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

Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

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

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Mar 2010, 10:02

Kevin Kane wrote:If SCEPCOP is cool with the name-calling by ND, it's his call. I'm just pointing out a pattern of double standards which I am subjected to which don't appear to apply to skeptics who washed in off the street from some godless forum who refused to put up with them, I suspect. Just saying.

Double standards??? Double standards that you are subjected to??? And exactly where does it not apply to skeptics??? Is it because I don't berate them for having an opinion that is different from mine? Or yours? I am NOT here to protect your opinions and theories from being systematically picked apart by a gaggle of wild skeptics. I am here because I enjoy the subject material and love to learn. As far as my Moderator duties they begin and end with questionable topic subject matter, curse words and occasionally getting a chance to play the never ending game of 'whack a spammer' with those who attempt to redirect the ranking bots off of this forum to their little slimey piece of the Internet or have virus laden links that contain trojans and bugs that can infect members computers. Oh, and that Mabus guy. I can't forget that never ending 'death to atheists' spamming nutbar.

SCEPCOP started this forum as a place to discuss the paranormal and conspiracy theories and it has grown into a place where people can discuss just about anything without worrying about being kicked off for any post that doesn't conform with his personal views. In theory he would like to keep rules down to a minimum and he has no problem speaking his mind if/when someone challenges his views. Have you taken the time to read his Treatise? http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm.

Have you read the Mission Statement?
SCEPCOP is a coalition of Paranormal Researchers, Investigators, Writers and Parapsychologists who have united to counter and expose the Pseudo-Skeptical movement for their fallacies, dismissal, denial, censorship, suppression, misinformation, bigotry and ridicule toward any evidence, experience or science that challenges orthodoxy or does not fit into a materialistic reductionist paradigm. We do not support every quack claim on the planet, but advocate true skepticism, objectivity, open-mindedness and fairness toward paranormal and unorthodox evidence, experience and data. We are the world's first counter-pseudo-skeptic group, providing resources, articles, books, videos and an online community exposing the fallacies and psychology of pseudo-skepticism.

I don't know about you but it's hard to debunk skeptics if you don't have to their input. Otherwise we would be a bunch of fluffy bunnies in a happy little one sided arguement.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kubla Khan » 05 Mar 2010, 11:30

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Kevin Kane wrote:If SCEPCOP is cool with the name-calling by ND, it's his call. I'm just pointing out a pattern of double standards which I am subjected to which don't appear to apply to skeptics who washed in off the street from some godless forum who refused to put up with them, I suspect. Just saying.

Double standards??? Double standards that you are subjected to??? And exactly where does it not apply to skeptics??? Is it because I don't berate them for having an opinion that is different from mine? Or yours? I am NOT here to protect your opinions and theories from being systematically picked apart by a gaggle of wild skeptics. I am here because I enjoy the subject material and love to learn. As far as my Moderator duties they begin and end with questionable topic subject matter, curse words and occasionally getting a chance to play the never ending game of 'whack a spammer' with those who attempt to redirect the ranking bots off of this forum to their little slimey piece of the Internet or have virus laden links that contain trojans and bugs that can infect members computers. Oh, and that Mabus guy. I can't forget that never ending 'death to atheists' spamming nutbar.

SCEPCOP started this forum as a place to discuss the paranormal and conspiracy theories and it has grown into a place where people can discuss just about anything without worrying about being kicked off for any post that doesn't conform with his personal views. In theory he would like to keep rules down to a minimum and he has no problem speaking his mind if/when someone challenges his views. Have you taken the time to read his Treatise? http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm.

Have you read the Mission Statement?
SCEPCOP is a coalition of Paranormal Researchers, Investigators, Writers and Parapsychologists who have united to counter and expose the Pseudo-Skeptical movement for their fallacies, dismissal, denial, censorship, suppression, misinformation, bigotry and ridicule toward any evidence, experience or science that challenges orthodoxy or does not fit into a materialistic reductionist paradigm. We do not support every quack claim on the planet, but advocate true skepticism, objectivity, open-mindedness and fairness toward paranormal and unorthodox evidence, experience and data. We are the world's first counter-pseudo-skeptic group, providing resources, articles, books, videos and an online community exposing the fallacies and psychology of pseudo-skepticism.

I don't know about you but it's hard to debunk skeptics if you don't have to their input. Otherwise we would be a bunch of fluffy bunnies in a happy little one sided arguement.


Hello, I'm Kubla Khan and I approve this post. Except the bit about Mabus. I mean, come on - is there nowhere on the internet that you can get away from that guy?
Weave a circle 'round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.
- Samuel Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"
User avatar
Kubla Khan
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 05 Mar 2010, 04:59
Location: The Pleasure Dome

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kevin Kane » 05 Mar 2010, 11:34

NinjaPuppy's first comment to me was to warn me to obey the rules of the forum, which I had just read and agreed to, and which I had not broken. How oddly over cautious and inappropriate, I thought. Is this some sort of Be Nice To Skeptics forum? Is that why it's overrun by spoiled skeptic brats who can break the rules, insult and harass at whim, while I'm warned to obey the rules, or punished for defending myself? Is that why all the most anti/non skeptics left and never returned, grumbling on their way out? A higher burden, a higher level of scrutiny is placed on them by this forum. What about deleted posts? Whose posts are most often deleted and whose aren't? The forum is overrun by skeptic spam posts, topics inappropriate to the forum, yet antiskeptic posts are censored or deleted ... because? Because it might offend some skeptic somewhere? And when skeptics complain, the moderators listen. But when non-skeptics complain, they are totally ignored or laughed off.

Listen, if you don't want me here at this forum .. or people like me who have similar interests and concerns against skeptics ... just come straight out and say it. But it must seem odd to the casual observer just why the forum is nothing but skeptic posting the usual skeptic crap everywhere. Same as any other skeptic board, forum or blog. No different. Why is that?
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kevin Kane » 05 Mar 2010, 13:30

I figured out that this board is not for people who have rejected skepticism and seek to discuss it. It's for skeptic rejects. Guys who could argue their way out of a paper bag and who the average pseudo-skeptic wouldn't be caught dead talking to.

Welcome to the board, Unitards.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Mar 2010, 20:11

Kevin Kane wrote:NinjaPuppy's first comment to me was to warn me to obey the rules of the forum, which I had just read and agreed to, and which I had not broken.

Considering that you came on this forum with your guns blazing. This is from your very first post:
KevinKane wrote:What is causing this type of irrational obsession? Are skeptics on drugs? Are they addicted to pharmaceuticals? Is that why they refuse to criticize the obvious fraud and abuse of pharm companies? Because they love their crazy drugs more than their credibility?
I've seen this type of disproportionate reaction to imagined problems before. It's called delusional psychosis. Skeptics are crazed. Obsessed. Delusional. Paranoid. Do they honestly believe that homeopathic medicine is a threat, a problem, a scandal? I'm not defending homeopathy. I don't know much about it. VERY FEW PEOPLE DO! Snakes are not crawling on my skin. Homeopaths are not stalking me. Imaginary problems are under control. Everything is fine .. except skeptics.

Skeptics are like Jehovah's Witnesses --- "Hi, can I interest you in some skeptic literature about the evils of homeopathic medicine?" No! Get a grip, skeptic fruitcakes.


KevinKane wrote:How oddly over cautious and inappropriate, I thought. Is this some sort of Be Nice To Skeptics forum? Is that why it's overrun by spoiled skeptic brats who can break the rules, insult and harass at whim, while I'm warned to obey the rules, or punished for defending myself?

This was NOT defending yourself. No one had said word one to you yet. It's your introductory post.

KevinKane wrote:What about deleted posts? Whose posts are most often deleted and whose aren't? The forum is overrun by skeptic spam posts, topics inappropriate to the forum, yet antiskeptic posts are censored or deleted ... because? Because it might offend some skeptic somewhere? And when skeptics complain, the moderators listen. But when non-skeptics complain, they are totally ignored or laughed off.

I can give you the stats on that. Spammer posts are ALWAYS deleted, next comes David Mabus in his hundreds of incarnations. If anyone replies to the topics started by spammers and Mabus, then I take the entire topic down and all posts are deleted because none of the conversation makes sense and it is usually never on topic to begin with.
KevinKane wrote:Listen, if you don't want me here at this forum .. or people like me who have similar interests and concerns against skeptics ... just come straight out and say it. But it must seem odd to the casual observer just why the forum is nothing but skeptic posting the usual skeptic crap everywhere. Same as any other skeptic board, forum or blog. No different. Why is that?

I don't know Kevin, why don't you tell me? You obvioulsy have much more experience with skeptic forums than I do. I do have plenty of experience with forums and BBS systems and keeping the topics civil and flowing properly sure does help.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Mar 2010, 20:43

BTW, can you define 'Unitard' please. I am unaquainted with that terminology. I am also still waiting for you to answer my question in another topic where you use the term, 'watermelon inspector'.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 06 Mar 2010, 02:48

KublaKhan wrote:Hello, I'm Kubla Khan and I approve this post. Except the bit about Mabus. I mean, come on - is there nowhere on the internet that you can get away from that guy?

Hi Kubla! I gave you my usual "Welcome!" in the "Introduce Yourself" topic. Nice to meet you.
Yes, that MabusGuy sure does make the rounds. I take it as, you haven't hit the big time until you are spammed by the best. As a matter of fact, he struck again last night. He is the 'gift' that keeps on giving. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kubla Khan » 06 Mar 2010, 04:01

NinjaPuppy wrote:
KublaKhan wrote:Hello, I'm Kubla Khan and I approve this post. Except the bit about Mabus. I mean, come on - is there nowhere on the internet that you can get away from that guy?

Hi Kubla! I gave you my usual "Welcome!" in the "Introduce Yourself" topic. Nice to meet you.
Yes, that MabusGuy sure does make the rounds. I take it as, you haven't hit the big time until you are spammed by the best. As a matter of fact, he struck again last night. He is the 'gift' that keeps on giving. :lol:


Oy vey. The guy is everywhere. It gets old after a while.
Weave a circle 'round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.
- Samuel Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"
User avatar
Kubla Khan
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 05 Mar 2010, 04:59
Location: The Pleasure Dome

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kevin Kane » 07 Mar 2010, 03:02

Unitard is a type of ballet costume ... skeptics often wear them when jogging or wanting to appear scientific looking.

Watermelon inspectors are low paid.

And why would I - or anyone interested in the topics at this board - want to read about magic tricks? Do posts and threads about magic tricks belong at this forum? Magic tricks are imitations of the paranormal, just as skeptics are imitations of rational thinkers.

unitard:
Image
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Mar 2010, 04:01

Kevin Kane wrote:And why would I - or anyone interested in the topics at this board - want to read about magic tricks?

Why don't you ask them? I'm sure skeptics would all love to explain how much of the claimed paranormal activity is explained with simple magic tricks. As a matter of fact, they already have done exactly that in many of the previous topics. Not that it's the only explanation or the correct one but it is absolute fact for one explanation.

Kevin Kane wrote:Do posts and threads about magic tricks belong at this forum? Magic tricks are imitations of the paranormal

See above.

Now may I suggest that you take the opportunity to scroll past or ignore whatever you personally feel is not particularly relevant to your interests. Heck, you even have an option in your 'User Control Panel'. Look for the tab 'Friends and Foes'. You will see that it says under the "Foes" selection: "Foes are users which will be ignored by default. Posts by these users will not be fully visible. Personal messages from foes are still permitted. Please note that you cannot ignore moderators or administrators."

Too bad on the moderators or administrators part however. You can also go down to the bottom of any topic page and 'subscribe' to that topic as you like, so as not be annoyed with topics that seem to tick you off.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kevin Kane » 07 Mar 2010, 06:11

If anyone considers magic tricks as a legitimate topic for this forum, then please make a forum specifically for that purpose. For pseudo-psychic or pseudo-paranormal techniques. If it will reduce the amount of what I consider spam posted to relevant (ie paranormal) topics, I'm all for it. Should pseudo-paranormal topics be mixed with paranormal topics? Maybe at a skeptic board they should be, which I was lead to believe that this forum isn't.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Mar 2010, 07:50

Kevin Kane wrote:Should pseudo-paranormal topics be mixed with paranormal topics? Maybe at a skeptic board they should be, which I was lead to believe that this forum isn't.

It certainly isn't a forum for skeptics but SCEPCOP has allowed them. What do you consider to be a pseudo-paranormal topic?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Mar 2010, 08:09

BTW Kevin, I have asked you this three times but you seem to avoid answering.... Have you read SCEPCOPS Treatise? http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kevin Kane » 07 Mar 2010, 14:00

I read it twice. This is the second time I answered your question if I read it.

Pseudo-paranormal would be anything that pretended to be paranormal, to fool or trick a person into thinking that they are witnessing the paranormal. This would go for fraudulent psychics, ghost hunters, spiritualists (who trick people for money) as it would for skeptic magicians (who also trick people for money). Imitative trickery or illusions of the paranormal.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kubla Khan » 09 Mar 2010, 00:49

Kevin Kane wrote:And why would I - or anyone interested in the topics at this board - want to read about magic tricks? Do posts and threads about magic tricks belong at this forum?


Well, yes, if we want to discuss the paranormal with honesty. Many "paranormal" events can be proven to be nothing more than magic tricks. Uri Geller springs to mind, as do the cold readings performed by many famous psychics. If you want to talk about what is real and what is not, you shouldn't rule out trickery immediately.

Magic tricks are imitations of the paranormal, just as skeptics are imitations of rational thinkers.


Asking for evidence is not rational thinking?
Weave a circle 'round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.
- Samuel Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"
User avatar
Kubla Khan
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 05 Mar 2010, 04:59
Location: The Pleasure Dome

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests