that the subject matter is changed due to perceived incivility are contrary to basic logic.

First off, your point is not a question. The title of this thread is, and the answer is no. Your point is correct, but your anger is misplaced and your argument is an exercise in hyperbole.

"First off, your point is not a question. "
Is this what you consider a point of argument? You really are desperate for something to pick at, rather than deal with the subject matter in question, aren't you? Here's a freebie for you: I will now misspell "keyboard." Keebord. You can now leap on that as an argument point.

My anger actually arises from much-too-high expectations of my detractors' ability to conduct a civil discussion. Even as late as the OP, I was still presenting the argument in a civil fashion. The responses, including yours, however, dragged the conversation down - which is exactly what they were intended to do. That is akin to kittening, posting recipes, mindless quips, and all the other cheap rhetorical tactics wielded by those without an argument.

 

[TokenMac]

"The JREF is not an Atheist Organization"

Might be a poor choice of words, if they were printed by themselves on a sign, if they were the sole content of a press release, or if they were in any way presented on their own by the JREF with no additional content.

That's not the case. There has been no posting from the JREF including this phrase that did not also go on to explain it's meaning, that the JREF includes both theists and atheists.

dglas I don't know about Cavemonster, but I still would like an answer to this.

 

[remirol]

Claims that the subject matter is changed due to perceived incivility are contrary to basic logic.

This is a strawman. Nobody has claimed the subject matter changes; however, people are not computers, and their willingness to listen is based on the method in which you approach them. You have consistently approached the subject matter with "I am right and everyone else is wrong", and you have been abusive and condescending in your replies. This has caused many people to tune you out, as there isn't much point in arguing with someone whose mind is closed and isn't willing to listen.

I repeat again: if nobody is willing to listen, does it matter how right you are?

Understanding this is a key component of critical thinking.

Let's consider the primary benefits of critical thinking for a moment, shall we? In general, applying it where possible to our actions will tend to provide a number of tangible benefits. We (critical thinkers) will tend to spend money efficiently, on things which provide actual return for value; we will use medical treatments which work, rather than unproven woo; and we will not waste great lengths of time and effort catering to an invisible sky fairy, instead enjoying our lives. OK. So in short, one of the benefits is the ability to accomplish what we need efficiently for whatever circumstances.

Now, let's apply this to my above statement. You have a specific circumstance where you would like people to listen to and agree with a point you are trying to make. Yet you are intentionally selecting an approach that causes people to avoid listening to you and avoid taking you seriously, even when several people have told you that your approach is the problem, rather than your subject matter.

I contend that you are not applying critical thinking to this circumstance; rather, you are thinking emotionally and irrationally, and this is the primary cause of your frustration.

As much as many of us would like to believe that logic is enough, this simply isn't ever going to be true when dealing with anything but a computer. A minimum of social skills and persuasive speaking are necessary to win people over to your side, no matter how "right" you are on the facts. There is a reason criminal attorneys are well-spoken, well-dressed, and comport themselves in an extremely professional manner; they need the juries to want to listen to what they're saying.

Right now, nobody wants to listen to what you're saying, because you're going out of your way to be as abusive and obnoxious as possible. You've even garnered several rule 12 infractions in the process. I suggest that your approach is obscuring any message you are attempting to get across, and that until you change that approach, you will not see any improvement.

Your call.

 

[Cavemonster]

dglas I don't know about Cavemonster, but I still would like an answer to this.

Oh, I would love to see dglas link to where he saw the phrase used by the JREF without a clear explanation of exactly what was meant, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[specious_reasons]

Oh, I would love to see dglas link to where he saw the phrase used by the JREF without a clear explanation of exactly what was meant, but I'm not holding my breath.

This is what I remember:
http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14

I want this fully understood: the James Randi Educational Foundation is not an atheist organization; it is an organization dedicated to offering down-to-Earth, rational, explanations and discussions of the so-called paranormal, supernatural, and occult happenings and claims with which we are constantly bombarded by the media and by groups – including religious groups – who try to convince us of such matters. While I, as JREF president, and those presently working in our office, are declared atheists, there is no bar against others taking positions with us, appearing on our web page or forum, doing business with us, or attending any of our functions. My personal stance is that religious claims are of the same nature as any other claims made without supporting evidence, that is, they are superstitious claims; if those claims come up for examination by the JREF, they must undergo the same sort of analysis as any others.

(bolding mine) When I read this, I thought it was clear and easy to understand. I suppose one could quote-mine this to someone else's displeasure, but in my opinion this wouldn't even fall into the top 10 of Randi's gaffs.

 

[dglas]

...their willingness to listen is based on the method in which you approach them.

Displaying evidence is not a method that works with this crew, apparently.

The evidence of the impact of negative language has been provided. You are clutching at straws - anything to avoid the point.

... there isn't much point in arguing with someone whose mind is closed and isn't willing to listen.

That you are standing on form rather than content is why I am dismissing you.

Since you exemplify this, I will no longer respond to you.

 

[TokenMac]

This is what I remember:
http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14


(bolding mine) When I read this, I thought it was clear and easy to understand. I suppose one could quote-mine this to someone else's displeasure, but in my opinion this wouldn't even fall into the top 10 of Randi's gaffs.

Thanks specious,

When ever I looked for the offending quote that page was the only thing I could find too. I guess I was just hoping that dglas had seen some thing that wasn't coming up in a google search.

So dglas your concerns were answered over 4 years before you had them, may be now you could apologize to the JREF for taking there words out of context, and accusing them of plotting against atheist.

 

[remirol]

Displaying evidence is not a method that works with this crew, apparently.

Handwaving doesn't work either. When you feel like displaying evidence rather than ranting abusively, let us know.

The evidence of the impact of negative language has been provided.

And yet you wilfully ignore the impact of your own negative language... another fine display of emotional, irrational non-logic.

Your responses or lack thereof don't change the validity of my points. But your unwillingness to attempt to understand them simply underlines what I have to say and casts it forever in letters of gold.

 

[arthwollipot]

I repeat again: if nobody is willing to listen, does it matter how right you are?

Understanding this is a key component of critical thinking.

...

I contend that you are not applying critical thinking to this circumstance; rather, you are thinking emotionally and irrationally, and this is the primary cause of your frustration.

...

Right now, nobody wants to listen to what you're saying, because you're going out of your way to be as abusive and obnoxious as possible. You've even garnered several rule 12 infractions in the process. I suggest that your approach is obscuring any message you are attempting to get across, and that until you change that approach, you will not see any improvement.

Quoted For Truth.

Oh, and Nominated.

 

[Hawk one]

Oh, I would love to see dglas link to where he saw the phrase used by the JREF without a clear explanation of exactly what was meant, but I'm not holding my breath.

I would also love to see that. I mean, where I've seen the phrase used by JREF, it's been painfully obvious to me that it was about clearing up a common misconception, but hey, English is only my second language, so what do I know? And of course, even if that wasn't obvious in itself, the clarification's always followed immediately anyway, meaning only quote-miners can take it to mean that JREF could possibly be discriminating against atheists.

Of course, when Jeff -repeated- this - in a most perfectly polite manner, as is evident - he too was met with more condencension and of course the continued insistence that this clearing up hadn't been provided earlier. Which shows that dglas is lying when he says he only "gives what he gets" in terms of civility. In fact, that is only one of many example in this thread where people who have tried to argue civilly with him have only gotten condencention and insults in return.

But hey, dglas, you still have a chance to redeem yourself: Show some evidence that the JREF has ever mentioned that it's "not an atheist organisation" without immediately explaining what they mean with this (and show some evidence that this explanation differs in from Jeff's post), and I'm willing to listen.

 

[MikeSun5]

My anger actually arises from much-too-high expectations of my detractors' ability to conduct a civil discussion.

Wow. You just admitted that your anger is your own fault. So apparently if you hadn't set your expectations so high, you wouldn't have had to resort to insults and condescension. Hey, live and learn.

With that one sentence, all you've done is proven what remirol and arthwollipot were saying. You are not being logical, you are being emotional.

I give what I get. I was civil. Then I was attacked.

Incorrect. Your OP was not clear, it was misinterpreted, and you became rude when people reacted to the posts you wrote rather than the ideas you thought of. You were "attacked" because your OP came off as trollish and homophobic. Rest assured, if you would calm down and work on your clarity, you'd have a lot better conversations with all of us dummies.

Is this what you consider a point of argument? You really are desperate for something to pick at, rather than deal with the subject matter in question, aren't you?

I've addressed the hypocracy of your argument numerous times, but you have ignored my points, and the other posts were moved for being off topic (which I would tend to disagree with).

So once again, we'll get down to the root of your furious and insulting rants:

My anger actually arises from much-too-high expectations of my detractors' ability to conduct a civil discussion.

...oh, and you misspelled "keyboard."

 

[Ludicrous Leprechaun]

Threads like this remind me that I picked the wrong time, to give up Circus Peanuts!

I don't have the patience to read 10 pages of good people, trying to refute someone's contention that they object to bigotry, by implying bigotry exists in the atheists disclaimer at this site.
It didn't say, no atheists allowed. It simply seeks to educate the ignorant, that critical thought and skepticism isn't exclusive to atheism. As such, this site isn't exclusively atheist! But I guess one would have to be an atheist to get that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You were "attacked" because your OP came off as trollish and homophobic.

His OP was not homophobic. I am amazed that anyone took dglas' like or dislike, or indifference to, homosexuals from his OP. One has to read quite a bit into that post to find anything remotely homophobic.

DR

 

[quixotecoyote]

His OP was not homophobic. I am amazed that anyone took dglas' like or dislike, or indifference to, homosexuals from his OP. One has to read quite a bit into that post to find anything remotely homophobic.

DR

And if one is going to read that far into it, one could probably figure out what he was trying to say.

 

[MikeSun5]

His OP was not homophobic. I am amazed that anyone took dglas' like or dislike, or indifference to, homosexuals from his OP. One has to read quite a bit into that post to find anything remotely homophobic.

I just checked back, and you're right about the OP not directly being homophobic, but if you look at his next few posts, their hostility certainly implies a resentful/angry person. That implication is probably the reason the topic of homophobia was even raised. It sucks when it happens, but dglas' attitude quickly overshadowed what little logic his argument held.

 

[Stacy Head]

Are you serious?

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.


Reposted here in a new thread for greater visibility, rather than just being buried, deep in another thread. I posted the above to my Facebook status recently - the results were, shall we say, interesting...

These are the happiest people I know. I love happy people. Why would you not want to be around happy people? And I mean happy like fa la la la la la la ka ching. I just won the lottery type of happy people.

So what's the problem with being happy?

Is D.J. happier than Phil? Why do you need a statement saying the JREF is a happy organization? That's just ridiculous

 

[Darth Rotor]

I just checked back, and you're right about the OP not directly being homophobic, but if you look at his next few posts, their hostility certainly implies a resentful/angry person. That implication is probably the reason the topic of homophobia was even raised. It sucks when it happens, but dglas' attitude quickly overshadowed what little logic his argument held.

Understood, but his frustration/anger didn't seem to me to be directed at homosexuals. Not hardly. His frustration seems to be at the JREF for one reason or another. See the Forum Management forum for more frustration exhibited.

DR

 

[Legato]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.


Reposted here in a new thread for greater visibility, rather than just being buried, deep in another thread. I posted the above to my Facebook status recently - the results were, shall we say, interesting...

No, JREF is not a gay organisation, anymore than it is a straight organisation, an atheist organisation, a theist organisation, an ex-service person organisation, an organisation for black people, or an organisation for white people.

There are two interpretations of the phrase "JREF is not an organisation for...", the first, far more obscure meaning "specifically excludes", and "not specifically set up for" which is obviously what was intended.

That said, judging by the posters here and Randi himself, it seems in the main to consist of atheists.

I think you are being terrifyingly over-sensitive. If someone just clarified the statement for you to make it more clear that meaning two was intended, would you be happy?

 

[Piscivore]

If someone just clarified the statement for you to make it more clear that meaning two was intended, would you be happy?

It's been done, a half-dozen times, at least. His answer seems to be "No".

