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

Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Jun 2013, 07:20

justintime wrote:That is the gist of the argument. Homosexuality is a choice and holds no evolutionary advantage for the people practicing it. Yes they can have children using surrogates. But their children will not be homosexuals. Their children will be normal because that is the natural state and gays will still become extinct. and even with the technology gays will eventually become extinct.

They will never become extinct as long as the straight people keep giving birth to them.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Jun 2013, 07:20

justintime wrote:That is the gist of the argument. Homosexuality is a choice and holds no evolutionary advantage for the people practicing it.

At what age did you decide to be straight?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 19 Jun 2013, 07:23

justintime wrote:That is the gist of the argument. Homosexuality is a choice and holds no evolutionary advantage for the people practicing it.


If you believe that homosexuality is a choice, then why do you think it has anything to do with evolution? Do you think that any choice has an evolutionary advantage?


Yes they can have children using surrogates. But their children will not be homosexuals. Their children will be normal because that is the natural state and gays will still become extinct. and even with the technology gays will eventually become extinct.


What will be intersting is to see whether truthjunkie continues to support your posts... Probably becoming appararent to him that you're just trolling - what do you think TJ?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 19 Jun 2013, 09:55

justintime wrote:That is the gist of the argument. Homosexuality is a choice and holds no evolutionary advantage for the people practicing it. Yes they can have children using surrogates. But their children will not be homosexuals. Their children will be normal because that is the natural state and gays will still become extinct. and even with the technology gays will eventually become extinct.


Only an imbecile would say this. On second thought only a moronic imbecile would say any of this.
Tell what evolutionary advantage does imbecility impart upon the species?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 19 Jun 2013, 09:57

NinjaPuppy wrote:
justintime wrote:That is the gist of the argument. Homosexuality is a choice and holds no evolutionary advantage for the people practicing it.

At what age did you decide to be straight?

Yes, I often wonder the same when I hear people say what justintime has written.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Jun 2013, 23:47

justintime wrote:What are we to make of skeptics who have not progressed to gay-hood or gays who are not raging on the internet about their skepticism? Will homosexual issues unite or divide skeptics? Will gays have to provide evidence of their homosexuality before the skeptical community? Are gays who begin with doubts about their sexuality the purest form of skeptics because they can objectively raise doubts about other things as well having methodically arrived at their own conclusions, unlike the disparate group of insecure skeptics who have yet to take a stand and are still processing? Skeptics claim: Skepticism is not a position, it is a process. But homosexuality is not a process it is a choice.

Now if that wasn't the biggest pile of manure I've ever read. :roll:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 20 Jun 2013, 00:14

He meant it that way. He's a pure troll. He's not interested in generating good discussion, he just wants a reaction. If he doesn't get suitable outrage with his first attempt he's got to up the anti. When he's amusing, it can be fun to chat with him, but when he gets offensive as he did here its just better to ignore or ban him.

A good troll can be fun, and I actually appreciate clever trolling (if not taken too far), but an offensive troll just needs to go away.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 20 Jun 2013, 00:37

Arouet wrote:He meant it that way. He's a pure troll. He's not interested in generating good discussion, he just wants a reaction. If he doesn't get suitable outrage with his first attempt he's got to up the anti. When he's amusing, it can be fun to chat with him, but when he gets offensive as he did here its just better to ignore or ban him.

A good troll can be fun, and I actually appreciate clever trolling (if not taken too far), but an offensive troll just needs to go away.

Then I shall just lock this topic and call it a day.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Jun 2013, 08:38

OK kiddies, everyone can go back in the pool!

Justintime and I have conversed via PM and he and I have agreed to some terms. For those of you interested in those terms, you'll just have to figure them out for yourself. Of course always feel free to call justintime out (politely) on any unorthodox behavior or PM me if you feel that he's once again wandering too close to that slippery slope.

Young man, don't you DARE make me regret this!
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Jun 2013, 21:10

Image
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 23 Jun 2013, 07:02

justintime wrote:But rather than deal with water under the bridge we can look forward to more robust debates and fuller participation

From your lips to God's ears. I bet the skeptics like that saying. :lol:
justintime wrote:knowing wishful thinking like locking threads is not a game changing strategy or even guaranteed.

Now you lost me again. Locking a thread is the best way to stop something from getting out of hand between posters or if the conversation has fallen way off topic while still keeping the information available and visible for others to take part or understand WTF happened.

I don't go around locking topics just because I don't like where they are going. Even if they are going down the toilet at times.

Now, back to the OP please.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby ProfWag » 23 Jun 2013, 21:02

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Now, back to the OP please.

And just what was the OP?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 24 Jun 2013, 00:52

I don't think you replied substantively to my posts above responding to your OP.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Jun 2013, 01:01

ProfWag wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
Now, back to the OP please.

And just what was the OP?

Maybe if you stop chasing psychics with bad travel agents, you might be on top of thing around here. ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Jun 2013, 01:08

justintime wrote:New research by Dr Newberg and Dr Persinger points to the difference in temporal lobe creativity between religious believers and skeptics. Richard Dawkins a famous evolutionary biologist agreed to be tested and concluded there was an evolutionary advantage to having a brain with the capacity to believe in god.

Fascinating! I Googled a bit but couldn't find anything (OK, so I only went to Wikipedia) on this. Do you have any quick links for us women folk?
justintime wrote:Have skeptics been working against their own self interest by ignoring medical diagnostics about their true condition, that they may be more than just a disparate group of insecure individuals and that they might be mentally inept?

Giggle... good one.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests