Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[SirPhilip]

The massive support from abroad, finance and military, makes it clear that it is by no means self-perpetuating.
"stronger instincts play a role in priorities". What the hell is that supposed to mean?!

Hypothetical situation, we give millions in the Congo basic living standards and food, train them in agriculture, and open public schools for them, at a cost of billions. The situation will continually degrade until it reverts back again. Consider Saudi Arabia's wealth but cultural backwardness, or Iraq. We have this notion that we can turn them into the west.

. They do? Which ones? Africans play the drums and the Chinese eat rice?

It's indisputably obvious certain ethnic groups, or even sub groups, behave in stereotypical ways. This occurs among breeds of apes as well, in us it's more complex. It's completely ridiculous to assert this doesn't occur. I'm Sicilian for example, and we have our common quirks, it isn't imaginary or socially reinforced, and isn't good or bad either, in many ways amusing. Largely it paints humanity as a colorful tapestry, which is far more interesting than the asinine "Everyone has the same sensibilities".

(my (!) and (?), dann) No, I don't think that it is. It isn't recognized by me, for instance.

Hey, if you want to pretend the obvious doesn't exist, go ahead. You can even play the evidence card with this politically correct denial. Nature and history tells a clear story of differences and diplomacy.

 

[dann]

Yeah, I have nothing more to say on this subject either.

I concur with articulett's diagnoses.

Well, at least you share her symptoms!
Which is a pity, really, since you and the other 'Sweatshop Boys' could have learned a lot from the article about poverty I recommended.
And so could SirPhilip (see above).

They (the poor in the Third World) simply lack access to the means of production necessary nowadays to take part in the competition for purchasing power. People like this are without means and helpless. They can’t perform the work they need to acquire the means to satisfy their needs. It obviously follows that the whole thing has not the least bit to do with industriousness or laziness: millions of people in the Third World doggedly struggle for a decent life without any real success. And those who clear out — the famous refugee problem — and land in the slums of the big cities of the North trying to survive likewise don’t exactly show any laziness. They risk their lives to find work, and if they’re lucky, they get mercilessly exploited; when they’re unlucky, they get shipped back again. Others remain in a state of forced inactivity, not because starving is just oh so comfortable, but because their separation from the necessary instruments of labor puts every worthwhile effort out of reach. It is to them that the moralistic educators of the people point when they declare their passivity, dullness and even self-neglect, which result from economic helplessness and insurmountable misery, to be the — self-inflicted —cause of the misery. For this kind of cynicism, it would help to judge others by one’s own standards: nobody could possibly get so lazy as to prefer starving (to death) than making the effort to procure resources — as long as there is a permitted and practicable way of working for the necessities!

The banality of capitalism!
However, when you argue like this

It's indisputably obvious certain ethnic groups, or even sub groups, behave in stereotypical ways. This occurs among breeds of apes as well, in us it's more complex. It's completely ridiculous to assert this doesn't occur.

the only thing that becomes "indisputably obvious" is SP's prejudiced racism which renders superfluous any attempt at actually looking at the object of the discussion.
Thus his use of the word "hypothesis" becomes absurd. It usually refers to an only provisional conclusion: You haven't (yet) determined if your theory is correct, but you assume that it might be. SirPhilip, however, already knows the outcome of his 'hypothetical' experience in advance: There's no helping these people since they are going to procreate to the extent that they cannot feed their children.

Many people have children they cannot support - this is why giving aid to places like Africa is futile.

At first I did not quite understand why Claus seemed to jump to the conclusion that SP is a racist. Now I know why!

 

[CFLarsen]

You were a brave dude for re-entering this Twilight Zone drama of the past--

Some people imagine themselves having expertise in subjects no one else seems to consider themselves experts on. These people seem to be having entirely different conversations than the majority. Rather, they are endlessly winning points in some imaginary battle. It has a name.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.


Those with the syndrome seem unable to realize that they have the syndrome-- it's part of the syndrome. I'm not sure it's curable. It' like a loop... engage them for verbal exercise and repartee only. Warn others. (Those with the syndrome aren't even playing the same game as each other when they are the same threads--they need outside prodding or the conversation dies... I appreciate you stoking it momentarily for our entertainment purposes.)

Yeah, I have nothing more to say on this subject either.

I concur with articulett's diagnoses.

I find this troubling.

articulett, puppycow,

Why do you feel you have to portray those you disagree with on political issues as being mentally ill?

How is that beneficial to a healthy debate? How is that compatible with skepticism and critical thinking?

 

[articulett]

It's not disagreement that is at issue--the guilty parties are all over the place and it's hard to even follow what they say. These people who are having entirely different conversations than anyone else--their point (if there is one is lost amidst their ad homs, pedantry, and excessive verbiage). I have no idea what anybody's politics are on this thread-- but I've had some wrong assumption made about mine by a couple of the afflicted parties.

It's a well recognized syndrome. It's incurable. So you may as well laugh rather than beat your head against the wall. Some people use a lot of words, but don't really seem to have a point. The more they say, the less you understand them and the less you care to. These people never know that they are such people--they are so certain it's everyone else; so they cannot address it. The other people wonder if the communication error is them so they keep trying different ways to communicate or clarify-- but it's always to no avail. The person must "win" their imaginary game.

I never throw out the first insult, btw. And I didn't mention specifics. I think everyone can conclude for themselves who the description applies to.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's not disagreement that is at issue--the guilty parties are all over the place and it's hard to even follow what they say. These people who are having entirely different conversations than anyone else--their point (if there is one is lost amidst their ad homs, pedantry, and excessive verbiage). I have no idea what anybody's politics are on this thread-- but I've had some wrong assumption made about mine by a couple of the afflicted parties.

It's a well recognized syndrome. It's incurable. So you may as well laugh rather than beat your head against the wall. Some people use a lot of words, but don't really seem to have a point. The more they say, the less you understand them and the less you care to. These people never know that they are such people--they are so certain it's everyone else; so they cannot address it. The other people wonder if the communication error is them so they keep trying different ways to communicate or clarify-- but it's always to no avail. The person must "win" their imaginary game.

I never throw out the first insult, btw.

I'm not talking about insults. I'm talking about your need to portray your opponents on political issues as mentally ill, in order not to address their arguments.

By doing that, can you explain how that is beneficial to a healthy debate? How is that compatible with
skepticism and critical thinking?

And I didn't mention specifics. I think everyone can conclude for themselves who the description applies to.

Not that it wasn't very clear who you meant, but, why hold back with the names? If you are prepared to portray your opponents on political issues as mentally ill, you should also be prepared to name them.

Otherwise, you are merely avoiding addressing political issues by throwing out accusations of mental illness, without having the guts to name those you deem crazy.

Maybe - just maybe - you should refrain in the future from diagnosing your opponents in a political debate as being nuts?

Just a suggestion, of course.

 

[dann]

I'm not talking about insults. I'm talking about your need to portray your opponents on political issues as mentally ill, in order not to address their arguments.

That's the point, Claus, and you can leave it at that! When she runs out of arguments, the ad homs take over. If you consider her choice of allies and compares it with her complaints about "ad homs, pedantry, and excessive verbiage", her lack of self-knowledge becomes fairly obvious to everybody. She does not even see the irony of her sig line and keeps on and on only because she is obsessed with not losing the game: "These people never know that they are such people--they are so certain it's everyone else; so they cannot address it. (...) The person must "win" their imaginary game."
Same thing in the case of Puppycow: No arguments left, unable to admit it, so in order to leave with his head high, he has to pretend that there must be something seriously wrong with his opponent.

 

[articulett]

I'm not talking about insults. I'm talking about your need to portray your opponents on political issues as mentally ill, in order not to address their arguments.

By doing that, can you explain how that is beneficial to a healthy debate? How is that compatible with
skepticism and critical thinking?



Not that it wasn't very clear who you meant, but, why hold back with the names? If you are prepared to portray your opponents on political issues as mentally ill, you should also be prepared to name them.

Otherwise, you are merely avoiding addressing political issues by throwing out accusations of mental illness, without having the guts to name those you deem crazy.

Maybe - just maybe - you should refrain in the future from diagnosing your opponents in a political debate as being nuts?

Just a suggestion, of course.

Who thinks you guys are making arguments other than you? I address the arguments but your move goal posts, change the point, go off topic, fling ad homs and then have a tizzy-fit when you get a taste of what you dish out regularly. Go see who started the nastiness first... the political aspersions. I have no idea what Dann's politics are nor yours... I don't even know what your points are as you move them all over the place.

Dann's logic is flawed-- his conversation is all over the place-- he's not really saying anything... neither are you... you ask inane questions that are meant to infer something snide-- not to clarify-- and you guys never clue into the basics of back and forth conversation. I guess you just assume the problem is everyone else. You accuse me of attack while blinding yourself to attacks made first... this isn't a political debate... I haven't called anyone "nuts"-- I've asserted that some people are having their own conversation-- whatever the majority think this conversation is about-- these people seem to be in an entirely different thread! They are playing to win some point that only they know! The rest of the people seem engaged in clarifying understanding.

So you are wrong Claus... it has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with mental illness (except maybe in the case of Sir Phillip)-- it has to do with conversational goals. If your goal is to understand the facts better that is different than the goal of inflicting your opinion on others or passing judgment on them while pretending they are the bad guys so you win the game in your head. Both of you pass judgment on others pretty freely-- Dann's whole thread is about such-- and yet you guys are crying like you are the victims! You are the victims of your own buffoonery. Nobody thinks that you have the qualification to judge others other than you. And yet you want to tell me I'm "unfair" when it comes back??? Are you that blind to your own judgment, arrogance, tangents, lack of humility, and general conversational incompetence--not to mention your egregious mischaracterization of me??

And if it hurts your feelings... you started it. Go back and read and see who was the a-hole first. If you don't see that it was you guys-- then you're not seeing what the majority is seeing. You are ignoring your own faults while exaggerating those same faults in others which exist only because you put your faults on such glaring and attacking display. You guys are the a-holes you think others are.

I have a right to warn others of such people, and I am thankful when they warn me. Because most people wonder if the problem is them-- but the incompetents NEVER do. They imagine themselves experts when no-one else does-- and they insult others while assuming or imagining themselves models of politeness and decorum. Does anyone else think you guys are the model of decorum and conversational geniuses you seem to think you are? Does anyone else consider you experts in politics or whatever it is you pop into threads to berate people for? Does anyone else think I'm labeling people as mentally ill because of political disagreements? Or that I'm avoiding some actual point you guys are making? Has one ever been made by you? Because to me and others, it seems to be a lot of words to say nothing much and all and infer a lot of snideness so you can win points in the game in your head.

So can you sum up your point in this thread or in your attacks on me so that others might be able to accurately sum up your point of views. Has Dann ever?

Once again... this ISN'T a political debate... I try to refrain from politics and I haven't called anyone mentally ill (though I inferred as much regarding Sir Phillip).

To recap. Dann's opening post was a judgment upon "immature skeptics" (whom he sets himself above) and it drew an illogical conclusion as many people pointed out. He digressed and attacked and changed his point and all sorts of other things... and people left realizing he was a blowhard (not a term of mental illness). He made a logical fallacy, and people tried to show him but he was in his own conversation where he had to win some imaginary game that only he seems to know the point of.

The thread was resurrected, so I warned puppycow etc. of what they were dealing with with regards to Dann so he/she (puppycow) wouldn't wonder if the problem was him/her. Dann, like you, is one of the people who seldom consider the communication problem could be them. You guys don't seem to realize when people aren't following you or when you've made a complete non-sequitur or snide attack out of the blue. You guys don't apologize... you move the goal posts... you make snide commentary disguised as questions (that you don't want the answer too) and after awhile it becomes transparent to everyone but yourselves that you are one of those self appointed experts on some topic deriving some satisfaction putting other people down so you can win an imagninary game in your head-- while the rest of the people are just engaging in dialogue, and banter, and discussion. We are learning from each other. You guys think you have nothing to learn and that we should be eager to hear your opinions while you forget others have opinions too. Change is a two way street--try turning that judgment of me mirror back onto yourselves. I am ever ready to listen to the people I respect (the majority of the people on this forum)-- I'm sure they will let me know if there is something I need to know in regards to my conversational tactics, and I will adjust accordingly. Until then, I suggest the adjustment needs to come from the complainers.

Harsh truth. Or maybe a harsh opinion. But you started it. And I think many people share my viewpoint and appreciate the heads up. Of course they are free to speak up if they do not. If you guys are such fabulous conversationalists or experts then what does my opinion matter anyhow? I'm not afraid of being wrong and I know I have much to learn about communicating. Of course competent people tend to assess their talents more accurately while the incompetent tend to overestimate their competence and so they never realize they have something they should be working on.

 

[articulett]

And yes Dann... I am proud to be on your "enemy" list. I find it a fantastic crowd of people. Plus you insulted Dawkins so I imagine he's on your enemy list which flatters me even more. The people on your list of "the annoying" are some of my favorite people... and your top supporters seem to be the "self appointed experts" that many people avoid...

If you guys gain a little humility, I'm sure this whole board will be happier and all your communications will improve. Until that time, you are going to have a lot of people you've made into bad guys never realizing that the problem comes from your communication. (No one else is assessing your intelligence as high as you guys appear to be assessing it. It's better to lower our expectations via humility and let us conclude that you are a much smarter person than you give yourself credit for--rather than the vice-versa). If you can't be humble... develop a sense of humor. Or just learn to listen and be able to sum up other peoples' points as well as your own. It's a forum--not a contest.

 

[SirPhilip]

The banality of capitalism! However, when you argue like this the only thing that becomes "indisputably obvious" is SP's prejudiced racism which renders superfluous any attempt at actually looking at the object of the discussion. Thus his use of the word "hypothesis" becomes absurd. It usually refers to an only provisional conclusion: You haven't (yet) determined if your theory is correct, but you assume that it might be. SirPhilip, however, already knows the outcome of his 'hypothetical' experience in advance: There's no helping these people since they are going to procreate to the extent that they cannot feed their children.

You must be one of those tight arsed white people in denial different ethnicities have different attitudes. I went to high school in a multicultural environment, I know what I'm talking about. Only sheltered honkeys afraid of being politically incorrect think this way. The fact you instantly jump and down and moronically label me a racist sort of affirms this. I bet you're a Democrat as well. Now, third world countries have to develop culturally on their own. You can't force them. We're clearly making this mistake right now..

 

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost

 

[SirPhilip]

Who thinks you guys are making arguments other than you? I address the arguments but your move goal posts, change the point, go off topic, fling ad homs and then have a tizzy-fit when you get a taste of what you dish out regularly...

I know we're on the rocks, baby, you had to be spanked because you weren't thinking critically enough, but I hate to see you have migraines. That frustration in your eyes. Don't feed CFLarson anything but simplistic bullet points. When you combine facts and bullets, which he hates more than guns, he'll vamoose.

 

[SirPhilip]

So you are wrong Claus... it has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with mental illness (except maybe in the case of Sir Phillip)

(Brother Philip yawns and puffs on his Shisha pipe; he notices he's mentioned too. Taking a large inhale, his vision defocuses, then sharpens as a rush of expensive, fragrant jessamine tobacco is exhaled. A trio of smoke rings gently evaporate over a visibly frustrated inarticulett's head. He squints..)

You're awfully cute, but don't turn this around, I'm helping you avoid madness by aborting any lengthy discussion with Claus my dear.

 

[CFLarsen]

Who thinks you guys are making arguments other than you? I address the arguments but your move goal posts, change the point, go off topic, fling ad homs and then have a tizzy-fit when you get a taste of what you dish out regularly. Go see who started the nastiness first... the political aspersions. I have no idea what Dann's politics are nor yours... I don't even know what your points are as you move them all over the place.

Dann's logic is flawed-- his conversation is all over the place-- he's not really saying anything... neither are you... you ask inane questions that are meant to infer something snide-- not to clarify-- and you guys never clue into the basics of back and forth conversation. I guess you just assume the problem is everyone else. You accuse me of attack while blinding yourself to attacks made first... this isn't a political debate... I haven't called anyone "nuts"-- I've asserted that some people are having their own conversation-- whatever the majority think this conversation is about-- these people seem to be in an entirely different thread! They are playing to win some point that only they know! The rest of the people seem engaged in clarifying understanding.

So you are wrong Claus... it has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with mental illness (except maybe in the case of Sir Phillip)-- it has to do with conversational goals. If your goal is to understand the facts better that is different than the goal of inflicting your opinion on others or passing judgment on them while pretending they are the bad guys so you win the game in your head. Both of you pass judgment on others pretty freely-- Dann's whole thread is about such-- and yet you guys are crying like you are the victims! You are the victims of your own buffoonery. Nobody thinks that you have the qualification to judge others other than you. And yet you want to tell me I'm "unfair" when it comes back??? Are you that blind to your own judgment, arrogance, tangents, lack of humility, and general conversational incompetence--not to mention your egregious mischaracterization of me??

And if it hurts your feelings... you started it. Go back and read and see who was the a-hole first. If you don't see that it was you guys-- then you're not seeing what the majority is seeing. You are ignoring your own faults while exaggerating those same faults in others which exist only because you put your faults on such glaring and attacking display. You guys are the a-holes you think others are.

I have a right to warn others of such people, and I am thankful when they warn me. Because most people wonder if the problem is them-- but the incompetents NEVER do. They imagine themselves experts when no-one else does-- and they insult others while assuming or imagining themselves models of politeness and decorum. Does anyone else think you guys are the model of decorum and conversational geniuses you seem to think you are? Does anyone else consider you experts in politics or whatever it is you pop into threads to berate people for? Does anyone else think I'm labeling people as mentally ill because of political disagreements? Or that I'm avoiding some actual point you guys are making? Has one ever been made by you? Because to me and others, it seems to be a lot of words to say nothing much and all and infer a lot of snideness so you can win points in the game in your head.

So can you sum up your point in this thread or in your attacks on me so that others might be able to accurately sum up your point of views. Has Dann ever?

Once again... this ISN'T a political debate... I try to refrain from politics and I haven't called anyone mentally ill (though I inferred as much regarding Sir Phillip).

To recap. Dann's opening post was a judgment upon "immature skeptics" (whom he sets himself above) and it drew an illogical conclusion as many people pointed out. He digressed and attacked and changed his point and all sorts of other things... and people left realizing he was a blowhard (not a term of mental illness). He made a logical fallacy, and people tried to show him but he was in his own conversation where he had to win some imaginary game that only he seems to know the point of.

The thread was resurrected, so I warned puppycow etc. of what they were dealing with with regards to Dann so he/she (puppycow) wouldn't wonder if the problem was him/her. Dann, like you, is one of the people who seldom consider the communication problem could be them. You guys don't seem to realize when people aren't following you or when you've made a complete non-sequitur or snide attack out of the blue. You guys don't apologize... you move the goal posts... you make snide commentary disguised as questions (that you don't want the answer too) and after awhile it becomes transparent to everyone but yourselves that you are one of those self appointed experts on some topic deriving some satisfaction putting other people down so you can win an imagninary game in your head-- while the rest of the people are just engaging in dialogue, and banter, and discussion. We are learning from each other. You guys think you have nothing to learn and that we should be eager to hear your opinions while you forget others have opinions too. Change is a two way street--try turning that judgment of me mirror back onto yourselves. I am ever ready to listen to the people I respect (the majority of the people on this forum)-- I'm sure they will let me know if there is something I need to know in regards to my conversational tactics, and I will adjust accordingly. Until then, I suggest the adjustment needs to come from the complainers.

Harsh truth. Or maybe a harsh opinion. But you started it. And I think many people share my viewpoint and appreciate the heads up. Of course they are free to speak up if they do not. If you guys are such fabulous conversationalists or experts then what does my opinion matter anyhow? I'm not afraid of being wrong and I know I have much to learn about communicating. Of course competent people tend to assess their talents more accurately while the incompetent tend to overestimate their competence and so they never realize they have something they should be working on.

I don't know about Dann, but I certainly don't see myself as a "victim", nor am I "crying", nor are my "feelings hurt".

The key point here is that you think it is acceptable to label your opponent in a political debate as mentally ill. You may have (later) meant it as a joke, but does that make it much better? You can't think of better arguments, so you will use the description as a way of avoiding further debate. And it's a joke, ha ha. And anyway, I started it first, so that justifies anything you do. Neener, neener, nyah, nyah!

Your feeble attempt of including everyone else against a few is pathetic. Why do you feel you need to seek the approval of the majority, if you think your arguments are strong enough on their own? Maybe you don't think they are?

Stop vilifying those you disagree with, to the point where you think it is fair to "warn" others of them. Not only are you condescending to those you disagree with, you are also condescending of those whose support you seek. Don't you think they are capable of deciding on their own if someone is a "blowhard" and "incompetents" without a "warning" from you?

Talk about "self-appointed experts"...

 

[SirPhilip]

I don't know about Dann, but I certainly don't see myself as a "victim", nor am I "crying", nor are my "feelings hurt".

Here is for example, what Claus looks like when he comes close to it though.

 

[SirPhilip]

I just noticed no skeptic has grown up since this thread started.

 

[dann]

To recap. Dann's opening post was a judgment upon "immature skeptics" (whom he sets himself above) and it drew an illogical conclusion as many people pointed out. He digressed and attacked and changed his point and all sorts of other things... and people left realizing he was a blowhard (not a term of mental illness). He made a logical fallacy, and people tried to show him but he was in his own conversation where he had to win some imaginary game that only he seems to know the point of.