 

[Hawk one]

I think you are being terrifyingly over-sensitive. If someone just clarified the statement for you to make it more clear that meaning two was intended, would you be happy?

When the statement was made in the first place, the clarification immediately followed. And it has been every time any time it's been mentioned officially. Clearly, complete clarification even before asked simply isn't enough for dglas.

 

[arthwollipot]

When the statement was made in the first place, the clarification immediately followed. And it has been every time any time it's been mentioned officially. Clearly, complete clarification even before asked simply isn't enough for dglas.

Not to mention the fact that with a little bit of thought and context, a clarification shouldn't even have been needed in the first place.

 

[Legato]

Not to mention the fact that with a little bit of thought and context, a clarification shouldn't even have been needed in the first place.

Sometimes people get so emotionally invested in an idea that they won't back down. I was hoping that this might have been a dignified way to get out of a tight corner. It didn't work, but it was worth a try.

 

[BazBear]

The fact that this thread is still active simply amazes me.

 

[BazBear]

Understood, but his frustration/anger didn't seem to me to be directed at homosexuals. Not hardly. His frustration seems to be at the JREF for one reason or another. See the Forum Management forum for more frustration exhibited.

DR

Thanks for pointing that out, Darth. I'll not comment more on Dglas' posts other than to say, whatever the burr in his bottom side is, it's probably not homophobic.

 

[dglas]

It only took you all (with acknowledged exceptions) a month and 10 days to finally realize the OP was using homosexuality as a comparison - a very effective comparison. So effective, in fact, that responses to it perfectly displayed the point, leaving detractors with nothing to resort to but personal attacks. Maybe if I give another year some will figure out what the point of the comparison was.

The comparison's approach was necessary because these boards are rife with unfortunate persons, using very unfortunate rhetorical ploys, to avoid considering the subject matter. Instead, the standard ploys of ad hominems, straw men and derision are trotted out yet again for the unimaginative and integrity-free to lap up. The standards for conversation on these boards are worse than deplorable, essentially school-yard bullying, as vividly displayed in this thread.

There is little in the line of responses from my detractors in this thread that would pass muster in the most dumbed-down of informal fallacy classes. This is the standard of conversation the JREF "rules" endorse and enforce, and that most posters, it seems, clutch at. Those who cannot understand the position, mischaracterize it and attack their caricatures. The "anti-theism" thing is a prime example of this, and especially Piscivore's deliberate and dishonest misuse of it.

Let's look at that for a moment. One poster uses my self-description as an "anti-theist" to make nonsensical claim. Piscivore, using all the reasoning abilities at his disposal, thinks he sees an opportunity to discredit the person, rather than addressing the argument. He declared that I am full of hate and hopes the mindless masses will (1) take his word for it, as if he has suddenly become the expert on all things dglas, and (2) make the leap that someone being full of hate refutes the point of an argument (whihc is a logical fallacy). Most people familiar with the basic fundamentals of logic will see this as the dishonest rhetorical ploy it is. Piscivore's argument is all of off-topic, abusive, irrelevant, a straw man, disingenuous, and completely without any merit whatsoever, but this is par for the course for him.

Remirol simply cannot comprehend that content is independent of tone, who says it or motivations. This is the simplest of logic. Rather than deal with the subject matter - again - sorry attempts at excuses are offered to discredit the person.

What these two, and others like them, have done is offered pathetic excuses for deliberately ignoring the subject matter on plainly false and irrelevant pretenses. That some lap it up is a sign of argument standards in dire need of re-education (or any education, for that matter).

This is exactly what one would expect from a forum thoroughly compromised by bait and report trolls. A forum famous for spamming threads with kittens and recipes and mindless quips and derailing - for want of argument and integrity.



@BazBear: The burr (as you so quaintly put it) is that language that would be unacceptable when referring to any other group is strangely acceptable when referring to
atheists. The fact that it took 10 pages and 394 posts before the accusations of homophobia were finally put to rest is proof of this -

clear,

obvious,

unequivocal

and unambiguous proof.

That statements are made later to conduct damage control is not to the point so long as the original statement is still in place. The word "atheist" today has negative emotional connotations that puts it on a par with any of the most hateful terms wielded against any group. This is not a matter of opinion on my part. It is seen clearly in political, legal and social circles. The only way to fight this is to claim the word as our own and give it a new meaning. Statements like Randi's accept and perpetuate the negative connotations and intents thereof - at the insistence of those who would see the word used in a consistently derogatory fashion. This is one of the things we have learned from every other social minority rights group, and it is just as true now. It doesn't change because the group referred to is atheists instead of whatever other comparison one chooses to consider.

 

[arthwollipot]

*yawn*

 

[remirol]

Remirol simply cannot comprehend that content is independent of tone, who says it or motivations. This is the simplest of logic. Rather than deal with the subject matter - again - sorry attempts at excuses are offered to discredit the person.

This is a strawman. Nobody has claimed the subject matter changes; however, people are not computers, and their willingness to listen is based on the method in which you approach them. You have consistently approached the subject matter with "I am right and everyone else is wrong", and you have been abusive and condescending in your replies. This has caused many people to tune you out, as there isn't much point in arguing with someone whose mind is closed and isn't willing to listen.

I repeat again: if nobody is willing to listen, does it matter how right you are?

Understanding this is a key component of critical thinking.

Let's consider the primary benefits of critical thinking for a moment, shall we? In general, applying it where possible to our actions will tend to provide a number of tangible benefits. We (critical thinkers) will tend to spend money efficiently, on things which provide actual return for value; we will use medical treatments which work, rather than unproven woo; and we will not waste great lengths of time and effort catering to an invisible sky fairy, instead enjoying our lives. OK. So in short, one of the benefits is the ability to accomplish what we need efficiently for whatever circumstances.

Now, let's apply this to my above statement. You have a specific circumstance where you would like people to listen to and agree with a point you are trying to make. Yet you are intentionally selecting an approach that causes people to avoid listening to you and avoid taking you seriously, even when several people have told you that your approach is the problem, rather than your subject matter.

I contend that you are not applying critical thinking to this circumstance; rather, you are thinking emotionally and irrationally, and this is the primary cause of your frustration.

As much as many of us would like to believe that logic is enough, this simply isn't ever going to be true when dealing with anything but a computer. A minimum of social skills and persuasive speaking are necessary to win people over to your side, no matter how "right" you are on the facts. There is a reason criminal attorneys are well-spoken, well-dressed, and comport themselves in an extremely professional manner; they need the juries to want to listen to what they're saying.

Right now, nobody wants to listen to what you're saying, because you're going out of your way to be as abusive and obnoxious as possible. You've even garnered several rule 12 infractions in the process. I suggest that your approach is obscuring any message you are attempting to get across, and that until you change that approach, you will not see any improvement.

Your call.

Normally I wouldn't overquote like this, but unfortunately, all of the post is an appropriate response to dglas' oft-repeated strawman above. The validity of content is, indeed, independent of the tone in which it is delivered. But the tone of delivery can, indeed, render the content moot. This is what is happening in this case; this is what the above message addresses.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

It would also help if you toned down the insults from 12 to oh, I dunno, 6.

 

[Legato]

dglas,

I did not think that you were being homophobic.

Perhaps you would consider answering my question, as I answered yours?

No, JREF is not a gay organisation, anymore than it is a straight organisation, an atheist organisation, a theist organisation, an ex-service person organisation, an organisation for black people, or an organisation for white people.

There are two interpretations of the phrase "JREF is not an organisation for...", the first, far more obscure meaning "specifically excludes", and "not specifically set up for" which is obviously what was intended.

That said, judging by the posters here and Randi himself, it seems in the main to consist of atheists.

I think you are being terrifyingly over-sensitive. If someone just clarified the statement for you to make it more clear that meaning two was intended, would you be happy?

 

[dasmiller]

Instead, the standard ploys of ad hominems, straw men and derision are trotted out yet again for the unimaginative and integrity-free to lap up.

So, in many posts, it has been explained that JREF included the phrase in question to resolve a common point of confusion.

Would "to resolve a common point of confusion" be considered an ad hom, a straw man, or derision?