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

The Psychology of the Skeptic

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Dec 2012, 05:49

So justintime, you're a ladies man. :o
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Dec 2012, 05:53

Arouet - Thank you for taking the time to find that commentary but from what I have seen with my own eyes (remind me to poke them out with a sharp object later) the JREF members were pretty harsh. If I was treated like that on a forum I'd be much less congenial than justintime.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Dec 2012, 06:07

You mean that MY bitchieness is supposed to run on a schedule? Who knew? I'm fairly even tempered as I'm bitchy 24/7. 8-)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby Arouet » 17 Dec 2012, 06:46

In before Ninja realises that the harsh attitude may have been deserved.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Dec 2012, 07:19

justintime wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:You mean that MY bitchieness is supposed to run on a schedule? Who knew? I'm fairly even tempered as I'm bitchy 24/7. 8-)

It is your ovaries. They need attention. That is why my name is more than symbolic, just in time is also very opportune. Hang on to your assets but synchronize our calendars.

HMOG are you a piece of work. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Dec 2012, 07:49

I think it's more of a control thing with them.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby Arouet » 17 Dec 2012, 09:04

Ok, since Ninja clearly still hasn't got it (is his misogyny charming?) I'll/ set out some of what I saw in the other thread

Let's look at his first post in that thread and try and anticipate the reaction:

[QUOTE=justintime;8815208]I came across this intriguing double play.
Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge. And because knowledge is never present in an absolute way skeptics can get caught up in endless disagreements. For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic.
Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases.
Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim. It is not a cooperative exchange but an adversarial challenge. More often than not the skeptic is not an expert in the field under discussion which leads to endless missed turns, so complex issues are best avoided when confronting a skeptic. Which begs the question, why deal with skeptics if even the obvious are subject to



So the question can go beyond "Why you might not be a skeptic" and can be truthfully answered with "why you might very well be a very insecure individual."[/QUOTE]

According to a search of his posts, this was his first post on the forum.

Arch - just reading this thread again hurts. Must I continue? This guy is a ban-seeker-troll. You're familiar with the type Ninja, they take each ban as a badge of honour. justintime no doubt considers his mere suspension from JREF to be a fairlure, not getting the full ban on the first go-around. I suspect he'll accomplish his goal quickly upon reinstatement.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby Arouet » 18 Dec 2012, 00:44

justintime wrote:No one wants to get banned after all the effort that goes in to endear themselves to their readers.


haha. I must say, you are entertaining! But you are the very definition of a troll. However, I have much more tolerance for trolls who are entertaining than ones who aren't. Though if you continue with the mysogenistic comments I'd recommend a ban as well. Keep it to calling people brainwashed and dogmatic - let's keep gender out of it!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Dec 2012, 01:10

Arouet wrote:Ok, since Ninja clearly still hasn't got it (is his misogyny charming?) I'll/ set out some of what I saw in the other thread.

Trust me, I got it.

I've been around it and experienced it my entire life. That would be both things that you point out, misogyny and skeptics. If we had a group of active female members on this forum, misogynistic laden posts could become a possible issue but since we don't, or until it actually happens on THIS forum, I don't think of it as an issue.

As a moderator on a forum compromised of predominantly male members, I don't believe that any of you should have to feel that you can't be candid with your posts. To date, I've never seen anyone here treat another member differently because of gender. We all seem to be equal opportunity haters when it comes to our individually liked/disliked, heated topic materials.

I believe that we have a bit of an HTML glitch here, so I'll try to work with what I have
Arouet wrote:Let's look at his first post in that thread and try and anticipate the reaction:

[QUOTE=justintime;8815208]I came across this intriguing double play.
Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge. And because knowledge is never present in an absolute way skeptics can get caught up in endless disagreements. For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic.
Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases.
Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim. It is not a cooperative exchange but an adversarial challenge. More often than not the skeptic is not an expert in the field under discussion which leads to endless missed turns, so complex issues are best avoided when confronting a skeptic. Which begs the question, why deal with skeptics if even the obvious are subject to

So the question can go beyond "Why you might not be a skeptic" and can be truthfully answered with "why you might very well be a very insecure individual."

What's so controversial or negative about these questions? Granted, it's no shock that his target audience wasn't one that we would expect would welcome this sort of commentary with warm fuzzys. However, he makes it clear that he's doing some kind of research and he maintains civility during the 9 pages that I had read. The opposing side, not so much.

Arouet wrote:According to a search of his posts, this was his first post on the forum.

Arch - just reading this thread again hurts. Must I continue? This guy is a ban-seeker-troll. You're familiar with the type Ninja, they take each ban as a badge of honour. justintime no doubt considers his mere suspension from JREF to be a fairlure, not getting the full ban on the first go-around. I suspect he'll accomplish his goal quickly upon reinstatement.


If he hasn't yet been banned from JREF, there must be a reason. Their Mods (notice the plural) usually enforce THEIR rules quickly. I highly doubt that it's because they are too busy trimming their Christmas trees or have had an unusual flood of Christmas spirit come over them either.

Justintime's commentary is not odd or out of place for a forum that is designed to debunk skeptics. IMO, he is actually arguing semantics with his comments. It is not aimed at one particular skeptic but his words hint (very lightly) of stereotyping and we know that NEVER goes well. :shock: However, once again, it all boils down to semantics.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Dec 2012, 01:16

justintime wrote:To end up ostracized is the price one should be willing to pay to exercise their right to the truth and the freedom to express it.

I totally agree. Heck, Winston's been kicked off of more internet locations than you can shake a stick at for this exact thing. Yet, he keeps on truckin'.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby Arouet » 18 Dec 2012, 01:18

His posts have little substance and many generalizations and insults. His post - imo - was not designed to put forward his legitimate opinion for intelligent debate. His post was - again imo - designed to get people riled up. That's trolling.

Even here he doesn't really directly respond to posts. But again - he's fun, so I'll engage him until he stops being fun.

However, I disagree with you Ninja, on the misogeny: it's NOT ok just because you're the only female reg on this forum. If he wants to have a discussion about why misogeny should be considered non-taboo, I think that would be legitimate. However I think misogenistic comments should be considered off-limits by default. There is no upside to such comments, and they will only sserve to offend.

Yes, this forum gives a lot of leeway for free speech - but I think there is a limit: racist or sexist comments should be banned and deleted (don't just delete the whole post - delete the bad section and put in brackets (portions deleted for sexism/racism etc.)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby Arouet » 18 Dec 2012, 01:22

NinjaPuppy wrote:Justintime's commentary is not odd or out of place for a forum that is designed to debunk skeptics.


On this I agree with you. A couple times I've been about to post "why do you keep on referring to threads on other forums? How about starting new conversations here?" but then I realised that technically it would be a valid topic for this site.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Dec 2012, 01:33

Arouet wrote:His posts have little substance and many generalizations and insults. His post - imo - was not designed to put forward his legitimate opinion for intelligent debate. His post was - again imo - designed to get people riled up. That's trolling.

Correction. Around here that's par for the course.

Arouet wrote:Even here he doesn't really directly respond to posts. But again - he's fun, so I'll engage him until he stops being fun.

Awwwwww. He's responded to every question that I've asked and IMO, I've asked some pretty dumb as well as somewhat personal questions.

Arouet wrote:However, I disagree with you Ninja, on the misogeny: it's NOT ok just because you're the only female reg on this forum. If he wants to have a discussion about why misogeny should be considered non-taboo, I think that would be legitimate. However I think misogenistic comments should be considered off-limits by default. There is no upside to such comments, and they will only sserve to offend.

Good gawd Arouet, have you never gone over to Winston's "other" site??? :shock: :shock: :shock: :o :o :o :shock:

Arouet wrote:Yes, this forum gives a lot of leeway for free speech - but I think there is a limit: racist or sexist comments should be banned and deleted (don't just delete the whole post - delete the bad section and put in brackets (portions deleted for sexism/racism etc.)

I totally agree with you and I doubt that Winston would have a problem with that either. Should anyone here ever feel that there is commentary that is offensive in any way, PLEASE use the "Report A Post" button as I do sometimes skim rather than actually read and digest the context of every post. I do believe that using that button keeps the user's ID confidential and I sure don't make an issue of using tattle tale tactics to get the flame wars burning.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby Arouet » 18 Dec 2012, 01:45

NinjaPuppy wrote:Correction. Around here that's par for the course.


I think you're trying to be funny, but I don't think it is. There's some teasing, sure, but there is substance too!

Awwwwww. He's responded to every question that I've asked and IMO, I've asked some pretty dumb as well as somewhat personal questions.


Well, he does quote the other person and writes something, but he doesn't really address the finer points that are made.

Good gawd Arouet, have you never gone over to Winston's "other" site??? :shock: :shock: :shock: :o :o :o :shock:


I try to forget about that! (I've only been there a couple times to check it out).
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Psychology of the Skeptic

Postby Arouet » 18 Dec 2012, 01:45

NinjaPuppy wrote:Correction. Around here that's par for the course.


I think you're trying to be funny, but I don't think it is. There's some teasing, sure, but there is substance too!

Awwwwww. He's responded to every question that I've asked and IMO, I've asked some pretty dumb as well as somewhat personal questions.


Well, he does quote the other person and writes something, but he doesn't really address the finer points that are made.

Good gawd Arouet, have you never gone over to Winston's "other" site??? :shock: :shock: :shock: :o :o :o :shock:


I try to forget about that! (I've only been there a couple times to check it out).
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron