Discuss General Topics.
[quote="jakesteele"]I Can I sophisticate your first law a little bit?
The Law of the Avoided Question: Answer the question you would have liked to have been asked rather than the one that was asked. Who cares what the original question was, answer a question that you have prepared an answer for regardless (any question will do, as long as it is related to the subject… and sometimes not even then. YES much evidence for this
Can I suggest pseudoskeptics actually carry in their own heads, the template of an ideal opponent victim they desperately want to bully, which they project onto anyone they meet online. Its really pre-prepared abuse for a non existent person which they just dump at every encounter. That's why their replies are so laughably off point repeatedly
Essentially many pseudoskeptics are actually bullying an imaginary opponent constructed entirely in their own heads.
The next question is what is their great motivation to do this? Toward everyone they meet online? Clearly an internal problem of great magnitude.
Oh what could it be? Its a short list of possibilities.
Just to clarify, by "bully" you mean "ask for reliable evidence" right?
According to the definition of the coined term pseudo-skeptics all pseudo-skeptics bully. Tell us where we poor addled brain pseudo-skeptics skeptics get it all wrong. Which pseudo-skeptics don't bully an imaginary opponent ?
OMG! Can I kiss you for this, stevetrueblue?
A most excellent and in my mind "accurate" assessment; something I've tried to convey for years when butting heads with various school yard bullies (a.k.a. skeptics) out there, ALL of whom keep expressing the exact same words they've been regurgitating for generations... especially when it comes to "Russell's Teapot"... that clever little twist to things given to them by Bertram Russell some decades back, allowing them to side-step THEIR OBLIGATION in proving their claims vs. the faith-filled stepping up (lowering themselves) to the same level, belittling their beliefs... betraying reverence and respect for their beliefs, etc. just because some "punk" (metaphorically speaking) on the school yard wants you to "prove it" ... or he'll beat you up... or make you out as a looser, etc. He'll do to you everything the athletic jocks do to them and for the same reason -- they are in a pseudo position of superior advantage; the Athlete tends to be bolder and physically more capable than the geeks & nerds on campus. They likewise gain a stronger social-political advantage because they are viewed as being "real men" -- modern-day gladiators and warrior... team players! The scholars adopt this same attitude as they are called upon by the phys-ed department to help their star quarterback, pass this and that class, insuring their playing status by grand-point average. They recognize this as being leverage; their way of being able to manipulate the "muscle" in the school to their favor. The more cunning of the geek-squad, understanding how to likewise manipulate faculty; especially if they come from those families sporting civic influence and position. It's the same exact thing, just different forms of it.
The problem we have is the fact that NEITHER of these self-obsessed faux-elitists have the wits about them to meet people half-way; given them the respect they think they deserve, to those they belittle, in order to find common ground form which to build and grow things. Granted, it's much harder to do this, which is probably why the majority of the jocks as well as the brainiac society embrace their assholiness instead.
While I do agree with you in general about the belittling (there is far too much of it going on in skeptics circles, from everything scientists know about belief, its not always about intelligence) you seem to be suggesting here that asking for reliable evidence is unreasonable. What would you suggest as an alternative?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests