IMO... For the purposes of being 'The Face of JREF', the same thing that's 'wrong' with the Kardashians, American Idol, and a hundred other forms of 'reality' TV that appeal directly to the triune brain instead of logic.
fixed. And LOLing at 'triune brain.'
No, you simply fabricated a strawman fallacy to avoid dealing with a challenge to your superstitious faith in TV.
So called 'reality TV' spectator sports is simply too *fake* for the OP.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8197108#post8197108
Do tell.
I am not starting an internet tough guy challenge, and don't understand why you have all of these straw man arguments.
Noted. However, that's how the google search algorithm works, and if you just stay signed in, you see no ads at all. Problem solved!
Obviously, that's a false binary, but I think that I get your point. You seem to feel that physical sports are too commonplace / ordinary / lowlife for the front page of the JREF. Is that a fair characterization of your point?
You are conceding a point that I did not make. Again, with the straw men.
As I said, some Martial Arts have Chi and such-like often attached (but not always, and not always for particular types. I've attended judo, karate, Pencak Silat and Wing Chun classes, and none of them had any supernatural elements in the way they were taught); it seems a bit perverse to use the general term "Martial Arts" as a synonym for "Martial Arts which involve woo", when it has a perfectly good meaning already.
As I mentioned, Penn and Teller did a pretty good debunking on Martial Arts, and they didn't stop with the mystical energy stuff, they also focused on the whole culture of selling 'deadly warrior secrets' and the hype that surrounds the business end.
I vaguely remember Randi commenting in some SWIFT years ago about a banner on JREF website which led to a silly hoax, that it is part of the E to lead people to encounter such idiocy and tackle it. Personally I am not sure what to think about this issue, I vote blank.
Yes.
If television is your preferred means of learning about the world, knock yourself out. My choices aren't stopping you in the least.
If you had asked that question, you could have gotten an answer. But of course, you didn't ask that question, you asked a pointless Yes/No question and got the correct answer.
crimresearch said:
If you want to see P&T BS sans TV or commercials, YouTube is your friend.OK, so more than one of us are getting this impression of crimresearch's complaint, and have asked for clarification without success.
Could crimresearch possibly, pretty please with sugar on top, clarify the objection to an MMA person speaking about skeptical issues at the JREF?
Penn and Teller are on television, yes?
Anyway, more seriously:
Might you concede that using characters in popular culture who are themselves skeptics could be useful in spreading the JREF message beyond folks who are fans of Steven Hawking?
No, really, you haven't, but don't let that stop you being condescending.
Your assertion in direct contradiction to facts in evidence, is so... uncompelling.
Sacred cows? I can't even watch MMA. It's way too violent for me, and I really like boxing. Several of us have gotten the same (apparently wrong) impression from the words you have posted here, so respectfully the communication problem appears to be at your end. I'll drop it.
And yet, curiously, when I asked the question.... You Did Not Answer. You replied with a condescending strawman about me choosing to get my information from television.
That's some pretty heady company you're keeping there, Crimeresearch.
I answered your Yes/No question 'Yes'. That's the reality. To that, you've offered nothing factual on the topic.And yet, curiously, when I asked the question.... You Did Not Answer. You replied with a condescending strawman about me choosing to get my information from television.
Correct? Everything I've said is correct insofar as all I've done is ask you some questions. We now have the answer to one.... you learned all about the MMA on YouTube.
Useful? That depends, of course, on what one considers useful. Since I'm not sure that my goal in life is to support your ridiculous contentions, I think some may have found my comments useful.
Relevant? I stated my piece. I think having "celebrity" spokespersons for critical thinking and skepticism is a good thing. If those persons happen to come from (to me) fringe sports, so what?
Ya know what I think? I think you made a mistake in your OP and you're backing and filling with the pseudo-elitist approach to it just being unseemly. Not actually knowing what MMA was, you assumed it was "MA", i.e. Martial Arts and with your vast education (which is apparently from YouTube), you associated it with the lengthy research Penn & Teller and their bit on the nonsense surrounding all the Asian and pseudo-Asian martial arts. (And here's the irony... I think P&T are great. I recognize them as entertainers, though and I'd never use them as a primary source for anything other than The Penn & Teller Story.)
A good way to clear up the 'communication problem', would be to address what I actually said, instead of making up things I never said and claiming I believe them.
Why would somebody need adblocking software? Isn't Restricted zone+hosts sufficent?
