I just stumbled on this thread and I am somewhat alarmed by the fact that there is even any talk of banning someone another person chooses to label a pseudoskeptic. Besides the fact that it would be a very subjectively biased assessment on someone’s part to be the
Determinator of who is and who isn’t a pseudo, the problem of inbreeding comes into play. If you eliminate anyone who doesn’t think, act, agree and talk the way you ‘think’ they should you end up with vanilla white, homogenized milk that is very bland and tepid and anemic. This is what you see on the JREF site all the time:
Law of Mutual Validation – constant reinforcing of world view to maintain its structural integrity is achieved by JREFing each other off while patting your back you’re your other hand at the same time…sorry, I had to say it. (smiley face goes here). Please don’t let us go down that path.
Having differences of opinion and the inevitable debate that ensues creates dynamic tensions within a forum or community that makes the site more robust, vigorous and healthy. It, in effect, gives the site good muscle tone. What I am hearing discussed here I have never heard on JREF, SGTU, Skeptical Community, Skeptic Friends, etc. Sure, they will ridicule you or attack from all sides, but it’s people like you and me who help keep their sites vigorous and robust because disagreeing with the party line creates that dynamic tension that is necessary for something’s growth and health. I fear I’m starting to get the sulfurous whiff of narrow minded, bigoted fundamentalism on this thread. Get thee behind me Satan++
The very fact that someone on here thinks they’ve got the divine vision that would be required to be able to make these
Philosopher King type determinations of who is and who isn’t is a pseudo is scary. I see the potential for these things to rear their ugly heads:
Law of Immaculate Perception –
they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself. illusory superiority –
perception of self as a person of elevated intelligence, keener insight, of someone who has transcended the shackles of naïve, superstitious thinking which allows them to perceive reality as it actually is unhindered by superstitious thinking and unfettered by cognitive biases like the rest of humanity.The only real issue I see is what the decorum should be for this site. I am assuming that we want an intelligent, thoughtful, well intended and open-to-all-possibilities type of format in which to have healthy interactions that are beneficial to all as a whole. It’s not whether you think someone is a closed minded bigot or not. (remember the old saying: when you point a finger at someone else, three more are pointing back at you.)
Below are some guidelines that come from the site
Unexplained Mysteries, which deals in UFOs, crytoids, ancient mysteries, etc. You’ve got everything from hard core real skeptics to way out there woo. They tend to treat each other with civility and are pretty well behaved. It’s a site I like going to, to read and discuss interesting topics in a mature way without all the hooting and hollering, name calling and personal attacks.
The only people that need to be banned are the obviously rude and nasty flamers and trolls regardless of stripe or color. Look, the debunker/pseudo sites have plenty of that bigoted horse shit already, let’s not contribute to the problem…please
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo ... howforum=9Board guidelines
In the interests of maintaining a fair and civil environment for discussion and debate we ask:
No ad hominem attacks: Always attack the points being presented based on the merits or otherwise of the argument, do not personally attack, insult, mock or otherwise make derogatory comments aimed at the person who is presenting that argument or with whom you disagree.
Source citation: If you are relying on an unsubstantiated claim to support your side of a debate you must always back up such claims with a logical argument or with a relevant publication citation or source link should one be required or requested in order to validate the accuracy of the claim being made.
Fact vs opinion: If you are presenting a claim that is personal opinion only then please state as such; personal opinion, speculation or hearsay should not be presented as supporting evidence in a debate.
Full forum rules and guidelines can be found - Here.