Acting like the gallant knight coming to Randi's rescue (as if he were in need of one), from the very beginning articulett was upset that I questioned the maturity of an article with the title Time to Grow Up about impoverished, superstitious Africans abandoning their children. Apparently articulett thinks that it is fair to pass judgment on these unfortunate (and coincidentally black) people, but it is not allowed to ask the question in a thread dealing with this article: Time for Skeptics to Grow Up?! Several people have pointed this fact out to her, but she does not appear to be able to grasp the point. Consequently those who disagree with her digress, whereas she, as you can see above, has steadfastly stuck to the point of the discussion in this thread, which was: superstition, poverty and the arrogance of (some) skeptics!
Dream on, articulett!

 

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost

 

[SirPhilip]

Dream on, articulett!

Madam inArticulette personifies what a Skepdude and Skepchick both mean: frustration. In my occasional search for the first truly hot skepchick (as opposed to cute, the common evolution of nerdy the pinnacle of which is the fiction of Daphne), I have classified the various types, and they are three:

Homo Sapiens Brightica Testostrisa "Forum Skepchicks"
Skepchicks that have adapted to the harsh environment of unending nonsense, the amorality of unsubstantiated things, and the stresses of pro actively bickering and promoting things not having to do with relationships. They exhibit pronounced eyebrows much earlier than Skepdudes, which are formed much later in age. It is presently not known why this occurs.

Homo Sapiens Brightica Estrogenis "Relationship Capable Skepchick"
Skepchicks that wear Skepchick underwear but under pressure tailspin into an unhappy marriage of misunderstood emotions and emotional outbursts when put to the test.

Homo Sapiens Brightica Trivialis "Pouting Skepchick"
Skepchicks that exhibit rebellious adolescent and misunderstood behavior under pressure. The cutest and rarest, usually possessing a singular derision for televangelists, but not the world-class derision others possess. Their sentences are usually disjointed and overemotional due to listening to Nine Inch Nails at full volume while frustrated.

 

[articulett]

The key point here is that you think it is acceptable to label your opponent in a political debate as mentally ill. You may have (later) meant it as a joke,

No, Claus, I was actually labeling him as a dick. And you too. As far as I know those aren't terms of mental illness. Moreover, it's terms that other people have been trying to clue you in on... but you don't hear and so you can't fix your dickishness. tsk. You consider yourself the JREF vigilante.

And this post is because you decided to bring up your feelings about my comments on this thread totally out of the blue on a separate thread! I consider that rude, derailing, and an invitation for me to share my opinions about you as freely as you share your opinions about me. Reciprocity. Quit dishing out such ire, if you don't like when it comes back and bites you in the ass. And guess what? I've had fantastic responses. I am not alone in my feelings about this.

but does that make it much better? You can't think of better arguments, so you will use the description as a way of avoiding further debate.

You can't debate people who never make a point... who ask vague and stupid questions they don't want an answer too--questions designed to infer that they have some moral superiority that no one else thinks they have. For example... no one considers those who think that "skeptics should grow up" as decent examples of what "skeptics should grow up to be". We don't take the advice of self-professed "mature skeptics". No on else thinks such people are more grown up than those who disagree with Dann's ridiculous, hyperbolic, meandering logical fallacy.

It's the most immature people who are calling others immature. It's amazing how you guys insult people ALL THE TIME... while imagining that you are these great diplomats and peacekeepers and speakers of the "little people" or whatever. But no one thinks you are speaking for them. Most can't even understand you--not even the people you think you are defending. Nobody knows your points or why you go off on your weird tangents or what your aiml is (other than to win?). I have no idea what your inane goals were accusing me of calling people mentally ill when I was actually pointing out that they're the kind of people that nobody really likes to have discussions with. I think you're pissed because you want to be able to lure ever more people into your egotistical mind games while trying to turn people against those who point out your hypocrisy. That's why you stalked me to another thread to have your tantrum in more than one place. But your attempts at making others dislike me has failed. You are revealed for what you are. It turns out a lot more people feel like I do than you have realized.

Yep. There are some people who make every discussion or conversation into a win/lose game or argument. And they can't fix it, because, like you, they are certain the problem is everybody else. It isn't, Claus. You don't get along well with most of the people here from what I can tell. Neither does Dann. You need to fix yourself before you worry about people like me. Put me on ignore and focus on your own communication deficits and nastiness. What you accuse people of is worse than "pugilistic discussion syndrome" believe it or not.

Your feeble attempt of including everyone else against a few is pathetic. Why do you feel you need to seek the approval of the majority, if you think your arguments are strong enough on their own? Maybe you don't think they are?

Because you did so by bringing it to another thread. I don't need to seek the approval of anyone. I appreciate the insight... clearly there is a communication problem going on... and if it's from me, I want to fix it. But I think you are the nutty one to accuse me of calling people mentally ill because I posted a link to "pugilistic discussion syndrome" from Wired magazine, and people recognized that some people on this forum are amazingly like the people purported to have such a syndrome. It is a joke. It's a way of saying some people are dicks and you can't fix it because they don't know they're the dicks. If I was out of line, I presumed someone I respect (not you) would tell me. Nobody did. They, instead, confirmed my point. The only ones that think I'm an awful person seem to be the people that... well... that I kind of like being an enemy of. None of the people I admire or think are smart (or coherent) think that. I take that as a sign, that I'm not the one who needs to change... or at least I don't have to worry about your snideness, advice, pedantry, judgment, or tangential nothingness.

Stop vilifying those you disagree with, to the point where you think it is fair to "warn" others of them. Not only are you condescending to those you disagree with, you are also condescending of those whose support you seek. Don't you think they are capable of deciding on their own if someone is a "blowhard" and "incompetents" without a "warning" from you?

Yes I do. But I suppose I did it for the exact same reasons CFLarson decided to stalk me and accuse me of calling others mentally ill. Clearly, you think others need to have that impression of me. So I gave them the details so they could check out the facts for themselves. I only vilify those who vilify me first. Check back a few posts. Everyone else seems to see the same facts a lot differently than you do. You can be such a hypocrite. You tell me not to vilify people-- while you went over to another thread to purposefully vilify me.

Don't you think those whose "support I seek" can decide for themselves whether I'm "condescending"? And don't you think that the non-blowhards have nothing to worry about if I call them a blow hard? I assure you, I"m not worried about all the negative things you call me

Once again for the slow... I can't tell if you or Dann agree or disagree with me because I can't find your point amidst the every galloping verbiage. I just understand that I'm involved in one of those Twilight Zone situations where the person I'm talking to is having an entirely different conversation than everyone else-- he's playing an imaginary game to win. Multiple people tell you as much, Claus... but nothing anyone says works. So why not let us competent folks have a laugh at the expense of the "self appointed" experts. If the mockery doesn't apply to you-- does it matter? None of the much worse things you've said about me matter to me at all... and that goes triple for Dann. I think your guys are really mad, because you knew that readers would figure out exactly whom those are that have "pugilistic discussion syndrome", and your names would be at the top of the list. But that's just are hunch, of course.

I'm quite certain that you can find my most abrasive statement to anyone--and I will find you a more abrasive statement said by that person to me first. I hear that "tit for tat" is an excellent method for stopping the behavior of blowhards--and if nothing else, I find it fun to fight back. What comes around goes around, Claus. Reciprocity. If you want me to "shut up"-- try enacting that policy on yourself first. Before casting the first stone, you better check yourself. And in case you forget, you better just put me on ignore.

 

[CFLarsen]

Self-serving manure.

 

[SirPhilip]

I guess that you are completely unaware of the causes of impoverishment of people in Africa - and don't really care.

I only disagree that throwing large scale rebuilding into these countries, which have nonexistent cultural and social stability, will come to naut. Water has to seek it's own level. Consider Saudi Arabia and Iran, how religiosity defines economic, social norms, law and education..

 

[SirPhilip]

No, Claus, I was actually labeling him as a dick. And you too. As far as I know those aren't terms of mental illness. Moreover, it's terms that other people have been trying to clue you in on... but you don't hear and so you can't fix your dickishness. tsk. You consider yourself the JREF vigilante.

And this post is because you decided to bring up your feelings about my comments on this thread totally out of the blue on a separate thread! I consider that rude, derailing, and an invitation for me to share my opinions about you as freely as you share your opinions about me. Reciprocity. Quit dishing out such ire, if you don't like when it comes back and bites you in the ass. And guess what? I've had fantastic responses. I am not alone in my feelings about this.



You can't debate people who never make a point... who ask vague and stupid questions they don't want an answer too--questions designed to infer that they have some moral superiority that no one else thinks they have. For example... no one considers those who think that "skeptics should grow up" as decent examples of what "skeptics should grow up to be". We don't take the advice of self-professed "mature skeptics". No on else thinks such people are more grown up than those who disagree with Dann's ridiculous, hyperbolic, meandering logical fallacy.

It's the most immature people who are calling others immature. It's amazing how you guys insult people ALL THE TIME... while imagining that you are these great diplomats and peacekeepers and speakers of the "little people" or whatever. But no one thinks you are speaking for them. Most can't even understand you--not even the people you think you are defending. Nobody knows your points or why you go off on your weird tangents or what your aiml is (other than to win?). I have no idea what your inane goals were accusing me of calling people mentally ill when I was actually pointing out that they're the kind of people that nobody really likes to have discussions with. I think you're pissed because you want to be able to lure ever more people into your egotistical mind games while trying to turn people against those who point out your hypocrisy. That's why you stalked me to another thread to have your tantrum in more than one place. But your attempts at making others dislike me has failed. You are revealed for what you are. It turns out a lot more people feel like I do than you have realized.

Yep. There are some people who make every discussion or conversation into a win/lose game or argument. And they can't fix it, because, like you, they are certain the problem is everybody else. It isn't, Claus. You don't get along well with most of the people here from what I can tell. Neither does Dann. You need to fix yourself before you worry about people like me. Put me on ignore and focus on your own communication deficits and nastiness. What you accuse people of is worse than "pugilistic discussion syndrome" believe it or not.



Because you did so by bringing it to another thread. I don't need to seek the approval of anyone. I appreciate the insight... clearly there is a communication problem going on... and if it's from me, I want to fix it. But I think you are the nutty one to accuse me of calling people mentally ill because I posted a link to "pugilistic discussion syndrome" from Wired magazine, and people recognized that some people on this forum are amazingly like the people purported to have such a syndrome. It is a joke. It's a way of saying some people are dicks and you can't fix it because they don't know they're the dicks. If I was out of line, I presumed someone I respect (not you) would tell me. Nobody did. They, instead, confirmed my point. The only ones that think I'm an awful person seem to be the people that... well... that I kind of like being an enemy of. None of the people I admire or think are smart (or coherent) think that. I take that as a sign, that I'm not the one who needs to change... or at least I don't have to worry about your snideness, advice, pedantry, judgment, or tangential nothingness.



