There was a bit about Schwartz in the Mail on Sunday yesterday. Apparently transplant recipiants take on some of the personality of the donor.
Sylvia Browne peddles this rubbish, too. That should give you an idea how wacky Schwartz is.
Montague Keen
- Thread starter arcticpenguin
- Start date
Sylvia Browne peddles this rubbish, too. That should give you an idea how wacky Schwartz is.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
It's evidence that everyone associated with this nonsense is a whacknutjob.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
If only it were that simple. Thing is, I'm guessing that most of "those people" are quite sane and rational. The experience matters more to many people than objective evidence. For a lot of people, the experience is objective evidence. If we relegate people to the ash-heap of delusion and insanity, we lose the chance to make sense out of any of it.
Last edited:
wacknutjobs = set of all people except Paul, Paul's friends, and people who agree with Paul
Well,I can see this thread's going to go lots of good places.
I agree with Pyrrho in a lot of ways, we have to educate people about why their perceptions may decieve them.
But I also agree that some people are determined not to learn. Others, including at least one we see in this thread, are determined to give them the excuse they need to pave their way to intentional ignorance.
I agree with Pyrrho in a lot of ways, we have to educate people about why their perceptions may decieve them.
But I also agree that some people are determined not to learn. Others, including at least one we see in this thread, are determined to give them the excuse they need to pave their way to intentional ignorance.
Haven't you got something else you could be doing besides posting here? Like trekking in Nepal? Or playing pachinko? Something constructive for a change? Hmmm?wacknutjobs = set of all people except Paul, Paul's friends, and people who agree with Paul
wacknutjobs = set of all people except Paul, Paul's friends, and people who agree with Paul
Interesting to see that T'ai Chi thinks that people, who argue from a scientific point of view that you can talk to dead people because dead people say so, are making a valid claim.
Sarcasm and cruelty never win arguments. They might win verbal battles, but that's only a question of who has the most staying power. Ignorance wins, no matter how clever the rejoinders.
If it's all about humiliating the other guy, it's all pointless.
If it's all about humiliating the other guy, it's all pointless.
And yet, sarcasm makes the point.
And don't forget: A laugh may destroy a thousand false claims.
Irony can make a point; sarcasm, although not far removed from irony, is just mean-spirited.
Evidence, testing, and rational analysis destroys claims. Laughs, obtained by means of sarcasm, destroy nothing except good will. It isn't funny when you're the target.
People who believe that it is possible to communicate with the dead will not be convinced by anything we say after we call them "whacknutjobs". The more derision we heap on people, the more unwilling they will be to discuss these matters. We will only drive them away.
Absolutely not. Sarcasm is a more sharp form of irony. The biggest difference is that, while irony can be lost on quite a lot of people, sarcasm rarely is. Sarcasm is an integrated part of satire - where would we be without that?
No, it isn't. Which is the point: There are people behind the false claims, people who thrive on making them, thrive on the followers.
It is quite alright to voice your dissatisfaction with psychics, psychic surgeons, faith healers, astrologers, dowsers, etc, etc. A cold, detached air will tell believers that you probably not give a damn about it - it may even be just an academic point to you.
And what will convince them? You know damn well that those who believe in mediumship are not convinced by the evidence, testing and rational analyses. They simply brush it aside and continue to believe.
Remember Clancie, neofight and Rain from TVTalkshows? It took years, with heaps of evidence, testing and rational analysis. Yet, nothing would convince those people.
Nobody said we should increase the derision. But we should definitely be honest about how we feel about this. It shows that we are not automatons who can only spout cold hard facts. We can argue passionately, if we do it from evidence.
If people are whacknutjobs, we should be honest. Sugar-coating the message is not the way.
Irony and sarcasm are closely related. The difference is a matter of intent. Sarcasm is the form of irony that is intended to inflict emotional pain.
Verbally beating people up is not the answer.
Verbally beating people up is not the answer. If they are not convinced by evidence, testing, and logic, they will not be convinced by calling them names.
Arguing passionately is not a problem and is not the issue at hand. Calling people "whacknutjobs" is only one example of mean-spirited sarcasm and antagonism that has earned for skeptics the reputation of being nothing but mean, close-minded, and cruel.
Unfortunately, that reputation seems to be well deserved. Too many skeptics resort to the easy method of the cutting remark instead of applying their intellect to careful, methodical deconstruction of errors on the part of those who make what we contend are irrational claims.
Coating the message with sugar may not be the way--and I have never advocated sugar-coating anything. Avoiding the tactics and strategy of humiliation is not "sugar-coating the message". It is simply behaving in a reasonable, rational way.
Coating the message with razor blades is a sure way to lose.
Last edited:
Sarcasm is merely a more intense form of irony. Are you suggesting that satire should be done without sarcasm? That would be pulling the teeth out of - also historically - a very useful tool in forming democracies - no dictator likes sarcasm, because it gets him where it hurts the most: Not personally, but what he does.
I have no idea what Sylvia Browne is like in private. She may like her pets and tend to her garden. But I am objecting rather strongly to what she does.
Sarcasm is not beating up people verbally. Yelling uncontrollably is.
If that was all they did, then you would have a point. But when you look at skeptics here, you won't find anyone (besides DeBunk - but he's hardly human) who only throws insults at purveyors of superstition. You see a plethora of evidence, testing and rational analysis - but you also see people speaking out, in no uncertain terms.
Keeping a stiff upper lip, at all times, is for robots only.
What will convince them? How will you convince Clancie, neofight and Rain?
Being passionate about what you argue has nothing to do with "coating the message with razor blades". Calling a spade a spade is very enlightning, and can help clearing the fog of ignorance.
That is a strawman argument. I have suggested nothing of the kind.
Satire is not being practiced in this topic. Calling people "whacknutjobs" is not satire; it is namecalling.
To eliminate ambiguity, let's look at some dictionary definitions:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sarcasm
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irony+
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/satire
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=name-calling
Other dictionaries, of course, may have different definitions. We can argue semantics indefinitely, but these are accepted definitions.
However, this is somewhat beside the point. Abuse is abuse.
Fine. That doesn't mean people who believe she has special powers are "whacknutjobs", and calling them "whacknutjobs" will not convince them of anything other than that skeptics are abusive.
Abuse is abuse.
Did someone in this topic not use the term "whacknutjob"?
That is a strawman argument. I have not advocated such.
My opinion is that if people are to be convinced of my point of view, they will be convinced by reasonable, rational, genuinely civil discourse, never by namecalling.
I agree completely. Calling people "whacknutjobs", or other terms such as "kook", "woo", or "hardly human" is not "calling a spade a spade", it is namecalling and demonstrably abusive, or, in other terms, coating the message with razor blades--"razor blades" being a metaphor for sarcasm.
Last edited:
I asked if that was what you meant. Ergo, not a strawman argument.
Those are not exclusive. Satire can certainly include what we might describe as namecalling. A spade is a spade is a spade. If the shoe fits, and all that....
We cannot eliminate ambiguity by referring to dictionaries. But we can diminish it.
I thought you came here for an argument?
"Abuse" is, to a large extent, in the mind of the beholder. Millions of Muslims believe that they have been abused by a few cartoons. I have been abused because other people believe false claims. Now what?
Whoa. Wait a second. Paul used the term to describe Schwartz.
Let's not run amok here with wild assertions, hm?
Everything skeptics do is not necessarily about convincing other people. Skeptics have a right to speak their minds, too. If a skeptic feels that a certain supernatural practice is beyond his/her limit, why should (s)he keep quiet, in order not to offend anyone?
Define abuse. I have met believers who thought that merely asking questions about their beliefs was "abuse". Should I stop asking them questions?
Does that someone use only those kinds of terms, or does that someone also argue with evidence, testing and rational analysis?
No? Then, what are you advocating? It seems to me that you have advocated that we never express what we feel.
But we have tried that for years with these people, and they weren't convinced. What do you suggest we do next?
I'm sorry, but - again, to refer to something Paul said - sometimes, we have to realize that some people are just plain nuts.
You do acknowledge that such people exist?
I stand corrected. To give the fallacy its correct name, it is a complex question. The most famous example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" In this case, you asked if thus-and-so was my position and then proceeded to argue against that position...so it was a combination of two fallacies...an Oedipal strawman, I guess.
The relevant question is, does the shoe fit? If you claim the shoe fits, you have to provide evidence.
No. I'm more interested in discussion. Skeptics and non-skeptics can advance arguments and discuss their relative merits without fighting.We cannot eliminate ambiguity by referring to dictionaries. But we can diminish it.
I thought you came here for an argument?
The issue at hand is the abusive nature of namecalling, not religious outrage fanned by political opportunists or your claim to have been abused by the beliefs of others. What I am trying to focus on here is the use of direct insult.
I have made no wild assertions and I am not running amok.
Paul's statement was:
"It's evidence that everyone associated with this nonsense is a whacknutjob."
It's namecalling. The target is not named; it is a general statement. It matters little who the target is: I do not think believers will be convinced by such tactics.
I have not said that skeptics must seek only to convince others. I have not said that skeptics have no right to speak their mind. I have not said that skeptics should remain silent. I have said that namecalling is not going to convince anyone of anything other than that skeptics are abusive.
Namecalling is abuse. Sarcasm is abuse. Directing foul language at other people is abuse. Shouting at people is abuse. Threatening violence is abuse. Violence itself is abuse.
Irony is not abuse. Wit is not abuse. Asking questions is not abuse. Demanding evidence is not abuse.
One does not excuse the other.
If I intended to advocate such, I would have specifically done so, in plain English.
I am advocating rational, reasonable, civil discussion. I am advocating an end to namecalling and sarcasm as rhetorical tools, because they hurt people.
Keep trying, or accept that they will not be convinced, and move on. Challenge their claims if you must--nobody is saying that challenges should be abandoned. What should be abandoned is the practice of mockery in place of reason.
I acknowledge that there are mentally ill people in the world. I would not presume to accuse anyone of being mentally ill by calling them "whacknutjobs". If someone is genuinely mentally ill, they deserve compassion, not scorn. Even the mentally ill can be reasoned with. We have no hope of reaching anyone if we call them names.
Last edited:
Absolutely not. I went with what I read from you, and asked a question. All you had to do was answer it.
It does. Schwartz employing a ghost to prove the existence of ghosts? You bet it does. That's just plain nuts!
Utopia. I do note that those who are the first to hurl insults are usually believers.
Insult? What is that? I've been accused of insulting believers merely by asking questions about their beliefs.
It isn't a case of convincing anyone. It is a case of - all too accurately - describing what is going on here.
Jeebus, man: Schwartz is claiming proof of ghosts because a ghost told him they exist! How much more wacky can you get?
And I have read and understood that. What I am asking you is this: If a skeptic feels that a certain supernatural practice is beyond his/her limit, why should (s)he keep quiet, in order not to offend anyone?
You did not answer the question: Should I stop asking questions of believers, if they think merely asking questions is abuse?
They thought it was abuse. Today, people are not allowed to ask questions about the validity of astrology on Danish Astrologer Christian Borup's forum, solely because I asked those questions.
Abuse is not abuse. It is not so simple.
False dilemma. It isn't a case of either-or. It is a case of whether people use only one method - abuse (whatever that is) - or evidence as well.
Yeah. They do. But superstition hurts people, too. I could easily argue - with ample evidence - that such false beliefs hurt people far, far more than my feeble words could ever do. We are not talking about hurt feelings, we are talking about lost fortunes, lost minds, lost lives here. Don't even for a moment suggest that I should not speak out against this immense, horrible abuse of human life, because I ought not offend those who perpetuate these false beliefs.
Then, you will fight in vain. There is nothing as strong as a faith in falsehoods.
No. That's not enough, not for me. I have, and will continue, to speak out against prejudice, ignorance and stupidity wherever I see it, in the manner which I see fit.
Even mentally ill people exploit other people, people who either don't know better or people who know better, but deliberately choose to believe in falsehoods, no matter how much grief and pain it causes other people.
Sorry, but I will not be silent. I will not be nice to people who are not nice.
Let's take a look at it again:
If you can rephrase the question in a way that does not require me to accept your opinions in order to answer it, I'll answer the question.CFLarsen said:
As it is presently worded, I cannot answer the question without accepting your assertions. Try again.
That's your opinion. How does it validate the use of namecalling?
Tu quoque.
We can at least try to do better than our opponents.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/insult
We're not talking about what believers accuse you of doing. We're talking about the abusive, insulting nature of namecalling and sarcasm.
Very much more "wacky", I assure you, and it is not within anyone's capability to diagnose mental illness via Internet message board.
Again, the question is phrased in such a way that I cannot answer it without assenting to your arguments. I have not said that skeptics must keep quiet. Please rephrase. This reference may help:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
The answer is "no".
Yes, abuse is abuse. The fact that people misuse the definition of "abuse" to avoid issues doesn't make abuse into something it isn't. Namecalling is abuse. Asking questions is not abuse. I already said that I do not advocate an end to challenging claims. I am advocating an end to namecalling and sarcasm.
I did not say that it was a case of "either/or". The use of rational, civil discourse does not excuse the use of insult and scorn. That is not a false dilemma. Again, a reference:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
Had I advanced a false dilemma, I would have asserted that all arguments that are not reasonable, rational, and civil were abuse. I would have said that unless we act in a reasonable, rational manner, we are guilty of abuse. I said no such thing.
I have suggested no such thing. I have said that namecalling, sarcasm, and other forms of abuse will convince nobody.
I may fight in vain, but I will fight honorably.
I have not said that you can't. I have said that the use of namecalling, abuse, and sarcasm will not convince believers of our point of view.
I have not said that you must be silent. I have not said that you must be nice. I have said that you will not convince people by calling them names.
Last edited:
Of course you can answer it. If sarcasm is a part of satire and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used, do you think that satire should be done without sarcasm?
Yeah, that's my opinion. Sometimes, a nut is really a nut. And it serves no purpose to describe it in a less accurate manner.
I'm not saying that, because believers are nasty, we can be, too. I'm saying that they are usually the first to hurl insults.
And we generally are. For my own amusement, I keep a growing list of things believers have called me and accused me of. It amazes me perpetually just how much bile is contained within these people.
Yes, we are talking about what believers accuse me of doing. "to behave with pride or arrogance", "to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt" - that's exactly how believers describe skeptics, when their beliefs are challenged. I am sooo arrogant to do that. I am sooo full of contempt. And so on. You know the drill.
You don't need to have a mental illness to believe something wacky.
But they find merely asking insulting. Why aren't their interpretation of "insult" valid? Why treat believers differently?
I'm sorry, but I don't see why skeptics have a monopoly on how a term can be interpreted.
They think it is abuse. Have they no right to feel abused?
I fight to win. Because this is a battle that needs to be won.
Not if we only use that. But it is quite alright to express how you feel about false beliefs and the consequences hereof.
Try again. Your question still requires that I accept your premises in order to answer.
What other people say about us isn't necessarily true. We're intelligent enough to separate poor rhetoric, i.e. ad hominem arguments and plain insults, from valid arguments.
The focus should be on the pertinent issue. If it's "can people speak to the dead", that should be the focus, not "skeptics are mean", or "everyone associated with this nonsense is a whacknutjob".
True. That doesn't make it okay to call people "whacknutjobs", which qualifies them as having mental illness. Not all belief is the result of mental illness. What it may very well be is the result of a rational process. We'll have no success in communicating with people if we call them names...actually, we will have success, but the message we will communicate will only alienate people.
These days, it's a common rhetorical device to claim meanings for words that are not common, accepted meanings. Someone who says, "I am insulted that you have even questioned my belief," is employing a rhetorical device. The answer is, "I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to understand your belief and I am trying to help you understand mine." I've had the same tactic used against me by a person who was reciting text from a book about child abuse as if it had been her own experience. I mentioned that I had read the exact same account and produced the book. The person said, "By questioning my story you are perpetuating the abuse." My answer? "No, and you know that isn't true." However, that was the end of the conversation. We're under no obligation to blandly accept insults. Replying with more insults means that we have accepted the other party's terms of engagement, and we are automatically set up to lose when we do that.
I usually refer to dictionaries and accepted meanings of words therein as independent, neutral sources. I don't invent or twist definitions in order to win arguments.
People may feel abused or not feel abused. If I am not genuinely abusing people I have no need to be concerned. I can look myself in the mirror and know that I conducted myself honorably even if the other party did not.
Maybe you'll win by sheer staying power or you'll win in terms of how many clever insults you can use. The more important questions will remain unresolved and the more important battle will be lost. People will not listen to people who call them "whacknutjobs" or who address them with sarcasm.
I have not said that it is wrong to express how you feel. I have said that namecalling will not convince the persons who are being called names and will not convince the people who believe in this or that and are being collectively called names such as "whacknutjobs".