|
|
|
belt
New Member
USA
17 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2005 : 08:43:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
You supposed the only thing you are able to suppose.
If I am mistaken, please correct me.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
My dear son :
If that someone is hypothecally your wife and children , you have two choises :
1)keep on “wasting” your time teaching them again and again.
2) Show to them your killer instincts.
Please don't call me son. I find it condescending.
And how 'bout if it's not my wife or children?
|
| Edited by - belt on 03/04/2005 08:46:41 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 08:46:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
*SNIP!*
Dodge. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 08:54:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by belt
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
You supposed the only thing you are able to suppose.
If I am mistaken, please correct me.
You are free to suppose whatever you want.Any regrets now?
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
My dear son :
If that someone is hypothecally your wife and children , you have two choises :
1)keep on “wasting” your time teaching them again and again.
2) Show to them your killer instincts.
Please don't call me son. I find it condescending.
And how 'bout if it's not my wife or children?
[/quote]
Dear belt :
You can still show to them your killer instincts. Is all that you got. |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
belt
New Member
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 09:43:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
You are free to suppose whatever you want.Any regrets now?
Do I regret supposing that you think that the goal of skepticism is to eliminate "believers"? No, I don't.
Since you have not denied it, I will be forced to believe that is your position until you provide me with evidence otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Dear belt :
You can still show to them your killer instincts. Is all that you got.
So you're saying that our only recourse, if they are not a close family member, is to kill them off?
Or is "Is all that you got." meant to be "Is that all you've got?"? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 10:04:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
*SNIP*
Dodge pt. 2 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 22:06:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've now made numerous requests, latinijral. Please get to the point. Otherwise, just go away.
He'll never get to the point, and he'll never respond to your questions with an answer.
This condescending little prick will just start calling you "son", and post as if he were some type of guru.
Everyone should start responding to all his posts with two questions, and keep doing so until he actually answers the questions.
"What, exactly, is the "new skepticism"? And what qualifies you to be the "father of the new skepticism"?
Just refuse to respond to him in any other way until he answers.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 03:35:25 [Permalink]
|
It's a lot like arguing with verlch, but without the varity. Or the fun, comes to that. Whatever one might think of the Big V, he never fails to be interesting.
From available evidence, sparse though it is, I'm beginning to think that the mysterous New Skepticsm is nothing but a variation on the Old Skepticsm wrapped in a greasey tarp to hide the fact that it has less than perfect reference, if any at all.
That's just an opinion, o'course. But thus far, it's the one that fits best.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 09:50:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky.
latinijral, I think he is a fraud because I have seen a video of him on the Skeptic Report which clearly shows how he uses his hands.
Ask yourself this: If a man can bend a spoon with his mind, why does he need his hand?
One would think somehow by using his hands he is..... using his hands.
Do you move your hands by using your brind/mine?
Do they obey to a particular order of your mind?
Well,URI's excuse is that his mind gives some “extra” powers to his hands.
His hands are just the instruments of his “paranormal” mind.
Excuses ……you should be prepared to all kind of excuses from fraudulent people.
No matter who they are.
Think about that.
Even I could be fooling you.
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I've seen on TV that his spoons bend nicely, but I'll bet a month's disability check against a Chick Tract that he can't bend one of mine, other than mechanically, selected at random from the drawer. O'course, with me standing right there, he won't get the vibes, currents, voices, whathell-ever. His failure will be all my fault. Saw him pull that one on the toob as well.
You don't need to bet nothing, At Carson's show, at the late 60's ( or early 70's), URI refused to bend the spoons Carson gave to him.
URI had another “excuse”. His mind was receiving “bad vibrations”
James Randi was the one who told Carson to do that in order to debunk URI. .Aparently J.Randi was the one who “discovered” URI's trick.
On a side note : the spoon bending was an old trick used in latinamerican in the old 20's . Great grandpas used to do it in great sons birthdays.
If you want evidence ,contact Sylvia Browne so she can “talk to the spirits” of those great grandparents. Of course,if you believe in her and don't believe in what I am saying.
URI just adopted the old trick and fooled a lot of gringos.
Or do you think URI was the “creator” of the trick?
quote:
Originally posted by furshur.
PS. Thanks for letting me know about Randi's site, Latinijral. I now read his commentary every Friday - GREAT STUFF!
Yes, apparently. Please check how James Randi is more prepared (apparently) to know more stuff than astronauts.
Read also how you can be, at the same time,a skeptic that can adore deities. You will have his absolution .
quote:
Originally posted byCuneiformist.
So, why is Geller laughing? Well, who knows. Is he even laughing as you say? Obviously you've never actually met Geller, and I doubt he goes on record saying that he's laughing at everyone. So I'd wager (an American English idiom meaning "I beleive that..." or "I think that..." or, more loosely, "it's probably that..."; not usually a literal terming meaning "I'd actually like to bet money") that Geller is not only not laughing, but that he couldn't care less what a bunch of people at SFN think of him.
“Laughing” was used in a “metaphoric” way. You know the meaning , right?
Of course URI give a shit about what a bunch of people at SFN think of him.
That is why he keep on “laughing” ,no matter skeptics “think” they had a victory on him. He is still using the same fraudulent tricks.
There is a difference between magicians |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 10:22:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted byCuneiformist.
So, why is Geller laughing? Well, who knows. Is he even laughing as you say? Obviously you've never actually met Geller, and I doubt he goes on record saying that he's laughing at everyone. So I'd wager (an American English idiom meaning "I beleive that..." or "I think that..." or, more loosely, "it's probably that..."; not usually a literal terming meaning "I'd actually like to bet money") that Geller is not only not laughing, but that he couldn't care less what a bunch of people at SFN think of him.
“Laughing” was used in a “metaphoric” way. You know the meaning , right?
Oh, thanks for correcting me on my own language. Oh wait-- no where in my post do I imply that he's literally laughing; Indeed, my use was just as metaphorical as yours.
quote:
Of course URI give a shit about what a bunch of people at SFN think of him.
That is why he keep on “laughing” ,no matter skeptics “think” they had a victory on him. He is still using the same fraudulent tricks.
Really? He cares what SFN thinks of him? I think you overestimate the influence SFN has in the world. You also have a strange notion of skeptics and skepticism. It is not a religion. As a skeptic, I am in no way obliged to stop or expose huckster frauds like Geller. There is no monolithic skeptical movement that has goals of doing so.
Some skeptics may do so (one of this website's missions is to "promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact"), but they do not all go about doing this in the same way, nor do they all have the same scope or range.
Again, to argue that "old skepticism" has failed to "claim victory" because Geller is still doing his same old tricks is false simply because there is no singular skeptic movement. Indeed, some skeptics (myself included) would argue that Jesus and Jesus-worship fail to hold up to scrutiny. However, I would be a fool to claim that my mission is to wipe the belief in Jesus from the face of the earth.
quote:
There is a difference between magicians that clearly they are using a illusion ,and URI .
In some sense, yes. And even then, that line is blurred in the cases of some magicians (e.g. Davie Blaine is much more Geller-like than, say, Lance Burton) However, just as pulling a rabbit out of a hat is not a crime punishable by a fine or jail time, nor is pretending to bend a spoon with your mind. So in that sense, they are the same.
quote:
I am just asking a new related question :
What do you consider is wrong in the old skepticism that they can not have a complete victory on URI?
Dodge # ?.
That would be dodge two and a half. Honestly-- you simply cannot go on and onf about old versus new skepticism without defining them. I cannot begin to answer this question without knowing what "old skepticism" is.
And all of this goes back to a point I've brought up before (and which you haven't addressed): there is no monolithic skeptic movement. To rephrase: where is it written that anyone who considers her- or himself a skeptic must have "a complete vistory" over Geller, and that "complete victory" happens only when Geller's spoon-bending tricks are debunked to the point that no one pays any attention to him?
Because the above is not true, your question is invalid.
Now: what is old skepticism and what is new skepticism, and what is your point?
[/quote] |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/05/2005 10:24:14 |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 11:32:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
“Laughing” was used in a “metaphoric” way. You know the meaning , right?
Oh, thanks for correcting me on my own language. Oh wait-- no where in my post do I imply that he's literally laughing; Indeed, my use was just as metaphorical as yours.
Now that you have it clear that my use of “laughing” was metaphorical, relax.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Of course URI give a shit about what a bunch of people at SFN think of him.
That is why he keep on “laughing” ,no matter skeptics “think” they had a victory on him. He is still using the same fraudulent tricks.
Really? He cares what SFN thinks of him? I think you overestimate the influence SFN has in the world. You also have a strange notion of skeptics and skepticism. It is not a religion. As a skeptic, I am in no way obliged to stop or expose huckster frauds like Geller. There is no monolithic skeptical movement that has goals of doing so.
Some skeptics may do so (one of this website's missions is to "promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact"), but they do not all go about doing this in the same way, nor do they all have the same scope or range.
Again, to argue that "old skepticism" has failed to "claim victory" because Geller is still doing his same old tricks is false simply because there is no singular skeptic movement. Indeed, some skeptics (myself included) would argue that Jesus and Jesus-worship fail to hold up to scrutiny. However, I would be a fool to claim that my mission is to wipe the belief in Jesus from the face of the earth.
I make it clear to you ,URI don't care what SFN thinks of him or any psedo skeptic cult or society. Uri give a shit about it , or should I say :”he don't give a shit”?
Metaphorically is the same to me.
If he is still doing the same frauds , he is still “laughing” of the proclaimed victory those organizations did.
I already made my opinion of what I consider a complete victory.
Remember is my opinion.
Are you aware of how many religious movements about Jesus exists? How they differ in many aspects?
But they all have one thing in common about Jesus.
That thing in common is what old scepticism combat.The “paranormal” nature of Jesus.
The same thing happens to self proclaimed skepticism movements.
They all have one thing in common. Or not?
Then …….there is a skeptic society acting like just another cult.
But this will be a topic for another thread I will create.
Just have patience .
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
There is a difference between magicians that clearly they are using a illusion ,and URI .
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 11:54:45 [Permalink]
|
First, I'm Cuneiformist, not H. Humber.
Second: You are a moron. To wit:
quote:
Now that you have it clear that my use of “laughing” was metaphorical, relax.
What? This doesn't even make sense! You were the one who was crying that I didn't understand your use of "laughing." I demonstrated that I, in fact, got it. Nevertheless, you still miss the point.
quote:
I make it clear to you ,URI don't care what SFN thinks of him or any psedo skeptic cult or society. Uri give a shit about it , or should I say :”he don't give a shit”?
Metaphorically is the same to me. (Cuneiformist's emphasis)
HOLY SHIT!!! Earlier, you wrote "Of course URI give a shit about what a bunch of people at SFN think of him" (that's a direct quote from you, latinijral). I disagreed, arguing that he probably doesn't. And now, you're saying "I make it clear to you ,URI don't care what SFN thinks of him" (again, a direct quote form you)?!?!?!!!??!?!?! THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID!!! Are you fucking insane?!?!
quote:
If he is still doing the same frauds , he is still “laughing” of the proclaimed victory those organizations did.
I already made my opinion of what I consider a complete victory.
Remember is my opinion.
Good god-- you have to be a troll. I have argued TIME AND AGAIN that NO ONE has claimed a "victory" over Uri Geller. And now you confess that the notion of what makes a "complete victory" is your opinion! Please show me what "organization" subscribes to your definition of victory and then show me that they have in fact "proclaimed victory." Please-- I beg you! Show me who's doing this!
quote:
The same thing happens to self proclaimed skepticism movements.
They all have one thing in common. Or not?
Then …….there is a skeptic society acting like just another cult.
*Sigh*
quote:
Illusions are illusions.
Tricks are tricks.
Frauds are frauds.
This childish game of semantics fails to hold up under even the most superficial investigation. As I've demonstrated above, the definitions to the terms you've posted above overlap to a great degree.
Is Geller a fraud? Under some definition, yes. Under another, no. Do not attempt to engage in a debate about the semantics of a language in which you clearly are not fluent.
[/quote]If you consider that my question is invalid , then your question is invalid by your own answer.
I already told here, that anyone who has a curiosity about it, is free to create a thread about it. Just do it , ask help to DUDE or Dave.
And now ,what is your point?[/quote]
It's like debating a WALL. Well, a wall that's also a giant asshole.
AGAIN: your question is invalid because the terms aren't defined. You're asking why "old skepticism" does such and such, but if I don't know what "old skepticism" is. MY question isn't invalid you nitwit because I'm trying to get you to define your terms.
Tell me, latinijral, is a &*graGNNv#ren greater than a FGdswTRF? Or do you need to know what these two |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/05/2005 12:23:18 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 11:55:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But this will be a topic for another thread I will create.
Just have patience .
You aren't ever going to answer the questions put to you, are you?
Maybe it's the language barrier, maybe you just don't have the skills in English to comprehend a direct question. You obviously can't handle simple English words like "multiple", so that must be it.
Somebody translate this into (guessing here) Spanish.
"What is "new skepticism", and what qualifies you to be its father?"
Everytime you refuse to answer those questions you reinforce the fact that you are so far from being a skeptic that it is laughable that you claim to be one. Again, you are just pissed off at Randi, because your pathetic friend thought he could win some $$ by submitting a video of the 9/11 attacks as evidence of the paranormal, and as a result you are running around insulting skeptics and making up ridiculous claims about yourself and while attempting to slander the JREF with unevidenced claims of wrongdoing.
So, until you answer those two very simple questions, I'll just feel free to ridicule you and laugh at your rather infantile behavior.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 21:19:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
First, I'm Cuneiformist, not H. Humber.
I did a mistake with your nick.It is my error.
I will edited it soon. But maybe tomorrow so you can have a chance to proclame a vidtory
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Second: You are a moron.
Yes ,I did a BIG mistake with your nick.
You pretend to be smart and brilliant. I hope you will.
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Now that you have it clear that my use of “laughing” was metaphorical, relax.
What? This doesn't even make sense! You were the one who was crying that I didn't understand your use of "laughing." I demonstrated that I, in fact, got it. Nevertheless, you still miss the point.
Crying? Nah….just making it clear to you after you cried.
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
I make it clear to you ,URI don't care what SFN thinks of him or any psedo skeptic cult or society. Uri give a shit about it , or should I say :”he don't give a shit”?
Metaphorically is the same to me. (Cuneiformist's emphasis)
HOLY SHIT!!! Earlier, you wrote "Of course URI give a shit about what a bunch of people at SFN think of him" (that's a direct quote from you, latinijral). I disagreed, arguing that he probably doesn't. And now, you're saying "I make it clear to you ,URI don't care what SFN thinks of him" (again, a direct quote form you)?!?!?!!!??!?!?! THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID!!! Are you fucking insane?!?!
Do you still have problem with metaphores?
Do you know that the same metaphore can be interpretated different according to a place?
Relax.
I just make it clear to you ……again.
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
If he is still doing the same frauds , he is still “laughing” of the proclaimed victory those organizations did.
I already made my opinion of what I consider a complete victory.
Remember is my opinion.
Good god-- you have to be a troll. I have argued TIME AND AGAIN that NO ONE has claimed a "victory" over Uri Geller. And now you confess that the notion of what makes a "complete victory" is your opinion! Please show me what "organization" subscribes to your definition of victory and then show me that they have in fact "proclaimed victory." Please-- I beg you! Show me who's |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 21:40:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Do you still have problem with metaphores?
Do you know that the same metaphore can be interpretated different according to a place?
Relax.
I just make it clear to you ……again.
You're fucking kidding, right. In one post, you said that Uri does care about what we say at SFN. I disagreed. Then, in a second post, you say that he doesn't care about what we say at SFN.
You've given two conflicting statements in the span of a few hours. That's not metaphore, latinijral, that's just lying.
quote:
Are you aware of how many religious movements about Jesus exists? How they differ in many aspects?
But they all have one thing in common about Jesus.
That thing in common is what old scepticism combat.The “paranormal” nature of Jesus.
The same thing happens to self proclaimed skepticism movements.
They all have one thing in common. Or not?
Then …….there is a skeptic society acting like just another cult.
But this will be a topic for another thread I will create.
Just have patience .
Neat-- you know how to cut-and-paste. None of your Jesus rant relates to the topic. Jesus people buy into the paranormal. Fine. But do skeptics? You suggest that they do. I've argued TIME and AGAIN that this isn't the case. Can you prove that there's a monolithic skeptic movement? Indeed, as yet, you've yet to show that you can speak English, let alone prove your point.
quote:
Now your original question (“what is old skepticism and what is new skepticism, and what is your point?”) got SHORTER.
Magic? Nah…..you understood what you need to understood.
Have you tried google? It will be a start for you. Type like this……. “old skepticism”.
You dipshit. It got shorter because you seemed to lack the ability to answer multi-part questions. I was trying to make it easy for you.
And why in fucking hell do I have to Google for something when the fucking Father of the new fucking Skepticism is right fucking here. You're the one bitching about old versus new skepticism-- you tell me what they are. If you can't, then I can only assume that you're a fucking idiot/troll/internet-whore, to whom I wish a slow and painful death. But if you're interested in a discussion of new ideas, then tell me what the fuck it is you're talking about. Otherwise, then go play in traffic and die.
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/05/2005 21:43:49 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 21:41:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Maybe it's the language barrier, maybe you just don't have the skills in English to comprehend a direct question. You obviously can't handle simple English words like "multiple", so that must be it.
Somebody translate this into (guessing here) Spanish.
"What is "new skepticism", and what qualifies you to be its father?"
Hey, that might be an idea. I still have a hard time writing Spanish, never had any lessons in it, but through my salsadancing I'm beginning to understand it. I can now at least read it. Let's get some spanish-speaking folks! |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