Yes I do. But I suppose I did it for the exact same reasons CFLarson decided to stalk me and accuse me of calling others mentally ill. Clearly, you think others need to have that impression of me. So I gave them the details so they could check out the facts for themselves. I only vilify those who vilify me first. Check back a few posts. Everyone else seems to see the same facts a lot differently than you do. You can be such a hypocrite. You tell me not to vilify people-- while you went over to another thread to purposefully vilify me.

Don't you think those whose "support I seek" can decide for themselves whether I'm "condescending"? And don't you think that the non-blowhards have nothing to worry about if I call them a blow hard? I assure you, I"m not worried about all the negative things you call me

Once again for the slow... I can't tell if you or Dann agree or disagree with me because I can't find your point amidst the every galloping verbiage. I just understand that I'm involved in one of those Twilight Zone situations where the person I'm talking to is having an entirely different conversation than everyone else-- he's playing an imaginary game to win. Multiple people tell you as much, Claus... but nothing anyone says works. So why not let us competent folks have a laugh at the expense of the "self appointed" experts. If the mockery doesn't apply to you-- does it matter? None of the much worse things you've said about me matter to me at all... and that goes triple for Dann. I think your guys are really mad, because you knew that readers would figure out exactly whom those are that have "pugilistic discussion syndrome", and your names would be at the top of the list. But that's just are hunch, of course.

I'm quite certain that you can find my most abrasive statement to anyone--and I will find you a more abrasive statement said by that person to me first. I hear that "tit for tat" is an excellent method for stopping the behavior of blowhards--and if nothing else, I find it fun to fight back. What comes around goes around, Claus. Reciprocity. If you want me to "shut up"-- try enacting that policy on yourself first. Before casting the first stone, you better check yourself. And in case you forget, you better just put me on ignore.

This is why I'm never getting married.

 

[dann]

This is why I'm never getting married.

Good one, Phil, but I hope that you're not implying that this is a love-hate relationship!
(Do you have to ask a moderator to remove articulett's derailing?)

 

[dann]

I only disagree that throwing large scale rebuilding into these countries, which have nonexistent cultural and social stability, will come to naut. Water has to seek it's own level. Consider Saudi Arabia and Iran, how religiosity defines economic, social norms, law and education..

The role of oil in the global market economy, not religion, determines economics in the countries you mention, which is why they are very different in this respect from the African countries mentioned so far in this thread.

 

[dann]

I'm quite certain that you can find my most abrasive statement to anyone--and I will find you a more abrasive statement said by that person to me first. I hear that "tit for tat" is an excellent method for stopping the behavior of blowhards--and if nothing else, I find it fun to fight back. What comes around goes around, Claus. Reciprocity. If you want me to "shut up"-- try enacting that policy on yourself first. Before casting the first stone, you better check yourself. And in case you forget, you better just put me on ignore.

Claus, instead of complaining about articulett's attempts at applying pseudo-psychoanalytical terms to her opponents, you should rather study the kind of psychology at play here.

From the very beginning she assumed the role of gallant knight coming to Randi's rescue, and now she has progressed to being the imaginary leader of an anonymous group of people, who are all behind her but for some weird reason just don't seem to appear in real life. The people in this thread who have openly criticized her are reduced to you, me and Gurdur.
She no longer sticks to the theme of thread but apparently feels that it is completely justified when she presents nothing but ad homs, convinced as she is that people who oppose her deserve whatever punishment she can administer. No wonder she comes off looking like Karen Boesen.

KOHLBERG’S LEVELS
Lawrence Kohlberg theorized that humans grow morally as well as physically and that they pass through three major stages in this growth. At each stage, the person will decide what is ethically and morally sound based on a perspective determined by being in a particular stage. People in the lower levels of the first and lowest stage of development (Pre-Conventional) tend to believe that “might makes right.” Consequently they base right and wrong on the likelihood of being punished and the potential severity of the punishment. People who have progressed to a slightly higher level, but who are still in this stage base their decisions more on a sense of reciprocity: “Pat my back and I’ll pat yours”.
http://isedj.org/isecon/2006/3332/ISECON.2006.Slauson.txt

From these results, Chermack, Berman, and Taylor (1997) suggested that factors other than emotions might be taken into account as one of the primary determinants of aggression: “… a perceived intentionality and controllability of incitive acts, norms of reciprocity or motivational states (intention to harm), may play a more central role in accounting for the relationship between provocation and aggression” (p. 8).
http://idea.library.drexel.edu/bitstream/1860/839/1/DiFrancisco_Maria.pdf

 

[dann]

Since I’ve referred to Denmark as the happiest country in the world a couple of times in this thread, I feel obliged to tell you exactly how we obtained this status:

Hvor danskerne i 2000 brugte 35 dagsdoser antidepressive piller per 1000 voksne, var tallet i 2005 vokset til 60. Dermed er Danmark det OECD-land, der har opnået den største vækst i forbruget af lykkepiller fra 2000 til 2005. (December 9, 2007) http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2007/12/09/165825.htm?rss=true

In my translation:
”In 2000 the Danes consumed 35 daily doses of anti-depressives for every 1.000 adults, the number grew to 60 in 2005. This means that Denmark was the OECD country with the highest growth in the consumption of SSRI medicine from 2000 to 2005.”

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, instead of complaining about articulett's attempts at applying pseudo-psychoanalytical terms to her opponents, you should rather study the kind of psychology at play here.

From the very beginning she assumed the role of gallant knight coming to Randi's rescue, and now she has progressed to being the imaginary leader of an anonymous group of people, who are all behind her but for some weird reason just don't seem to appear in real life. The people in this thread who have openly criticized her are reduced to you, me and Gurdur.
She no longer sticks to the theme of thread but apparently feels that it is completely justified when she presents nothing but ad homs, convinced as she is that people who oppose her deserve whatever punishment she can administer. No wonder she comes off looking like Karen Boesen.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. If people don't agree with her, or even dare to criticize her, they are not just bad people. They are bad skeptics.

It's a personalization of skepticism that is very destructive: Your skepticism is determined by how well someone likes you - not by the quality of your arguments and evidence.

 

[dann]

"Du bekamst für mich das Rätselhafte, das alle Tyrannen haben, deren Recht auf ihrer Person, nicht auf dem Denken begründet ist." F. Kafka

 

[dann]

What is your definition of "poverty"?

Poverty.

 

[dann]

Poverty is not only the root of superstition:

Poverty Causes Disease

 

[dann]

The micro-loan example was one example. It wasn't meant as the only solution to poverty among women. It has, however, been especially beneficial for women who turn out to be more reliable paying it back as well.

I was recently made aware of this article about Debt Relief in Third World countries.

 

[dann]

From the newsletter this week:
“Pavel's passion is to push back against the onslaught of paranormalism that has taken over since the fall of communism by initiating a skeptical movement on his campus.” http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/212/27/#i10

I don't know why nobody seems to be interested in this particular 'correlation'!

 

[dann]

Science 3 October 2008:
Vol. 322. no. 5898, pp. 115 - 117
DOI: 10.1126/science.1159845

Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception
Jennifer A. Whitson1* and Adam D. Galinsky2

We present six experiments that tested whether lacking control increases illusory pattern perception, which we define as the identification of a coherent and meaningful interrelationship among a set of random or unrelated stimuli. Participants who lacked control were more likely to perceive a variety of illusory patterns, including seeing images in noise, forming illusory correlations in stock market information, perceiving conspiracies, and developing superstitions. Additionally, we demonstrated that increased pattern perception has a motivational basis by measuring the need for structure directly and showing that the causal link between lack of control and illusory pattern perception is reduced by affirming the self. Although these many disparate forms of pattern perception are typically discussed as separate phenomena, the current results suggest that there is a common motive underlying them.
1 Department of Management, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
2 Department of Management and Organizations, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

In this week’s newsletter there is an interesting quotation from a reader, Sandra L. Hubscher, who has read an article in The Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 30, with the title, “In Congo, superstitions breed homeless children”.
Sandra writes:
“It appears that as poverty has been increasingly plaguing this nation, children are being turned out of home after being accused of witchcraft. Javier Aguilar, a UNICEF child protection officer, states that of the 20,000 street children in the city of Kinshasa, 70% of them have been accused of being witches. The article implies that many of these children were living with step-parents or extended family members who no longer wanted to have to support them and so, voila, an easily-explained incident such as a broken glass or a still-born child becomes an excuse to turn them out of home as practitioners of black magic. Any who hide behind the excuse that pseudo-science can be tolerated out of respect to the beliefs and feelings of others, should realize that this type of situation is the ultimate consequence of tolerance of dangerous nonsense. We certainly don't need to force people to be sensible, but neither should we remain quiet when we see truth and logic being assaulted.”

To this James Randi adds that he not only agrees, but “I agree enthusiastically”.
The newsletter in question.

I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that skeptics sometimes tend to ignore quite obvious truths when looking at reality, something they appear to have in common with Christian Scientists in this case and with many others: ”superstitions (!) breed homeless people”
If we look at cause and effect as it is described at the beginning of this quotation, however, poverty seems to be the real problem: Very poor families, extended or not, and parents, step- or not, can no longer support their children. Destitution drives them to get rid of these children, and to justify this they come up with an excuse which happens to be black magic. And this, of course (?), is when skeptics start to get upset!
“Any who hide behind the excuse that pseudo-science can be tolerated out of respect to the beliefs and feelings of others, should realize that this type of situation is the ultimate consequence of tolerance of dangerous nonsense.”

To me “this type of situation” seems to be the ultimate consequence of poverty, not of “tolerance of dangerous nonsense”. (Not that it isn’t nonsense and thus dangerous!) And I find it truly amazing that skeptics seem to think that the victims of this calamity are not simply the starving children, but primarily the sentiments of skeptics who cannot stand to ”see truth and logic being assaulted.” Is that really all that skeptics have to offer? A much more rational way of starving?

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner? Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?

The writer Steve Kowit already pointed out the truth about the relationship between poverty and superstition in his article in Skeptic, Vol. 11, Number 1, 2004, The Mass Suicide of the Xhosa. A Study in Collective Self-Deception.
Scandinavians can read a translation of the article here:
Xhosaernes masseselvmord. Et studie I kollektivt selvbedrag

Merry Christmas!

Excellent post.

 

[dann]

Fair is fair: In the meantime I have seen James Randi newsletters where he reveals a noticeable awareness of the effect that miserable conditions of life may have on people's need to believe. Randi is definitely not a Marxist, but I think that he could at least be described as a compassionate skeptic - for lack of a better word - unlike the smart alecks we sometimes meet in this forum who seem to be so impressed by their own ability to look through the childish delusions of others that they imagine themselves to be intellectually superior to any and all believers.