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 Student of Sophia » 06 Aug 2009, 08:29

I think they should only be allowed on the debating skeptics forum. It's too hard finding a forum for *US*. I don't want to this place zerged by hordes of pseudo-skeptic asshats. And sooner or later that will happen. When someone like PZ Myers catches wind of this place and tells his army of fanbois to zerg us, they will. It would be nice if they were contained beforehand.

If there is something on another sub-forum that someone wants skeptic input on, they could just make a new thread in the proper place, couldn't they? And if a skeptic sees something in another forum that they want to comment on, they too could make a thread in the proper place.
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37






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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 06 Aug 2009, 22:40

There has been some excellent input here. IMO, this particular discussion is a perfect example of

Antiskeptic - Well, I can't say that I agree with this decision, but I hope that you will be willing to kick the skeptics out if (and probably when) they start acting disrespectfully.


May I add that ANYONE who starts acting disrepectfully should be given the same marching orders.

Eteponge - Now, if I had never encountered "meanie skeptics" on other forums, I'd still be a gullible doe-eyed believer who thinks that merely "seeing a bright light" and "seeing deceased relatives" is 100% absolute "proof" of an afterlife. I came out better because of it.


An excellent observation. 'Yin and Yang'.

Student of Sophia - If there is something on another sub-forum that someone wants skeptic input on, they could just make a new thread in the proper place, couldn't they? And if a skeptic sees something in another forum that they want to comment on, they too could make a thread in the proper place.


There you go. For now, this might be a perfect solution to the original question. If an individual wants to discuss a topic among people of like minds without being distracted by comments from the opposition, they can. If an individual is looking to have their topic reviewed and commented on with some good input from opposition, they can have that too.

As long as everyone here remembers that they need to be respectful of others and follow some basic rules of courtesy and not make it a personal attack, it might work until we can all work out the finer details.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby brett » 07 Aug 2009, 01:53

word of this form is spreading - and as it does it will attract an insidious breed of skeptic - those who hide behind false identities and will take every word back to other sKeptic forums and ridicule them there as well - i have met some of them and they will do ANYTHING to infiltrate reasonable discussion and disrupt it !!
you have them in the states - we have them in the UK - some posing as supposedly paranormal groups who are nothing more than debunkers - having forced out decent and genuine researchers - to foster their own agendas and motives - beware - i vote corral them in one place - otherwise like a rotten apple in a barrel they will pollute the whole :roll:

at least ways they then can't accuse us of being a closed ( believer ) shop - if they PROVE by word and deed to be genuine ,then maybe let them loose under licence

any ways just my opinion for what it's worth :?
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby ciscop » 10 Aug 2009, 14:26

well i think it would be a shame if you ban skeptics
as i am one, but like i have said before
i do have an interest in the paranormal since when i was a little kid
and this forum is quite cool, for me is a place to hunt for good stories
:D i love them

i think banning people or restricting the things they can discuss
will decreace the growth of this site, also... if you doubt anybody else topic of interest which is not your own, will you call him a skeptic and ban him? ... there are topics that even skeptics and paranormalists have agree on.. like the secret.
there are some others that we will still debate like uri geller...
so personally the more people from different backgrounds, education and experiences.. the better discussion and fun we will have
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

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

Postby The Warrigal » 10 Aug 2009, 15:04

Absolutely SCEPCOP should allow and even encourage sceptics to join and fully contribute.

As Ciscop has already pointed out, there are many areas of agreement between sceptics and paranormalists.

Therefore, I think that blanket banning sceptics just because they are sceptical will not only stunt the growth of this Forum but will also wreck whatever hope it may have of establishing credibility as a location for the serious discussion of paranormal research.

I have come by a few caustic posts at scetical Forums and Blog sites concerning SCEPCOP but nothing indicative of any desire to destroy the site.

If anthing these sceptical comments reveal that the opponents of SCEPCOP think so poorly of this site that they are confident that this Forum will implode without any help from them.

I have said before that I appreciate and even empathise with the concerns some members have expressed about Agenda Trolling.

However, I respectfully submit that we cross that bridge when and if we ever come to it.
The Warrigal
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 22 Jun 2009, 11:44

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

Postby brett » 13 Aug 2009, 22:11

now that the insults have started to flow freely - i would suggest the "bridge" has been reached and action is required - i like most here can tolerate strong opinions - but there is no excuse for personal insults :!: - those guilty should be given one warning then their account removed - unless of course the site WANTS to start loosing reasonable contributors ??
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby SeanRMR » 14 Aug 2009, 05:35

I agree with Brett
SeanRMR
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 11:08

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

Postby wjbeaty » 15 Oct 2009, 18:40

"Skeptics?" As in ...if you're not one of us, then you must be one of THEM?

Will we soon require Woo Woo purity tests to make sure we're all politically correct, and that no concealed adversaries can sneak in wearing Believer costumes? What if I start refusing to leap to judgements, or worse, desire to inspect evidence before forming opinions? Will I be rejected as an obvious Skeptic?

But seriously now, I self-identify as 'skeptic.' So does Dean Radin. So does W. Wu, I think. So do large numbers of people in the anti-pseudoskeptic camp. We're Pyrrhonians as mentioned on the main page of this site. If we ban skeptics, then only the far fringe of truly irrational Believers will be left.

If we want to put people in pigeonholes, or force everyone to choose which of two camps to join, well, first we'd better get our racial slurs right. The word isn't "skeptics," the word is "scoffers." Or perhaps we prefer "disbelievers?" Debunkers, false skeptics, bogus skeptics, skeptoids, skeptopaths, skeptinazis, pseudoskeptics, knee-jerk skeptics, hardcore skeptics, type-II pseudoscientists, skeptologists, cynics, randi-bots, randi-roids, "Brights," science-bigots, wet skeptics, (add more, I'm sure I missed lots.)

Here's a better poll which is more to the point:

Should the rules of this forum harshly punish Pseudoskeptic behavior?

For example, suppose that the pro-phrenology and anti-phrenology people were welcome, and both sides of the flat earth debate were represented, but there were very stiff rules against namecalling, ridicule, typical fallacies, etc. Then soon all the trolls would end up on long term bans.
-----------------------------------------------
'Skeptic' does not mean scoffer
'Skeptic' does not mean debunker
'Skeptic' does not mean csicop member
'Skeptic' does not mean Atheist
'Skeptic' does not mean cynic
'Skeptic' does not mean woo-woo-hater
'Skeptic' does not mean anti-paranormalist
'Skeptic' does not even mean self-declared Skeptic
((((((((((((( ( (O) ) )))))))))))))
Bill Beaty Science Hobbyist
billb|eskimo com http://amasci.com/wclose/
User avatar
wjbeaty
 
Posts: 38
Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 17:59
Location: Seattle, U of Washington

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 15 Oct 2009, 20:28

wjbeaty wrote:"Skeptics?" As in ...if you're not one of us, then you must be one of THEM?

Will we soon require Woo Woo purity tests to make sure we're all politically correct, and that no concealed adversaries can sneak in wearing Believer costumes? What if I start refusing to leap to judgements, or worse, desire to inspect evidence before forming opinions? Will I be rejected as an obvious Skeptic?

Welcome wjbeaty. The question, "Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum" was something that SCEPCOP wanted to discuss in the begining stages of putting together this forum. Since then, many skeptics have joined the fray. It makes life interesting. :D
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby brett » 17 Oct 2009, 09:02

also welcome wjb - well once we had got the ground rules and " level " of personal name calling established - most of the skeptics turned out to be quite nice people ( certainly better than on some sites ) and as ninja said this was started when the site was new - OK we get the odd person sent to the sin bin - but on the whole i think you will enjoy this site - as we have some very good pontificators on both sides of the argument - those like me not so elegant with words , and the comedians - (oh and a few whack jobs - but hey each to their own eh ?? :lol: :lol: :lol: )

just please don't mention political correctness ( well not in my hearing ) - as you will set me of on a rant the like of which .................... :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: ( unfortunately the UK is plagued with it )

best regards :D
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby wjbeaty » 27 Oct 2009, 15:48

brett wrote:just please don't mention political correctness ( well not in my hearing ) - as you will set me of on a rant the like of which .................... :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: ( unfortunately the UK is plagued with it )


Heh, I'll take the bait.

By "politically correct" I mean the following. If you're part of a 'Believer' group, then you'd better stay silent about your strong disbeliefs, or you'll be attacked by all and labeled as "a covert CSICOP spy." For example, if you're a UFO or Bigfoot fan, but think reincarnation is bunk ...you'd better stay silent, to avoid attack. You'll be punished if you exhibit *any* intolerance for even the most insane beliefs.

Or, if you're part of a 'Scoffer' group, then you'd better not admit to any odd beliefs, or your fellows will turn on you. You might be a professional scientist, and despise medical scams and fortune-tellers. But if you happen to believe in God ...keep that carefully hidden or you'll regret it. You'll be punished if you exhibit tolerance for beliefs having *any* oddness.

When a new member joins any of these groups, the big question on the mind of many is: are they really one of us, or one of THEM? Are they who they claim, or are they really a covert invader from the enemy camp? Or worse, are they one of those disgusting Fence Sitters who refuse to act normal and choose up sides for the big war?
-----------------------------------------------
'Skeptic' does not mean scoffer
'Skeptic' does not mean debunker
'Skeptic' does not mean csicop member
'Skeptic' does not mean Atheist
'Skeptic' does not mean cynic
'Skeptic' does not mean woo-woo-hater
'Skeptic' does not mean anti-paranormalist
'Skeptic' does not even mean self-declared Skeptic
((((((((((((( ( (O) ) )))))))))))))
Bill Beaty Science Hobbyist
billb|eskimo com http://amasci.com/wclose/
User avatar
wjbeaty
 
Posts: 38
Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 17:59
Location: Seattle, U of Washington

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

Postby brett » 27 Oct 2009, 23:36

think we are talking differnt things here bill , PC in the uk is rampent :roll: :roll: - and "health and safety" is not far behind :x -

heres a few examples :with thanks to the john mark ministries - © John Mark Ministries.



aesthetically challenged - ugly
aquatically challenged - drowning
biologically challenged - dead
blubber lovers - whaler
bovine control officers - Dallas Cowboys
Caucasian Culturally-Disadvantaged - white trash
certified astrological consultant - crackpot
certified crystal therapist - crackpot
certified past-life regression hypnotist - crackpot
chemically challenged - drug addict
chronologically gifted - old
client of the correctional system - prisoner
co-dependent - finger-pointer
constructivist feminist psychotherapy - psychobabble
creatively re-dyed - stained
cyclically challenged - having PMS
differently organized - messy
differently-brained - stupid
domestic engineer - housewife
economically marginalized - poor
energy-efficient - off
environmentally correct human - dead
ethnically homogenous area - ghetto or barrio
facially challenged - ugly
factually unencumbered - ignorant
female gender biased - prefers women who shave their legs
financially inept - po'
flight attendant - stewardess
follicley independent - bald
genetically discriminating - racist
geological correction - earthquake
gerontologically advanced - old
government employee - stupid
grammatically challenged - one who has difficulties with grammar or (by
extension) punctuation or spelling
gravitationally challenged - fat
horizontally challenged - thin
horizontally gifted - fat
in denial - unaware that forgetting something obviously proves it
happened
in recovery - drunk/junkie
intellectually impaired - stupid
law enforcement officer - policeman
living impaired - dead
maintenance hole - man-hole
male gender biased - prefers men who shave their chests
mechanically challenged - broken down automobile
melanin-impoverished - white
metabolically challenged - dead
microslothically challenged - Windows user
monetarily challenged - poor
morally (ethically) challenged - a crook
morally handicapped - someone who has no other reason to park in a
handicapped zone
motivationally dispossessed - lazy
musically delayed - tone deaf
nasally disadvantaged - really BIG nose
nasally gifted - runny nose
nasally gifted - large nose
nitpicklike - humor challenged
one who is PC - target practice
ontologically challenged - fictional or mythological
osmotically challenged - thirsty
outdoor urban dwellers - homeless
parking enforcement adjudicator- meter maid
people of height - too tall
person of region - redneck
person of substance - fat
persons living with entropy - dead
persons of large stature - NY Giants
petroleum transfer technician - gas station attendant
photonically non-receptive - blind
racially challenged - butt-white American
residentially flexible - homeless
rhythmically challenged - white boy
romantically challenged - not with somebody at the moment
rustically inclined - redneck
sanitation engineer - garbage man
selectively perceptive - insane
sex care provider - prostitute
sexually focused chronologically gifted individual - dirty old man
socially challenged - geek or nerd
socially separated - convict
spatially perplexed - drunk
street activity index - crime rate
structurally challenged - broken
suffering from a sex addiction (female) - slut
suffering from a sex addiction (male) - stud
target equity group - vocal minority
the absolute root of all evil known in the multidimensional infinity of
reality - white male
uniquely coordinated - clumsy
uniquely fortuned individual on an alternative career path - loser
verbally challenged - mute, dumb
vertically challenged - short
visually challenged - blind
youth group - gang

and there are loads more - we and other countries seem to have a LOT of people with either too much time on their hands or not enough REAL work dreaming up this crap !! - and of course god help you if you utter any UN PC comments about " persons of differing sexual proclivities " or " non white " folk - this is now a "hate crime " here in the UK -and the police seem dead keen to follow up on the slightest transgression , in fact there are even "disablist " crimes too - never get enforced though :roll:

call a bloody spade a spade i say - and to heck with the PC PUSSIES !! :roll: :roll: ( the digging type impliment - of course )

( if i should disappear for a while - I'm probably being "detained at her majesties pleasure " - ergo i got nicked for posting such UN PC sentiments )
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby stevetrueblue » 02 Mar 2010, 11:02

The Pskeps are a tribe of obviously underfunctioning people with the same distinct defective personality profile. A tribe of aggrieved rock throwers who stalk another tribe, the paranormal/religious/afterlife people with mindless thoughtless verbal violence all over the NET. Their contribution to society is a big negative.

They have obvious learning difficulties and thus cannot be taught by reasoned argument, thus debating them is a never ending pointless dogfight.
A wise man has suggested pskeps are slightly less human than the rest of us.
But we are sword fencing with feeble minded people, chaps.
Its good for educational purposes for ourselves.
But one reaches a certain point of knowledge where its realised it is pointless to engage the poor bastards.
The object of Skepcop is to counter the widespread deleterious effects of this army of mindless hooligans.
Thus of late I have taken to giving Pskeps this site link rather than argueing, and inviting them to study themsleves as they are seen by others. But I know they cant read and connect thoughts like the rest of us. Seldom understand metaphors often taking them literally like small children.
Skepcop is a valuable resource and allowing a handful of pskeps in to manifest their many impairments validates Skepcops observations, over and over. So there is value in having a few pskeps ranting incoherently. Doing their thing.

And others can practise fencing with them playing three Musketeers till you know all the moves.

And another great value of Skepcop is that it is turning up in magazines and books. Thats where we want to go.

So I think it necessary to have a few ongoing brawls as examples, thus we must let a few barbarians inside the gates

Steve in Sydney
stevetrueblue
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 10:14

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

Postby Kevin Kane » 04 Mar 2010, 05:19

stevetrueblue wrote:
And another great value of Skepcop is that it is turning up in magazines and books. Thats where we want to go.


Yes .. I've seen this happening.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

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

Postby formosan » 26 May 2010, 22:24

stevetrueblue wrote:The Pskeps are a tribe of obviously underfunctioning people with the same distinct defective personality profile. A tribe of aggrieved rock throwers who stalk another tribe, the paranormal/religious/afterlife people with mindless thoughtless verbal violence all over the NET. Their contribution to society is a big negative.


I think you're oversimplifying.

Many ex-military guys are scoffers. They have been conditioned, mentally blinkered, trained to follow authority unquestioningly, trained to sneer at anything that looks unauthorized, trained to bark contempt on cue.

They are not necessarily bad people. Their personalities are not necessarily INHERENTLY screwed up. But they need to undo their conditioning.

Bottom line:
Good news: not all pseudoskeptics engage in such obnoxious behavior due to personal problems.
Bad news: many pseudoskeptics need to free their minds.
formosan
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 15:28

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron