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

Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

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

Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Yes
28
62%
Yes but only limit them to the Debating Skeptics board
10
22%
No, it would only bring negative energy and ultimately do no good, as they will not listen
7
16%
 
Total votes : 45

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby General Zod » 23 Jul 2009, 13:25

antiskeptic wrote:General Zod, I think that you should apologize for making fun of the NWO conspiracy theories. It was disrespectful and some of us believe in them.


You had me going for a minute. Very nice parody! :D
General Zod
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 04:14






Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby antiskeptic » 23 Jul 2009, 13:29

General Zod wrote:You had me going for a minute. Very nice parody! :D


I'm not parodying anything! Seriously, this is getting very irritating...
No one knows how old the human race is exactly, but we can all agree that we should be old enough to know better.
antiskeptic
 
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 May 2009, 12:52

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby General Zod » 23 Jul 2009, 13:38

antiskeptic wrote:I'm not parodying anything! Seriously, this is getting very irritating...


I see. Since you're serious, then I will have to inform you that I have no apologies to offer for making fun of NWO conspiracy theories.

Who says skeptics don't have a sense of humor?
General Zod
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 04:14

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby antiskeptic » 23 Jul 2009, 13:52

This forum was such a nice place until these skeptics came here. Now it is turning into something that I did not sign up for. I refuse to post any longer until General Zod is banned for being disrespectful.
No one knows how old the human race is exactly, but we can all agree that we should be old enough to know better.
antiskeptic
 
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 May 2009, 12:52

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby General Zod » 23 Jul 2009, 14:03

antiskeptic wrote:This forum was such a nice place until these skeptics came here. Now it is turning into something that I did not sign up for. I refuse to post any longer until General Zod is banned for being disrespectful.


If it's against the forum rules to apply skepticism here, without resorting to sarcasm, personal insults, or crude language, then I suppose the admins will do what they must.
General Zod
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 04:14

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Franc28 » 23 Jul 2009, 14:59

They've been posting about the conspiracy theories, but I note no post in my thread so far. Are they scared of addressing someone who actually understands them?
Banned by the JREF Board for calling them on their "bullshit"...
Franc28
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 16 Jun 2009, 05:55

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Scepcop » 23 Jul 2009, 21:02

General Zod wrote:
Scepcop wrote:
Franc28 wrote:"treat us the same as you would expect to be treated if you joined a skeptics' forum."

Get ganged on by fifty people at a time?

:lol:

Are you a skeptic as well? I am looking forward to debating skeptics, especially since I was banned from the JREF forum.


LOL Franc28. I think he meant "treat us the same as you would WANT to be treated if you joined a skeptics' forum". But yeah, good one.


As a matter of fact, that's not at all what I meant. If I started making posts on this forum disputing paranormal claims, I would expect the same reception that you would be likely to get on a skeptics' forum.


Well it depends. Remember that we are not dogmatists here. We weight evidence and try to eliminate "a priori" beliefs from coming into the equation.

If you disputed a paranormal claim and listed some reasons, then that would be fine.

But if you used ridicule with no proof, or if you simply say

"ESP/Ghosts are impossible, so the claimants must be mistaken, deluded or lying. Them being right is NOT a possibility at all."

then you make the common pseudoskeptical fallacy that this site was created to combat. Do you see my point?
“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: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Scepcop » 23 Jul 2009, 21:23

General Zod wrote:
antiskeptic wrote:I'm not parodying anything! Seriously, this is getting very irritating...


I see. Since you're serious, then I will have to inform you that I have no apologies to offer for making fun of NWO conspiracy theories.

Who says skeptics don't have a sense of humor?


Alright now, first of all, Antiskeptic, he was just joking. Lighten up will you? Don't take everything that seriously or intensely or personally. It's not good for your health either. Remember that no one can insult you without your permission. Words have no power over you unless you give it to them.

Now General Zod, with all due respect, I've spent a lot of time researching the NWO, Secret Societies, and 9/11. And I should let you know that these are no longer just about "theories" but about FACTS, FACTS which you can look up in fact.

For example:

- The PNAC of the neo Bush conservatives stated that they needed a "catastrophic event like Pearl Harbor" in order for their plans of US Imperial domination to commence.
- George HW Bush used the term "New World Order" in his speech back in 1991 or so. That is a documented fact.
- Operation Northwoods was proposed in high levels of government as a plan where they would stage fake terrorist attacks on US soil, killing innocent US civilians, to try to justify a war against Cuba. Look it up. Here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

Again, these are facts, not theories.

- David Rockefeller said many things calling for a NWO and One World Government.
- Secret societies exist. The one called Bilderberg consists of many powerful world leaders and members of the elite, who meet once a year in total secrecy and the media does not dare cover it. That is a fact, not a theory.
- Many US Presidents and high ranking government officials belong to secret societies and cannot talk about them. That is a fact, not a theory. George Bush and John Kerry have even admitted to being members of Skull and Bones.
- US elite and leaders, including Clinton and Bush, regularly attend Bohemian Grove, a camp where they engage in bizarre Pagan rituals or Satanic rituals. David Burgen, Clinton's advisor, admitted this in an interview with Alex Jones on the street. You can see it on YouTube.
- On the back of the US dollar is a pyramid with an all seeing eye symbol. It is a Freemason/Illuminati symbol, not a secular one. This is a fact, not a theory that anyone can verify by looking at a dollar bill.
- The FBI has publicly admitted that they have no "hard evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11". What does that tell you? That the official story of 9/11 is Gospel Truth? lol Only to faith based fanatics maybe.
- Many CREDIBLE people and experts challenge the official 9/11 story, not just nutcases and paranoid conspiracy theorists. Example: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com and http://www.ae911truth.org
- In initial photos of the crash sites of Flight 93 and Flight 77 (that supposedly hit the Pentagon) you do not see debris of an airliner. That is a fact. News reporters said so too.
- Many eyewitnesses at Ground Zero on 9/11 said they heard explosions coming from the GROUND LEVEL or BASEMENT LEVEL of the WTC, yet the media no longer reports this and suppresses it. Why does that not piss you off?
- Many expert pilots with 40+ years of experience said that the maneuvers of Flight 77 are aerodynamically impossible, even for an expert. That is a fact, not a theory.

Etc. Etc.

I hope you get the point and realize that these are facts too, not just "theories".
“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: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Scepcop » 23 Jul 2009, 21:25

Franc28 wrote:They've been posting about the conspiracy theories, but I note no post in my thread so far. Are they scared of addressing someone who actually understands them?


There appears to be a lack of interest in conspiracy theories here. The best place to discuss them is at the forum of www.abovetopsecret.com. The 9/11 and NWO boards there are very very active with many intelligent responses and debates going on.
“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: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Franc28 » 24 Jul 2009, 03:53

I didn't mean my thread about conspiracies, I meant my thread in this section about the premises of skepticism.
Banned by the JREF Board for calling them on their "bullshit"...
Franc28
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 16 Jun 2009, 05:55

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Steve_Trueblue » 25 Jul 2009, 17:12

Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
39 Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 April 2009 02:44AM

Followup to: The Sin of UnderconfidenceGood online communities die primarily by refusing to defend themselves.
Somewhere in the vastness of the Internet, it is happening even now. It was once a well-kept garden of intelligent discussion, where knowledgeable and interested folk came, attracted by the high quality of speech they saw ongoing. But into this garden comes a fool, and the level of discussion drops a little - or more than a little, if the fool is very prolific in their posting. (It is worse if the fool is just articulate enough that the former inhabitants of the garden feel obliged to respond, and correct misapprehensions - for then the fool dominates conversations.)
So the garden is tainted now, and it is less fun to play in; the old inhabitants, already invested there, will stay, but they are that much less likely to attract new blood. Or if there are new members, their quality also has gone down.
Then another fool joins, and the two fools begin talking to each other, and at that point some of the old members, those with the highest standards and the best opportunities elsewhere, leave...
I am old enough to remember the USENET that is forgotten, though I was very young. Unlike the first Internet that died so long ago in the Eternal September, in these days there is always some way to delete unwanted content. We can thank spam for that - so egregious that no one defends it, so prolific that no one can just ignore it, there must be a banhammer somewhere.
But when the fools begin their invasion, some communities think themselves too good to use their banhammer for - gasp! - censorship.
After all - anyone acculturated by academia knows that censorship is a very grave sin... in their walled gardens where it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to enter, and students fear their professors' grading, and heaven forbid the janitors should speak up in the middle of a colloquium.
It is easy to be naive about the evils of censorship when you already live in a carefully kept garden. Just like it is easy to be naive about the universal virtue of unconditional nonviolent pacifism, when your country already has armed soldiers on the borders, and your city already has police. It costs you nothing to be righteous, so long as the police stay on their jobs.
The thing about online communities, though, is that you can't rely on the police ignoring you and staying on the job; the community actually pays the price of its virtuousness.
In the beginning, while the community is still thriving, censorship seems like a terrible and unnecessary imposition. Things are still going fine. It's just one fool, and if we can't tolerate just one fool, well, we must not be very tolerant. Perhaps the fool will give up and go away, without any need of censorship. And if the whole community has become just that much less fun to be a part of... mere fun doesn't seem like a good justification for (gasp!) censorship, any more than disliking someone's looks seems like a good reason to punch them in the nose.
(But joining a community is a strictly voluntary process, and if prospective new members don't like your looks, they won't join in the first place.)
And after all - who will be the censor? Who can possibly be trusted with such power?
Quite a lot of people, probably, in any well-kept garden. But if the garden is even a little divided within itself - if there are factions - if there are people who hang out in the community despite not much trusting the moderator or whoever could potentially wield the banhammer -
(for such internal politics often seem like a matter of far greater import than mere invading barbarians)
- then trying to defend the community is typically depicted as a coup attempt. Who is this one who dares appoint themselves as judge and executioner? Do they think their ownership of the server means they own the people? Own our community? Do they think that control over the source code makes them a god?
I confess, for a while I didn't even understand why communities had such trouble defending themselves - I thought it was pure naivete. It didn't occur to me that it was an egalitarian instinct to prevent chieftains from getting too much power. "None of us are bigger than one another, all of us are men and can fight; I am going to get my arrows", was the saying in one hunter-gatherer tribe whose name I forget. (Because among humans, unlike chimpanzees, weapons are an equalizer - the tribal chieftain seems to be an invention of agriculture, when people can't just walk away any more.)
Maybe it's because I grew up on the Internet in places where there was always a sysop, and so I take for granted that whoever runs the server has certain responsibilities. Maybe I understand on a gut level that the opposite of censorship is not academia but 4chan (which probably still has mechanisms to prevent spam). Maybe because I grew up in that wide open space where the freedom that mattered was the freedom to choose a well-kept garden that you liked and that liked you, as if you actually could find a country with good laws. Maybe because I take it for granted that if you don't like the archwizard, the thing to do is walk away (this did happen to me once, and I did indeed just walk away).
And maybe because I, myself, have often been the one running the server. But I am consistent, usually being first in line to support moderators - even when they're on the other side from me of the internal politics. I know what happens when an online community starts questioning its moderators. Any political enemy I have on a mailing list who's popular enough to be dangerous is probably not someone who would abuse that particular power of censorship, and when they put on their moderator's hat, I vocally support them - they need urging on, not restraining. People who've grown up in academia simply don't realize how strong are the walls of exclusion that keep the trolls out of their lovely garden of "free speech".
Any community that really needs to question its moderators, that really seriously has abusive moderators, is probably not worth saving. But this is more accused than realized, so far as I can see.
In any case the light didn't go on in my head about egalitarian instincts (instincts to prevent leaders from exercising power) killing online communities until just recently. While reading a comment at Less Wrong, in fact, though I don't recall which one.
But I have seen it happen - over and over, with myself urging the moderators on and supporting them whether they were people I liked or not, and the moderators still not doing enough to prevent the slow decay. Being too humble, doubting themselves an order of magnitude more than I would have doubted them. It was a rationalist hangout, and the third besetting sin of rationalists is underconfidence .
This about the Internet: Anyone can walk in. And anyone can walk out. And so an online community must stay fun to stay alive. Waiting until the last resort of absolute, blatent, undeniable egregiousness - waiting as long as a police officer would wait to open fire - indulging your conscience and the virtues you learned in walled fortresses, waiting until you can be certain you are in the right, and fear no questioning looks - is waiting far too late.
I have seen rationalist communities die because they trusted their moderators too little.
But that was not a karma system, actually.
Here - you must trust yourselves.
A certain quote seems appropriate here: "Don't believe in yourself! Believe that I believe in you!"
Because I really do honestly think that if you want to downvote a comment that seems low-quality... and yet you hesitate, wondering if maybe you're downvoting just because you disagree with the conclusion or dislike the author... feeling nervous that someone watching you might accuse you of groupthink or echo-chamber-ism or (gasp!) censorship... then nine times of ten, I bet, nine times out of ten at least, it is a comment that really is low-quality.
You have the downvote. Use it

Pasted in by Steve_Trueblue
Steve_Trueblue
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 12:01

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Franc28 » 25 Jul 2009, 18:11

The person who wrote that article, has absolutely no experience in what they are talking about. The censorship on mainstream message boards is so great that the spoiling by trolls is insignificant by comparison. On smaller boards, yes, there tends to be far less censorship, but also a concentration of the audience.
Banned by the JREF Board for calling them on their "bullshit"...
Franc28
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 16 Jun 2009, 05:55

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Scepcop » 25 Jul 2009, 23:15

Now that many skeptics are in this forum, this question is important:

Would you all prefer that they be able to post on any board, or only be limited to the "Debating Skeptics" board?

What do you think? Would you like their feedback on every topic, or only confined to one board?
“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: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby The Warrigal » 26 Jul 2009, 00:32

Speaking as one who voted in favour of allowing sceptics to join this Forum, I would like to read their input on all of the Sub-Forums.

Sincere scepticism would be most valuable in keeping us all on our toes and mentally alert.

Without sceptical input we run the risk of becoming a social circle of uncritical believers.

However, I do understand and empathise with, the concerns that some members have raised concerning Trolling.

Personality clashes occur online just as they do everywhere else and as strange as it may seem, internet feuds can become a lot nastier than work place ones.

This can be a real pain for Forum owners when an obsessional individual insists on chasing down some perceived "enemy" of his to every Forum that person frequents just so can continue to slag him off.

Trolls, on average, are neither very bright nor industrious and are usually an over rated threat.

Agenda Trolling, however, is an ugly practice in which a group of hostile individuals set out to wage war against another Forum with the intent to destroy it.

I hope that we never see that here, nor do I anticipate it since the JREF Skeptics who signed up here have all come here as proud sceptics not as "infiltrators."
The Warrigal
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 22 Jun 2009, 11:44

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Franc28 » 26 Jul 2009, 07:38

On the one hand, it would probably be better for skeptics to stay in this section. On the other hand, I am adamantly against censorship, and so this seems a bit hypocrite. As long as they keep to the topics and don't monopolize threads, I don't really see the problem.
Banned by the JREF Board for calling them on their "bullshit"...
Franc28
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 16 Jun 2009, 05:55

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron