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

Why I voted NO

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

Why I voted NO

Postby antiskeptic » 27 May 2009, 14:20

Okay, so here's why I voted no on the question of allowing skeptics to post on these boards:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-p ... st-11.html

It's in post number 105 by Benjamin Radford.
Thus, when Nancy Weber says "I told them X, Y, and Z," it is exactly the same as saying, "I remember telling them X, Y, and Z." When the police say, "I don't remember Nancy telling us X, Y, and Z," it is the same as them saying "Nancy did not tell us X, Y, and Z."


What a jerk. Skeptics have shown themselves time and time again to be ready, willing, and able to use whatever tactics they can, no matter how dishonorable or immoral, to win an argument. It is clear from this statement that Radford made and from the entire thread on which it was posted that Radford is trying to set up the game so as to maximize the possibility for contradiction. It's in his interest to do this. I don't want to invite some jerk skeptics onto this board who will interpret my words in a contorted manner just to advance their goals. When I say, "I don't remember Nancy telling me X, Y, and Z," it is absolutely not the same thing as saying, "Nancy did not tell me X, Y, and Z," and I have a serious problem with a jerk skeptic interperting it the wrong way. The phrase, "I don't remember," just means "I don't remember." It does NOT necessarily mean that I think that the event did not happen, or even that the event is more likely to have not happened. What Radford did here was wrong, and we should not be treating him and his ilk as if we think that they and their tactics should be tolerated. Such individuals are not interested in real discussion - they are only interested in winning. They will not be convinced, and even if they could be convinced it would not be worth it. We would be much better served to put our effort into exposing and punishing these skeptics for this sort of egregiously immoral behavior. We should be treating these people as enemies in a battle. I realize that it might sound ironic for me to criticize skeptics for only being concerned about winning and then turn around and say that we should treat them like enemies in a battle, but, unfortunately, they don't give us much of a choice. If we take a more open and welcoming tactic we will be opening ourselves up to a lot of treatment like the kind that Radford showed on the Skeptiko message boards. Our treatment of them is a reaction to the treatment that we get from them. They drew first blood. Until the skeptic movement makes some major changes I do not believe that any skeptic should be allowed to post here. If skeptics wish to post here in the meantime then they should have to renounce the skeptic movement.
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: Why I voted NO

Postby jillatay » 03 Jun 2009, 08:18

I couldn't find the page to vote but I would agree with the no vote if I could.

Here is a good article that explains things better than I could: http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gar ... _pacifism/

Jill
jillatay
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 12:08

Re: Why I voted NO

Postby Scepcop » 03 Jun 2009, 18:34

jillatay wrote:I couldn't find the page to vote but I would agree with the no vote if I could.

Here is a good article that explains things better than I could: http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gar ... _pacifism/

Jill


It was in the General Discussions board, but I moved it to this one and made it into a sticky post. You can see it at the top of this board, or go to it directly here and cast your vote: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33
“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: Why I voted NO

Postby Eteponge » 21 Jun 2009, 02:28

antiskeptic wrote:Okay, so here's why I voted no on the question of allowing skeptics to post on these boards:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-p ... st-11.html

It's in post number 105 by Benjamin Radford.
Thus, when Nancy Weber says "I told them X, Y, and Z," it is exactly the same as saying, "I remember telling them X, Y, and Z." When the police say, "I don't remember Nancy telling us X, Y, and Z," it is the same as them saying "Nancy did not tell us X, Y, and Z."


What a jerk. Skeptics have shown themselves time and time again to be ready, willing, and able to use whatever tactics they can, no matter how dishonorable or immoral, to win an argument. It is clear from this statement that Radford made and from the entire thread on which it was posted that Radford is trying to set up the game so as to maximize the possibility for contradiction. It's in his interest to do this. I don't want to invite some jerk skeptics onto this board who will interpret my words in a contorted manner just to advance their goals. When I say, "I don't remember Nancy telling me X, Y, and Z," it is absolutely not the same thing as saying, "Nancy did not tell me X, Y, and Z," and I have a serious problem with a jerk skeptic interperting it the wrong way. The phrase, "I don't remember," just means "I don't remember." It does NOT necessarily mean that I think that the event did not happen, or even that the event is more likely to have not happened. What Radford did here was wrong, and we should not be treating him and his ilk as if we think that they and their tactics should be tolerated. Such individuals are not interested in real discussion - they are only interested in winning. They will not be convinced, and even if they could be convinced it would not be worth it. We would be much better served to put our effort into exposing and punishing these skeptics for this sort of egregiously immoral behavior. We should be treating these people as enemies in a battle. I realize that it might sound ironic for me to criticize skeptics for only being concerned about winning and then turn around and say that we should treat them like enemies in a battle, but, unfortunately, they don't give us much of a choice. If we take a more open and welcoming tactic we will be opening ourselves up to a lot of treatment like the kind that Radford showed on the Skeptiko message boards. Our treatment of them is a reaction to the treatment that we get from them. They drew first blood. Until the skeptic movement makes some major changes I do not believe that any skeptic should be allowed to post here. If skeptics wish to post here in the meantime then they should have to renounce the skeptic movement.

Oh, this type of Skeptical Tactic is one I do not agree with. I recall listening to this Episode and cringing at the dishonest approach and ridiculous nitpicking of the skeptic, IMHO. Clearly dancing around the meat of the case to nitpick on something so insignificantly minor that was already cleared up during the phone call to the two detectives involved.

This reminds me, I've been meaning to talk to Alex about Psychic Detective Dorothy Allison (whom I've written an indepth article about), her case where the father of a murdered child followed Dorothy's clues to the exact location where her body was later found (which was 30 miles away from their home in a marsh area) shows that Psychic Clues can lead someone to the location of a body.

(The biggest clue of many dead on clues was that her body was near a big rock with the letters MAR written on it in big red letters. He found this rock, with MAR written on it in big red letters, in a marsh area, and her body was a mere *50 yards* from it, in the same area, within sight of the rock. All of the other clues she gave, an abandoned car, marsh area, two church steeples, two sets of smoke stacks, etc, were in plain visible sight of the body as well in addition to the MAR rock, the other clues for this case were likewise dead on.)

However, her body was not discovered by him at the time. (He fled the area after finding all the clues, as he didn't want to find his own daughter's decomposing body, what a horror and shock that would be. Instead, he went and contacted the police, but they refused to search the area, still convinced she was "just a runaway". A few months later, a group of teenagers found the body in the exact same location, within 50 yards and within fully visible range of all of the clues Dorothy gave.)
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Why I voted NO

Postby antiskeptic » 21 Jun 2009, 05:19

Very interesting case. I'll have to look it up. Unfortunately, Radford would probably still try to say that the case was not solved by the psychic because of the fact that she did not lead the police to the body. As far as Alex Tsakiris goes, I hope he is successful in his psi endeavors, but I have a problem with some of the things that he has said in the past, particularly about atheism and the lie (which he knows is a lie) that materialism is a foundational pillar of atheism. If you want some irony, listen to the episode with Denyse O'Leary where Denyse, a hardcore Catholic, is defending atheism while Alex, a not nearly as hardcore religious person, is slamming atheism. Maybe the next time you talk to Alex about this Dorothy Allison case you can talk to him about this issue, and possibly suggest a guest like David Staume, the author of the book called The Atheist Afterlife.
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: Why I voted NO

Postby Eteponge » 21 Jun 2009, 06:32

antiskeptic wrote:Very interesting case. I'll have to look it up. Unfortunately, Radford would probably still try to say that the case was not solved by the psychic because of the fact that she did not lead the police to the body. As far as Alex Tsakiris goes, I hope he is successful in his psi endeavors, but I have a problem with some of the things that he has said in the past, particularly about atheism and the lie (which he knows is a lie) that materialism is a foundational pillar of atheism. If you want some irony, listen to the episode with Denyse O'Leary where Denyse, a hardcore Catholic, is defending atheism while Alex, a not nearly as hardcore religious person, is slamming atheism. Maybe the next time you talk to Alex about this Dorothy Allison case you can talk to him about this issue, and possibly suggest a guest like David Staume, the author of the book called The Atheist Afterlife.

Here's a link to my indepth article on Dorothy Allision which mentions this case (It's Case III) ...

http://eteponge.blogspot.com/2007/08/ve ... ctive.html - Exploring The Veridical Cases of New Jeresy Housewife and Psychic Detective Dorothy Allison

One very good case I know about where the actual Psychic went right to the body and actually discovered the body, was that of Etta Smith...

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/crim ... ics/8.html

"In 1980, Etta Smith, a shipping clerk in Los Angeles, heard an announcement on the radio about a house-to-house search for Melanie Uribe, a missing woman from her neighborhood, as documented in A&E's film and Larsen's Psychic Sleuths. Smith had an impression that the woman was not inside a building but outside in a certain area, and though she'd never before had such an overwhelming sense of something, it seemed so vivid that she reported it to the police. "It was like someone was talking to me," she said. She felt that the nurse had been hit in the head and dumped in a canyon, which she showed to a detective on a map. She said there was a dirt path going to her. When he seemed not to take her seriously, she decided to go have a look on her own.

As Etta drove through the target area in Lopez Canyon, she had a feeling of "urgency." Spotting some tire tracks in the dirt, she felt them and sensed the trauma that had taken place there. "It was like a thermometer going up." She got back into her car and drove, but her daughter told her to stop because she'd seen something. What she had spotted were a pair of white nurse's shoes.

Smith knew who was there. She drove away and spotted a policeman. She waved him to a stop and told him about the body. He told her to go home. She did, but then two detectives came to bring her in for questioning. She agreed to take a lie detector test, and the police later said that she'd been judged "deceptive," so she was treated as a suspect, strip-searched, and put into a cell for three days. They planted an undercover cop in the cell with her to try to find out why she had come forward and whether her information had come from neighborhood gossip, as suspected. The cop reported that her motive was money.

Then three men confessed and Etta was released. She filed a wrongful arrest suit, asking $750,000 in damages. The jury awarded her $24,000.

She says she never had another such vision, or if she did, she was smart to not report it."
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Why I voted NO

Postby antiskeptic » 21 Jun 2009, 08:39

Thank you for posting those. I'm going to be reading them very soon.
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


Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron