• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Brian Dunning lawsuit

Blue Mountain said:
Unless he does it very carefully or says outright "boy, I really screwed up massively and I apologize to the skeptic community," it would simply come across as self-serving. Doing an episode on this affair has the distinct possibility to lose him more listeners.
Click to expand...

Right--which is why I said to just report the bare facts. The real trick there is telling the bare facts.

arthwollipot said:
It would be totally out-of-scope for Skeptoid. He may make some kind of public statement in a blog or something, but to have it on Skeptoid would go contrary to pretty much everything that Skeptoid is about.
Click to expand...
That was my take on it. Skeptoid isn't a video journal; it's a show with a specific aim. As long as he's carrying that out properly, there's no real reason to bring this up. The show is, or at least should be, separate from the man.
 
Response...

I thought the BOP Inmate Locator took into account "good time" earned while in the Federal system. I guess that isn't accurate.

Dunning's been convicted of fraud and is a felon, and is unrepentant for what he did. He has no business being (or trying to be) a prominent person in the skeptical community. People in the skeptical community should not enable him in trying to remain (or become) a prominent person in the skeptical community.

Let's try a thought experiment: what if someone from a paranormal or religious organization did what Dunning was convicted of, and then acted like he did after he was convicted. What would people on this forum think about such a person?
 
hardindr said:
I thought the BOP Inmate Locator took into account "good time" earned while in the Federal system. I guess that isn't accurate.

Dunning's been convicted of fraud and is a felon, and is unrepentant for what he did. He has no business being (or trying to be) a prominent person in the skeptical community. People in the skeptical community should not enable him in trying to remain (or become) a prominent person in the skeptical community.

Let's try a thought experiment: what if someone from a paranormal or religious organization did what Dunning was convicted of, and then acted like he did after he was convicted. What would people on this forum think about such a person?
Click to expand...

You mean like Peter Popoff?
 
hardindr said:
Dunning's been convicted of fraud and is a felon, and is unrepentant for what he did. He has no business being (or trying to be) a prominent person in the skeptical community. People in the skeptical community should not enable him in trying to remain (or become) a prominent person in the skeptical community.

Let's try a thought experiment: what if someone from a paranormal or religious organization did what Dunning was convicted of, and then acted like he did after he was convicted. What would people on this forum think about such a person?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I have not listened to Skeptoid since I found out about this lawsuite, nor would I recommend it to others. I would recommend against it, in fact. I'm merely asking if Skeptoid is the proper venue for addressing this issue. Not bringing it up on Skeptoid was presented as "acting like nothing happened", and I was questioning that interpretation.

I think an argument can--and perhaps should--be made that Dunning's actions are not relevant to his arguments, and that Skeptoid should stand (or not, as the case may be) on those arguments. He presents specific interpretations of specific phenomena, and those interpretations are right or wrong regardless of his personal life. The best barbor I ever found was a convicted fellon, and I was okay with that--I went there to get my hair cut, and he was both cheap and very good at it. Discussions of Dunning's conviction run the very real risk of becoming nothing more than Ad Hom attacks, and it's always worthwhile to reflect on that to ensure we stay on the correct side of that line. I'm not saying we should hold him up as a shining beacon of rationality; I'm just saying that we need to be very clear whether we're talking about Skeptoid in general, a specific argument that has been made, or Dunning himself.
 
hardindr said:
Let's try a thought experiment: what if someone from a paranormal or religious organization did what Dunning was convicted of, and then acted like he did after he was convicted. What would people on this forum think about such a person?
Click to expand...

They would think that his underlying nefarious character, as evidenced by the woo-scam, was just emerging in a new guise. However, this mechanism isn't available when a skeptic strays. In that case, it's a matter of an otherwise decent person slipping up.

No hypocrisy needed at all.
 
I think you over-estimate the effects of skepticism, marplots. EVERY religious group would say exactlyt the same thing, as well.
 
hardindr said:
Dunning's been convicted of fraud and is a felon, and is unrepentant for what he did. He has no business being (or trying to be) a prominent person in the skeptical community. People in the skeptical community should not enable him in trying to remain (or become) a prominent person in the skeptical community.
Click to expand...

Once a felon always a felon. No credit for time served. No second chances.

Got it... :boggled:
 
marplots said:
They would think that his underlying nefarious character, as evidenced by the woo-scam, was just emerging in a new guise. However, this mechanism isn't available when a skeptic strays. In that case, it's a matter of an otherwise decent person slipping up.

No hypocrisy needed at all.
Click to expand...
For me, skepticism is an approach for evaluating the truthfulness of claims, with a tool kit of the scientific method and logical fallacies for performing that evaluation. It has nothing to say about a person's character; unlike religion where character is part of the bundle. Talking the talk and walking the walk sort of a thing.

Now, one may be less inclined to interact with a person knowing his (her) character isn't one you agree with. But merely rejecting a skeptic's comments about things skeptical because that person has done unethical (as opposed to unskeptical) things in the past is, as Dinwar pointed out, an ad hominem fallacy.

Recall that one of the brightest lights in skepticism, none other than James Randi, for years knowingly harboured an illegal alien who was in the States under a stolen identity. Does that make his exposé of Peter Popoff a sham?
 
Woo-scam? It wasn't woo. It was straightforward wire fraud. Unless you're now expanding the definition of "woo" to include "anything illegal".
 
Message from Dunning

Dunning posted this on his personal website a few days ago. It was all the big, bad FBI/DOJ's, eBay, Commission Junction's fault. Still no real contrition for what he did. And, he's running a nonprofit as a felon, which I am surprised the IRS would allow. Only one 990 has been filed for it from 2013 (nothing for 2014). Caveat emptor if you donate...
 
Almost half of their expenses for 2013 were for "Consultant Fees" ($64,223 in Schedule O). I wonder what it all went to...
 
People may spend their money however they see fit, but even without the legal problems Dunning has had, I have a big problem with a guy thinking a 10 minute weekly podcast should be a full-time job. You're telling me the dude is doing 40 hours of research for a 10 minute podcast? I doubt it. Just looks like another schmuck trying to make an easy buck off the skeptical community if you ask me.
 
The sleazeball has disabled copying on that page.

I guess he doesn't want his own words used against him.
 
Last edited:
hardindr said:
Dunning posted this on his personal website a few days ago. It was all the big, bad FBI/DOJ's, eBay, Commission Junction's fault. Still no real contrition for what he did. And, he's running a nonprofit as a felon, which I am surprised the IRS would allow. Only one 990 has been filed for it from 2013 (nothing for 2014). Caveat emptor if you donate...
Click to expand...

What a self-serving load of rationalizing bullcrap.

IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom