You ain't ********.
How do you know it's not my problem? What if my problem is attempting to eliminate faulty beliefs so society in general might be improved? Why do you care what I care?
So you're just frontin' for . . . who exactly?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Seeing Cryptids: The Problems
- Thread starter jerrywayne
- Start date
NightStar76
Thinker
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 230
That is an excellent question, to which there is actually no easy answer. I suppose I would have to say I care because the entire topic interests me and I feel the aggression towards the subject is unwarranted.
Also, yes. That is a serious problem. Well. Both halves of that sentence. You believe that society can be improved? Problem. Right there. I'm pretty sure they have help for it, though.
Last edited:
Aggression? More aggressive than say . . . assault for name calling?
Help? What kind of help?
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
No. You are moving goalposts. You said "Belief in Bigfoot causes no harm."
Still, you said "Belief in Bigfoot causes no harm." Your initial comment has been shown to be false, so you move the goalposts. Typical Bigfooter behavior.
The comparison of someone accidentally shooting a human during a legal hunt for a legal animal to someone shooting at an imaginary humanoid creature, and shooting a human is not a rational comparison.
NightStar76
Thinker
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 230
...what is it with you people and goalposts? I'm seriously confused by what that means. I stand by my statement that belief in bigfoot causes no harm. If you want to be nitpicky, we can say that belief in bigfoot causes no harm to society. Individual harm is meaningless and can come from all sorts of directions. I'm sorry that you think that that statement is trolling. It is quantitatively true. The best kind of true.
Of course, you could also believe that society can be improved if we can simply move people past all these beliefs, as well as other beliefs that may be anti-scientific, such as God, etc.
As I was going to say to Resume... that's crazy. Far more so than believing in Bigfoot or spending money on Bigfoot or looking for Bigfoot or watching shows about Bigfoot. There is no reason to spend that type of time and effort. Even assuming incremental improvements to society can be made, at this point we are living in a veritable Panglossian utopia. It's all downhill from here. The reasons for this are myriad, but it makes little difference to me. My only hope is civilization as we know it lasts long enough after my death that my body will decay and people won't make firewood out of my bones.
So, you can keep going after people who are believing in things that make them happy and cause other people no harm - unfortunate accidents aside (seriously? There is no difference between someone being mistaken for a quail and being shot and someone being mistaken for bigfoot and shot, except that the first one makes less sense. The person still gets shot. That's a ludicrous argument).
All I've done is raise and answer points to a topic I thought was interesting, and then I was basically piled on by people making ridiculous assertions (seriously. People still get shot by idiots. People get shot by idiots for all sorts of reasons. There is no difference why they get shot by idiots. The problem is in the idiots themselves.) So, you know what? I'm tapping out. Ciao.
Of course, you could also believe that society can be improved if we can simply move people past all these beliefs, as well as other beliefs that may be anti-scientific, such as God, etc.
As I was going to say to Resume... that's crazy. Far more so than believing in Bigfoot or spending money on Bigfoot or looking for Bigfoot or watching shows about Bigfoot. There is no reason to spend that type of time and effort. Even assuming incremental improvements to society can be made, at this point we are living in a veritable Panglossian utopia. It's all downhill from here. The reasons for this are myriad, but it makes little difference to me. My only hope is civilization as we know it lasts long enough after my death that my body will decay and people won't make firewood out of my bones.
So, you can keep going after people who are believing in things that make them happy and cause other people no harm - unfortunate accidents aside (seriously? There is no difference between someone being mistaken for a quail and being shot and someone being mistaken for bigfoot and shot, except that the first one makes less sense. The person still gets shot. That's a ludicrous argument).
All I've done is raise and answer points to a topic I thought was interesting, and then I was basically piled on by people making ridiculous assertions (seriously. People still get shot by idiots. People get shot by idiots for all sorts of reasons. There is no difference why they get shot by idiots. The problem is in the idiots themselves.) So, you know what? I'm tapping out. Ciao.
Yes, it's crazy to believe that societies aren't improved through elimination of superstitious false beliefs. Or stupid beliefs
Like dueling over perceived slights as just one example.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
First of all it is a huge difference here.
If you fire at a quail with birdshot and miss and accidentally hit someone down range, that is bad hunting safety.
If you sit in the woods with a military grade rifle, and say "I am going to shoot the next Bigfoot I see", and someone has told you 'dude, there is no bigfoot, it's a kid messing with you', and you see a shadow behind a bush, and take a shot at it, and kill a kid. That is a Grand Canyon of difference between the two.
If you fire at a quail with birdshot and miss and accidentally hit someone down range, that is bad hunting safety.
If you sit in the woods with a military grade rifle, and say "I am going to shoot the next Bigfoot I see", and someone has told you 'dude, there is no bigfoot, it's a kid messing with you', and you see a shadow behind a bush, and take a shot at it, and kill a kid. That is a Grand Canyon of difference between the two.
The Shrike
Philosopher
That was some hilarious trolling. I'm sorry I missed it, but so glad you guys called out this guy for punching someone who called him a liar. My initial thought was "What are you, five?" Meantime, I think he was lying about that story anyway. . .
The irony of someone describing his assault on someone for a schoolyard offense in a thread ostensibly about the need to remove aggression from the bigfoot discourse was just . . . well . . . it was 'footer-y.
The irony of someone describing his assault on someone for a schoolyard offense in a thread ostensibly about the need to remove aggression from the bigfoot discourse was just . . . well . . . it was 'footer-y.
Hello,
We’re not being asked to believe in just the existence of an undocumented large mammal species. A new deer/bovid species in Congo or Laos is noteworthy but not jaw dropping. It’s a ~500lb ape/hominid, that’s bipedal, that lives in the North America close to very large urban centers not in the remote Congo, that’s nocturnal (no known nocturnal apes), that has not been shot or a body found in 400 years or so of European settlement, that has not been clearly documented on trail cameras despite their widespread use (hunters, biologists, people who just want to see what’s there), that is not in the fossil record, that (presumably) exists in very low population densities when there should be a lot of them (no more grizzly bears to compete with in the lower 48) and therefore obvious that they’re around etc. There’s probably a few more I’m missing that people on the list can add. For me, it’s a compounding probability thing. The odds of flipping heads with a coin is 50%. The odds of flipping heads twice in a row is 25% (0.5 x 0.5) and so on. So all of these improbabilities compound making it nigh near impossible for the existence of bigfoot. I do understand that for people that believe in it, the probability of all of the footprints being fakes and mistakes compounded with the probability that all of the sightings are fakes and mistakes makes it nigh near impossible for a bigfoot not to exist, but for me it doesn’t (not even close). Like most people on this list, nothing would make me happier than a real live bigfoot population but there just isn’t any evidence for it.
We’re not being asked to believe in just the existence of an undocumented large mammal species. A new deer/bovid species in Congo or Laos is noteworthy but not jaw dropping. It’s a ~500lb ape/hominid, that’s bipedal, that lives in the North America close to very large urban centers not in the remote Congo, that’s nocturnal (no known nocturnal apes), that has not been shot or a body found in 400 years or so of European settlement, that has not been clearly documented on trail cameras despite their widespread use (hunters, biologists, people who just want to see what’s there), that is not in the fossil record, that (presumably) exists in very low population densities when there should be a lot of them (no more grizzly bears to compete with in the lower 48) and therefore obvious that they’re around etc. There’s probably a few more I’m missing that people on the list can add. For me, it’s a compounding probability thing. The odds of flipping heads with a coin is 50%. The odds of flipping heads twice in a row is 25% (0.5 x 0.5) and so on. So all of these improbabilities compound making it nigh near impossible for the existence of bigfoot. I do understand that for people that believe in it, the probability of all of the footprints being fakes and mistakes compounded with the probability that all of the sightings are fakes and mistakes makes it nigh near impossible for a bigfoot not to exist, but for me it doesn’t (not even close). Like most people on this list, nothing would make me happier than a real live bigfoot population but there just isn’t any evidence for it.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Whoa there. Here is a false comparison issue that is too serious and too...well, just plain dumb....to let pass. Sure, plenty of people get shot anyway for all sorts of reasons, most of them bad, and most of them not bigfoot related. However, for your statement to make any sense at all in the question of whether Bigfoot belief can cause harm - the only way for it to make sense - would be if you could say with assurance that those very people would have been shot for some other reason. Your statement argues that if there is any reason for being shot, then there is no assignable reason for being shot.
Hi. I agree with you assessment save for your "nigh near impossible." I'd just do away with the modifiers.
rockinkt
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,342
The first quote is a lie. The second quote is furthering the lie.
That makes you a liar. Period.
Last edited:
The Shrike
Philosopher
Look out rock, you might get punched in the nose!
@ScottV: Welcome to the JREF. You seem to have a deep understand of bigfootery.
@ScottV: Welcome to the JREF. You seem to have a deep understand of bigfootery.
rockinkt
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,342
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Meh, if it is forgivable for a NASA astronaut to punch out a woo for calling him names...
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
The Shrike
Philosopher
1) Buzz Aldrin has earned the right to punch idiots in the face.
2) The guy calls him a liar earlier in the clip but Buzz walks away. The right cross comes after the guy calls him a coward and a liar.
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
Probably would've punched that guy also. Some people definitely deserve to be, and that guy was one of them.