Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.
17 Dec 2012, 05:49
So justintime, you're a ladies man.
17 Dec 2012, 05:53
Arouet - Thank you for taking the time to find that commentary but from what I have seen with my own eyes (remind me to poke them out with a sharp object later) the JREF members were pretty harsh. If I was treated like that on a forum I'd be much less congenial than justintime.
17 Dec 2012, 06:07
You mean that MY bitchieness is supposed to run on a schedule? Who knew? I'm fairly even tempered as I'm bitchy 24/7.
17 Dec 2012, 06:46
In before Ninja realises that the harsh attitude may have been deserved.
17 Dec 2012, 07:49
I think it's more of a control thing with them.
17 Dec 2012, 09:04
Ok, since Ninja clearly still hasn't got it (is his misogyny charming?) I'll/ set out some of what I saw in the other thread
Let's look at his first post in that thread and try and anticipate the reaction:
[QUOTE=justintime;8815208]I came across this intriguing double play.
Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge. And because knowledge is never present in an absolute way skeptics can get caught up in endless disagreements. For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic.
Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases.
Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim. It is not a cooperative exchange but an adversarial challenge. More often than not the skeptic is not an expert in the field under discussion which leads to endless missed turns, so complex issues are best avoided when confronting a skeptic. Which begs the question, why deal with skeptics if even the obvious are subject to
So the question can go beyond "Why you might not be a skeptic" and can be truthfully answered with "why you might very well be a very insecure individual."[/QUOTE]
According to a search of his posts, this was his first post on the forum.
Arch - just reading this thread again hurts. Must I continue? This guy is a ban-seeker-troll. You're familiar with the type Ninja, they take each ban as a badge of honour. justintime no doubt considers his mere suspension from JREF to be a fairlure, not getting the full ban on the first go-around. I suspect he'll accomplish his goal quickly upon reinstatement.
18 Dec 2012, 01:18
His posts have little substance and many generalizations and insults. His post - imo - was not designed to put forward his legitimate opinion for intelligent debate. His post was - again imo - designed to get people riled up. That's trolling.
Even here he doesn't really directly respond to posts. But again - he's fun, so I'll engage him until he stops being fun.
However, I disagree with you Ninja, on the misogeny: it's NOT ok just because you're the only female reg on this forum. If he wants to have a discussion about why misogeny should be considered non-taboo, I think that would be legitimate. However I think misogenistic comments should be considered off-limits by default. There is no upside to such comments, and they will only sserve to offend.
Yes, this forum gives a lot of leeway for free speech - but I think there is a limit: racist or sexist comments should be banned and deleted (don't just delete the whole post - delete the bad section and put in brackets (portions deleted for sexism/racism etc.)
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.