View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Discuss General Topics.

Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby Scepcop » 26 Oct 2013, 07:49

Guess what all? Last night, I had a series of debates with many pseudoskeptics on the Australian Skeptics group on Facebook. I brought out the big guns and totally wasted them. They were overwhelmed by truth, logic, facts, reason, etc. to the point where they started grasping at straws. They started playing semantics when the truth wasn't on their side, and used cheap low ball tactics.

At one point, they even DENIED that the 2000 architects and engineers existed on AE911Truth.org! LOL. When I pointed out that those architects and engineers signed a formal petition with their full names, and even appeared on two documentaries produced by AE911Truth.org, they then demanded that I show NOTARIZED statements from these 2000 architects and engineers! Is that a cheap lowball denial tactic or what? LOL. I couldn't believe it. It's sad that these folks are not just closed minded and narrow, but they resort to extreme denial, fraud and dishonesty as well. This can only mean that they are NOT interested in seeking the truth at all.

Anyway, you can see my debates with them here under three posts I started. They might have been driven down by newer posts though.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/SkepticsInAustralia/

But I totally blew them away. They were overwhelmed that I threw so much irrefutable evidence at them. All they could do was mindlessly spout "There is no evidence! There is no evidence!" like brainless automatons, as usual. LOL. These pseudoskeptics are like programmed robots, not even human. LOL

I'm going to issue a challenge to them. I would be willing to debate some of them on a skeptics radio podcast, such as The Skeptics Guide to the Universe with Steven Novella, if they can arrange it with him.

I will post this thread on their Facebook group too, to rattle them up. LOL

These folks are funny and predictable, and the funny thing is, they think I'm funny and hilarious as well. LOL I guess that's the only thing we have in common. LOL
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby Nowoowoo » 26 Oct 2013, 10:33

Indeed Winston did visit the Australian Skeptics. That is about the only acccurate statement he made.
He then got very upset when the skeptics were skeptical, and challenged him ! Shock ! He met REAL skpetics who werent taken in !

He became irate at being asked to justify his claims, which he couldnt and wouldnt, and instead just repeatedly spammed the page with debunked nonsense.
He failed to address any of the substantive isssues raised, and failed to rebut the ninety page analysis of his logical fallacies.

In short - the only whipping was done by Winston upon himself. he has been invited to return, but upon conditions :
1) He limit the number of posts - not just spam the page.
2) He limits the posts to ONE topic per post.
3) He provides ACTUAL evidence to substantiate the claim. Belief is NOT evidence. Argumentum ad populum etc is NOT evidence.
4) He learns what logical fallacies are. If he fails to learn - we will repeatedly point them out - as we did do.

If he refuses to abide by those terms (which seem to be reasonable), he will likely be banned. At the moment he is viiewed as an amusing troll - nothing more.
If Winston wants to understand what "TRUE" skepticism is we are happy to enlighten him - but whatever he is now, "skeptic" isnt it.
User avatar
Nowoowoo
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 26 Oct 2013, 10:23

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby BillPerron » 27 Oct 2013, 03:16

Sounds to me the Australian septics are about as thin skinned as the American septics.
Do things according to their rules or they take the ball and you can't play anymore.
Not one has ever had the guts to ask Randi why he lied to weasel out of the Bill Perron challenge for the publicity stunt million.
Such pseudo skepticism is a weakness they all choose, rather than face the truth that their ugly little hero is a phony liar.
User avatar
BillPerron
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 Jun 2012, 04:01

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby ProfWag » 29 Oct 2013, 06:29

Nowoowoo wrote:Indeed Winston did visit the Australian Skeptics. That is about the only acccurate statement he made.
He then got very upset when the skeptics were skeptical, and challenged him ! Shock ! He met REAL skpetics who werent taken in !

He became irate at being asked to justify his claims, which he couldnt and wouldnt, and instead just repeatedly spammed the page with debunked nonsense.
He failed to address any of the substantive isssues raised, and failed to rebut the ninety page analysis of his logical fallacies.

In short - the only whipping was done by Winston upon himself. he has been invited to return, but upon conditions :
1) He limit the number of posts - not just spam the page.
2) He limits the posts to ONE topic per post.
3) He provides ACTUAL evidence to substantiate the claim. Belief is NOT evidence. Argumentum ad populum etc is NOT evidence.
4) He learns what logical fallacies are. If he fails to learn - we will repeatedly point them out - as we did do.

If he refuses to abide by those terms (which seem to be reasonable), he will likely be banned. At the moment he is viiewed as an amusing troll - nothing more.
If Winston wants to understand what "TRUE" skepticism is we are happy to enlighten him - but whatever he is now, "skeptic" isnt it.

I haven't looked at it yet, but based on my experience with Winston, I'd say this post is probably more accurate than his. We'll see in a bit.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby ProfWag » 29 Oct 2013, 07:13

Yea, I was right. Winston spamming and posting so much unsupported crap it makes your head spin with frustration. Sorry.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby Scepcop » 07 Nov 2013, 17:51

Nowoowoo,
What a funny user name. As usual, all you guys do is deny, deny, deny and use red herrings. Anyone can do that, but it's dishonest and unreasonable. No matter what credible evidence you present, they always deny and claim that no evidence exists. Skeptics are weird creatures. Totally irrational and illogical. Normal people with common sense understand better than they do.

Btw, I just posted this update on the Australian Skeptics FB page about my radio debate challenge:

Hi Skeptics,
It's your pal Winston again. Sorry I've been away for a while. Anyway, I heard back from Jim Fetzer. He said he's be willing to host a debate about conspiracies between me and one of you. His radio show podcast is at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Alex of the Skeptiko Podcast said he might be interested, but doesn't know how to host three way. I will try asking Whitley Strieber of UnknownCountry.com too.

Anyway, so who's game? If you are interested in debating me, please PM me with your contact info and availability, and we can go from there. I do not have time to wade through hundreds of comments bashing me by the way, so don't expect me to see them. So if you accept the challenge, PM me. Thanks.

Btw, if none of you accept, I will offer the challenge to the skeptics in my SCEPCOP forum (yes we have some there as well). If they don't accept, then I'll contact Michael Shermer, Mark Roberts, or Steven Novella to see if they're interested.

Thanks for your attention.

The master of debunking pseudoskeptics,
Winston Wu
Founder of SCEPCOP (www.debunkingskeptics.com)


So anyway, if none of the Australian Skeptics are willing to step up to the plate, are any of you skeptics here on SCEPCOP forum willing to debate me on the radio, one on one, on Jim Fetzer's show?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 08 Nov 2013, 15:16

I'm not sure those are the topics I would have ventured into a skeptics forum with!
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby NinjaPuppy » 13 Nov 2013, 05:51

Bwok, bwok, bwok, the skeptics are chicken! :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Nov 2013, 07:51

justintime wrote:Is it possible to be suspended for a comment made and offered as a solution.

Obviously, the answer is yes, as stated in your next quote.

justintime wrote:I was suspended from the Australasian Skeptics Forum by the admin Orphia Nay for suggesting this.


Of course it may have been the added commentary about sheep shaggers that may have been the cause.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Nov 2013, 12:30

More irrelevant modes of argumentation from yet another user on the internet wittily nicknamed 'justintime'. (chortle chortle, get it. I might name myself 'Holden Back' ha ha. Oh the lulz.)

Convicts were sent to Australia from around 1780 to 1848. Far greater numbers of free settlers arrived after that period. While there were social welfare reforms in Britain from about 1820 when they realised that 'excising the convict genetic stain' wasn't working — as a kind of early eugenics experiment designed to make Britain crime-free especially around crimes of property — they nonetheless kept sending convicts for another 30 years or so. The reason more and more people turned to petty crime was the population explosion following the agrarian revolution coupled with the lack of a welfare state that meant many desperate people had no jobs and no supports.

The main classes of prisoner sent out were:
- workers who did poor quality work who turned to crime to supplement their income from all walks of life
- general 'lumpenproletariat' from the slums of London who had turned to crime
- Irish political prisoners
- Luddites and rural poor who turned to crime or smashed machines due to losing their jobs to automation.

The main reason convicts were no longer sent after about 1850 was the discovery of rich gold fields in Victoria, meaning people were trying to get transported for trivial offences for free to Australia, then they would earn a ticket of leave within a year, and were free to go prospecting. It was a cheap fare from Blighty to riches. It was also starting to be seen as a 'summer holiday'.

Convicts were sent to the US for many decades before losing the US War of Independence, and American colonials complained about receiving shipload after shipload of convicts up to that time, so there is a fair share of the 'convict stain' in the US also.

I find Australians generally more law-abiding, honest and left shifty than the Brits left behind in their outlook, due to a fairer social settlement that does not encourage operating outside the law to supplement income.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 26 Nov 2013, 06:39

justintime wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:More irrelevant modes of argumentation from yet another user on the internet wittily nicknamed 'justintime'. (chortle chortle, get it. I might name myself 'Holden Back' ha ha. Oh the lulz.)

Convicts were sent to Australia from around 1780 to 1848. Far greater numbers of free settlers arrived after that period. While there were social welfare reforms in Britain from about 1820 when they realised that 'excising the convict genetic stain' wasn't working — as a kind of early eugenics experiment designed to make Britain crime-free especially around crimes of property — they nonetheless kept sending convicts for another 30 years or so. The reason more and more people turned to petty crime was the population explosion following the agrarian revolution coupled with the lack of a welfare state that meant many desperate people had no jobs and no supports.

The main classes of prisoner sent out were:
- workers who did poor quality work who turned to crime to supplement their income from all walks of life
- general 'lumpenproletariat' from the slums of London who had turned to crime
- Irish political prisoners
- Luddites and rural poor who turned to crime or smashed machines due to losing their jobs to automation.

The main reason convicts were no longer sent after about 1850 was the discovery of rich gold fields in Victoria, meaning people were trying to get transported for trivial offences for free to Australia, then they would earn a ticket of leave within a year, and were free to go prospecting. It was a cheap fare from Blighty to riches. It was also starting to be seen as a 'summer holiday'.

Convicts were sent to the US for many decades before losing the US War of Independence, and American colonials complained about receiving shipload after shipload of convicts up to that time, so there is a fair share of the 'convict stain' in the US also.

I find Australians generally more law-abiding, honest and left shifty than the Brits left behind in their outlook, due to a fairer social settlement that does not encourage operating outside the law to supplement income.

I believe the Convict Ancestry records released did not contain any Muslims. But pedophiles and sheep shaggers might be traceable from the released files.

"Over the 80 years more than 165,000 convicts were transported to Australia."(wiki) followed by a wave of gold diggers. The current aboriginal population stands at 400,000 or 2 percent of Australia's population. So we can safely assume the majority of the population descended from convicts and gold diggers.

*In 2007, it was estimated that 22 per cent of living Australians had a Convict ancestor or 22 - 25% of current Australians have at least 1 ancestor that was a convict.

The descendant rates are quite possible. As noted, many ordinary 'middle class' Irish political prisoners were sent out, much as many Irish and Scottish left the UK for America due to being tired of oppression from England. so they were descended from 'convicts' who were convicted for their political opinions and activism, i.e. standing up for a 'fair go', which is a hallmark of the Australian social settlement.

Many more free settlers came out after 1850 than there were 'convicts' however.

I would suggest that a great many Americans whose ancestors go back to the 18th century would also have a 'convict ancestor' since Britain sent its convicts to the US before switching to Australia after losing the American colonies after the US War of Independence.

There would have been virtually no 'pedophiles' in that lot, that sort of crime did not receive the attention we see today, similarly sheep-shagging was not a particularly prominent problem in the UK then either. Most were transported for petty crimes against property due to stealing a handkerchief or loaf of bread in an attempt to survive in a difficult time with an exploding population from the agrarian revolution, insufficient jobs and no welfare state solutions as already noted. A few were forgers and the like, who otherwise struggled to make a living. The governor of the new colonies made sure to drag every convict away who had any kind of construction trade or skill, although generally the reason they were transported was that they were bad at their day jobs -- hence the rather ordinary and lacklustre buildings designed by Francis Greenway in the early colony, some of which are still standing today.

One engraver who was transported engraved some silver plates for the landing, and was hung about 2 years afterwards for stealing provisions from the govt stores. The early colony at that time had almost starved due to the negligence and incompetence of the authorities.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Nov 2013, 17:27

there were different reasons for the genocide. once the intent of the colonists became obvious to the indigenous people -- that they were taking the best hunting land for crops and livestock, crowding people off, starting settlements, and more and more kept arriving on ships -- then they started warfare against the new arrivals, with the outcomes that you might imagine with the 'guns, germs and steel' of the arrivistes.

while the earliest records of the governor involved orders treating the natives with the utmost respect, that obviously cannot jibe well with the colonialist project.

very similar things happened in the US in new England, where natives' heads were used as footballs by the wave of settlers who came after the first religious pilgrims.

Noam Chomsky has a lot to say about Anglosphere colonialism, but of course the Spanish and French and Germans and Belgians were up to it as well.

A lot of the genocide in Australia came about under orders from the landed gentry, in fact, who had been granted huge tracts of land by the king because of their inherent deservingness of course. They then proceeded to remove natives from their lands to turn them over to agriculture. it was technically illegal, but it happened a great deal nonetheless. note that the article you cited points out that the convicts who were indentured to a noble land-owner who was probably granted free land were following orders of their superior. and as I pointed out, it was illegal and 7 of the 12 men involved were hanged.

methods including handing over blankets infected with smallpox, or just shooting them in their camps. as happened in the US also, since that is where the ideas particularly about smallpox came from in the 1778-1788 handover from US to Australia.

freed convicts were given tiny plots of land to cultivate on soils inherently poorer than back in Europe, and were not allowed guns as they were recent ex-convicts, meaning the aboriginal people raided them at night. altogether not a very pleasant settlement, and there are still strong tensions in the regions today.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gippsland_massacres
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 29 Nov 2013, 04:31

Maybe so, justintime. But exactly the same thing happened in the US. and in South America under the Spanish and Portuguese. And in Africa. It's called colonialism, and it was a feature of European international relations for centuries up until WWII.

You need to do some sort of liberal arts or humanities historical studies, and maybe read some Noam Chomsky, to get a broader appreciation of world happenings at that time, the European colonial project, etc. Your last quote is just another perspective, it's not 'right', it's just someone pushing their own take on it. I've already explicated in great detail from works like The Fatal Shore the background of the earliest settlers, the role of the agrarian and industrial revolutions, and so on. After 1850 a great many more 'free settlers' arrived. There is a constant influx of new arrivals also, not that they all join the Australian Skeptics. You will find it a difficult project to discredit the Australian Skeptics on the basis of their being 'descended from convicts' and 'genocidal' when exactly the same thing could be said about the entire US population, just as inaccurately.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 29 Nov 2013, 11:46

justintime wrote:Some differences. Pilgrims vs Convicts. Trade vs prison colony.

no, you're wrong, justintime, you're just dead wrong, I'm afraid. Once again, look at the numbers. How many early pilgrims emigrated vs the later influx of new colonial arrivals who were not Calvinist pilgrims and religious refugees from Britain? By the time the US colonies had grown in size and were controlled by the Georges, Britain was dumping shipload after shipload of convicts into the US colonies as govt policy. American documents of the day bemoan this occurring. The British eugenics policy of 'excising the convict stain' existed before Australia was settled, and was already in play in the American colonies.

You are cherry-picking the odd quote here and there from possibly biased authors writing for effect rather than looking at the hard numbers.

There is also obviously a difference in timeframes -- convicts were dumped into the US before 1778, whereupon of course it had to stop, and dumping commenced in Australia from 1788-1790, and continued for around 60 years. However, many other free settlers came out in the same time period, and after the cessation of transportation still more free settlers arrived. Certainly for that 60 year period there was a fair concentration of convicts in the population, and it has left its mark on the culture -- the distinctive Australian Cockney accent for instance, and a certain coarseness of expression. But no worse than the Scots today, for instance.

While this was going on, America was rapidly expanding its boundaries. While Britain essentially had the whole of Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea in one colonial takeover hit, the US as an Anglosphere settlement had to annexe 3 times its earlier size via the Louisiana Purchase from the French, the acquisition of the western third of the US, the Spanish and Mexican wars, and the continual repelling of the British via Canada. Noam Chomsky has a great deal to say about the relentless colonial instinct of England and her descendants.

Australia was not 'a penal colony', clearly the settlers were engaged in the same kind of mercantile agrarianism as anywhere. They happened to get cheaper indentured labour in the form of ticket of leavers. But of course the US similarly gained the benefit of slave labour particularly in the southern states right up until 1865 in the US Civil War, and northern states prior to that. Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers had slaves of course.

However, I don't critique the contributions of pseudosceps here and sceps everywhere in the US on the basis that they are cruel slave owners or descended from cruel slave owners and still have the taint of cruel slave owning about them as a valid form of argumentation while deliberately being devoid of any other social context, and using immature slurs, glosses and over-simplifications as a justification.

I could say you were also avid witch burners in the 17th century and therefore you are all deeply superstitious or very clearly carry the genetic taint of superstition forward. (Also possibly true tho, given the present day religiosity and theocracy of the US?)

The fact of the matter is that today in fact you have the death penalty more than any other country in the OECD, higher rates of gun ownership and gun deaths and a poor medical system of coverage and in fact I would be more inclined to make a present day judgement on the present day evidence of social advancement or regression on a number of markers in comparison with other OECD countries. You have the highest rate of incarceration in the OECD by an order of magnitude. Just who are the convicts and barbarians here exactly, today? Your current rate of producing convicts far outstrips any comparable country.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

Postby ProfWag » 02 Dec 2013, 04:37

justintime wrote:Well said. American exceptionalism is accepted worldwide and America is the richest, most powerful nation in the world in spite of it. It is the triumph of the people against common adversity that forces Americans to excel in everything they do. Australians on the other hand are beset by a culturally backward country made of little towns where 70% of the country is nothing but an arid desert. Convicts were sent to Australia to isolate and punish them. Pilgrims came to America to be free and prosperous. Americans spy on world leaders. Australians spy on Indonesians.

As the saying goes. If you aim too low you end up shooting your own foot. It is no accident America has a space program. Australians do not.

Dude, what's up with the lack of love for Australia? One, you're mistaken about many of the things you're saying and two, you're giving us Americans a bad name.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests