|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/18/2006 : 21:47:05 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack wrote: you're just a condescending bitch
OK, I don't like what she wrote on her blog nor do I like many things she said in this thread, but THAT is INAPPROPRIATE.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 22:12:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
OK, I don't like what she wrote on her blog nor do I like many things she said in this thread, but THAT is INAPPROPRIATE.
Okay, I'm open to suggestions. In light of comments like the following...quote:
From skepticpsychic's blog...
What I didn't know until I read their fine print that their biggest pet peeve is the dismal psychotic psychic, out there pretending to predict people's future, leading the world into hell. A great many of the forum members have personally vowed to take down every last psychic, as if we are child molesters or serial killers.
[...]
The truth is there are no absolutes. And in a world of 6,000,000,000+, I frankly don't care if Sylvia Brown is or isn't psychic. People who believe that one person has the only truth over the next is misguided and needs to control. If my new Skeptic Friends can't see their own contribution to the US vs. THEM fray, they are part of the problem and as bad as the fundamentalists.
... can we come up with a more accurate description, a better word than "condescending", a more suitable word than "bitch"?
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 23:07:17 [Permalink]
|
| GeeMack - I am not taking issue with your use of the word "condescending". I totally agree with you about that. But resorting to calling someone a swear word - an especially harsh one that also carries a sexist connotation - only shows that either you are so angry that you've lost control of your ability to engage in civil discourse, or that you never had the ability in the first place. It doesn't matter what she says. That sort of language turns off many members (thus being potentially damaging to this forum) and it also hurts your credibility. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/18/2006 23:07:50 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 23:35:10 [Permalink]
|
R. Wreck wrote: I was referring more to organized religious lunacy like the Inquisition. Would the megalomaniacs behind it have found another motivating force / excuse / club to use on the masses? Quite possibly. But the fact is they seized on belief in the supernatural.
I never denied that many destructive acts are motivated by certain beliefs in the supernatural. You wrote this in response to my question about how you can demonstrate that “historically the bad outweighs the good”. I think you make that claim based on prejudices, not on evidence.
But if the belief in magic were to be eliminated, I think the majority of the currently religious would be just fine.
Not that important a statement since most religious people don't believe in “magic”. Unless you are using “magic” as a catch-all for all things supernatural. In which case: 1.) You are being sloppy with your terminology. Magic does have a more specific meaning, especially in a context of discussing religion. 2.) I could just as easily say that if the belief in the supernatural were to continue, the majority of the currently religious would be just fine.
I suppose you think that if we did away with belief in the supernatural (a, frankly, silly goal in the first place given how most educated, ethical, otherwise rational people still tend to hold on to at least some supernatural beliefs. You can't reason people out of something that is not rational, so how exactly are you going to convert them?) that the quarter of the American population that is Bible-banging would suddenly stop opposing gay marriage and abortion? I think that is bunk. I think there would be secular rationalizations for hatred and violence. I've met atheists who were racists and sexists and hard-line pro-lifers, just as I've met Christians who are humanitarian. Why do we need to blame religion, which is often times just an arbitrary middleman. Take slavery in America. The Bible was used to defend it, but the real motivation was money. If it is hatred and violence that is wrong, let us condemn and try to stop that.
And just maybe we could agree, I don't know, to teach science instead of superstition in science class, or that the phrase "I am the lord thy god" doesn't belong in our courthouses. Maybe then we could stop wasting our time on nonsense use that energy on real problems.
The Republican party had a problem. They were the party of the rich, but the rich are a minority, and thus, they didn't have the votes for a very long time. But they've done an amazing thing. They saw that they could take advantage of a huge number of evangelicals. Of course this means that they must throw them a bone now and then. And indeed, it might backfire – the Evangelicals might get so influential that they will demand more than the occasional bone. But if that happens, I honestly think the pendulum will just swing back the other way since the majority of Americans can't stand real fundamentalism (despite the fact that the majority of Americans are *gasp* religious!) Often when fundies are beaten back, they are beaten back by other Christians. The judge in the recent ID case in Pennsylvania was a Christian and staunch conservative. And yet he ripped those ID proponents a new one with the language of his ruling.
Part of the reason I'm arguing this so much is because I think secular folks just kick ourselves in the teeth when we start spouting off that religious beliefs in-of-themselves are bad. Think about it – a teeny tiny minority telling the majority (most of whom don't hurt anybody) that a fundamental part of their worldview that might be integral to comforting daily rituals is inherently destructive to themselves and others. Do you really think we can win that argument no matter philosophically rational our worldview is?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/18/2006 23:39:19 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 23:58:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
GeeMack - I am not taking issue with your use of the word "condescending". I totally agree with you about that. But resorting to calling someone a swear word - an especially harsh one that also carries a sexist connotation - only shows that either you are so angry that you've lost control of your ability to engage in civil discourse, or that you never had the ability in the first place. It doesn't matter what she says. That sort of language turns off many members (thus being potentially damaging to this forum) and it also hurts your credibility.
Ok, now you've become condescending. "Bitch" is nowhere close to being "especially harsh." It's the equivalent of calling a guy a "dick." Bitch is said on Prime Time television, for Pete's sake. C--t is especially harsh. We should all avoid using offensive language on these forums when possible, but GeeMack's choice of words were about as mild an invective as they come. And in this case, earned.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/19/2006 00:44:08 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 03:01:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I myself, am curious as to exactly who sent the hateful emails, if indeed such were sent. It really doesn't sound like something any of the regulars here would do.
I'd bet on them being fabricated in her mind. I was serious when I suggested her sudden conclusion we all were something that we clearly weren't is a classic symptom of a pathological liar. I know it sounds like I was just throwing out an insult but I wasn't. I meant it in a medical sense. The clue was her elaborate version of events that frankly was out of the blue. She believes she had an exchange with us on this BB which led her to make broad statements on her blog, and here as well, about the exchange. But no such conversation ever happened. What big discussion of politics or current events was it that we weren't interested in having? Doesn't that strike you as an odd conclusion? Yes, because in her world, some exchange is fantasized as true that never occurred. Thus it is pathological. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 03:11:19 [Permalink]
|
Here's the medical description of Delusional Disorder, described as quote:
Non-bizarre, referred to real life situations which could be true, but are not or are greatly exaggerated.
There are other types.
I guess I should change my terminology to the more PC version.
|
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 03:41:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Not that important a statement since most religious people don't believe in “magic”. Unless you are using “magic” as a catch-all for all things supernatural. In which case: 1.) You are being sloppy with your terminology. Magic does have a more specific meaning, especially in a context of discussing religion. 2.) I could just as easily say that if the belief in the supernatural were to continue, the majority of the currently religious would be just fine.
'Magic' has a second, broader, meaning when used in this context. Arguing that there is a specific definition of 'magic' is ridiculous due to the irrational nature of the concept. I believe a common definition of 'magic' when used in dialogues of this nature is 'an, or pertaining to an, effect without material cause.' which contains most (though by no means all) forms of religion. Certainly the more irrational forms.
quote:
I suppose you think that if we did away with belief in the supernatural (a, frankly, silly goal in the first place given how most educated, ethical, otherwise rational people still tend to hold on to at least some supernatural beliefs. You can't reason people out of something that is not rational, so how exactly are you going to convert them?) that the quarter of the American population that is Bible-banging would suddenly stop opposing gay marriage and abortion? I think that is bunk. I think there would be secular rationalizations for hatred and violence. I've met atheists who were racists and sexists and hard-line pro-lifers, just as I've met Christians who are humanitarian. Why do we need to blame religion, which is often times just an arbitrary middleman. Take slavery in America. The Bible was used to defend it, but the real motivation was money. If it is hatred and violence that is wrong, let us condemn and try to stop that.
Irrelevant. Religion - in the sense of faith-based religion - is inherently irrational as it posits aspects of reality without supportive argument. While the odd belief in the supernatural may not be harmful of itself, it does become pathological if the subject, upon analysing their own belief, are incapable of admitting to themselves that it is irrational.
As such one has a duty to actively combat the growth and spreading of - faith-based - religions.
This must of course at no point infringe upon the right of an individual to believe whatever they may wish to believe, our only real tool is education supported by rational argument. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
skepticpsychic
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 04:36:10 [Permalink]
|
TOP TEN REASONS TO HIRE A PET PSYCHIC
10. Boo the cat asked you to.
9. To get the real truth about Lassie.
8. To find out if Snookems really was Cleopatra's cat in another life (like he claims)
7. To tell Fido's dead mother to SIT and STAY
6. Because you have money you could be burning in the sink but why not let a person have it?
5. As an informational interview for your new career.
4. To work with the pet detective to find your missing cat.
3. To find out if there are puppies in your future.
2. To find out if Boots will get the job as therapy dog.
1. To find out if you really are suppose to kill all those people like Snuffy says.
|
The Skeptic Psychic
www.writingup.com/blog/skepticpsychic |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 04:37:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I suppose you think that if we did away with belief in the supernatural (a, frankly, silly goal in the first place given how most educated, ethical, otherwise rational people still tend to hold on to at least some supernatural beliefs.
We can dream can't we?  quote:
I've met atheists who were racists and sexists and hard-line pro-lifers, just as I've met Christians who are humanitarian. Why do we need to blame religion, which is often times just an arbitrary middleman.
With or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things.
Religion however also makes good people do evil things (and makes inteligent people believe stupid things).
We should blame religion when religion is to blame. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
skepticpsychic
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 06:05:08 [Permalink]
|
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Lie Them
"The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make heaven of Hell, and a hell of Heaven." —John Milton
Good morning friends! And a beautiful morning it is! Again, many thanks for all your comments. I learn from every one of them and appreciate the time you take from your busy lives to share.
I have noticed that several of you have taken to accusing me of being a liar, which got me thinking. Now stay with me here:
I read a post under another topic, by Halfmooner, about a conversation she had with a nut case who believed that the JFK assassination was somehow connect to a yeti. (Lordy)
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5498
Apparently their exchange only got worse from there. I assume Halfmoon is a woman because of describing herself as having “sweet skeptical reason” (I love that!) She talked about how her fruity friend changed the subject and piled on loads of alleged bullshit evidence. She advised all us skeptics to not assume that just because someone is crazy that doesn't mean they won't be prepared to pummel you all the hell with devious ways out of the “debate.” She lastly bemoaned that winging it with these people might not feel like a “victory,” even though from a purely logical point of view, she felt she had stronger arguments.
First, Halfmoon, I know what you speak of. My experience in this room revealed that not all skeptics use your “sweet skeptic reason.” Often times, they resort to using subjective perceptions that appear to be designed to divert the conversation into a no man's land of emotion, thereby diverging from the mission statement that says we are here to “promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact.” One possible reason for this outright divergence from the Skeptic self-professed values is that they fear they might be the “loser” in the debate.
Case in point: accusations that I am lying, name calling (at least I have my 15 minutes of fame with PennJilette as the World's Second Biggest Douche Bag!), use of profanities, subjective diversion that because something has not yet been proven false, it's a lie (I thought that while science worked to prove what things weren't, until they knew definitely what they were, they say they don't know). These statements and responses do not demonstrate “critical thinking, science and logic” as per the guidelines.
So put on your critical thinking caps, here's is my first question:
What criteria does anyone use to determine who is lying and who is not in this situation?
Let's examine the facts: You have never met me. You more than likely don't know anyone who knows me. You have my posts here, my other blog, my own website, and any other sites that might contain information about me. (Unfortunately because my last name is a preposition it's very difficult to google me.)
Armed with as much information about me as you can gather without leaving your computer, using your doubts, critical thinking, science and logic, which methods did you use to determine what I am lying about and what I might not?
From what I can gather about Randi's challenge, (and oh god I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong), the onus of proof falls to the psychic making the claim. Using the same guidelines and logic, the onus of proof falls to the skeptic making the claim.
The truth is we all lie. We lie to ourselves each time we tell ourselves we can't do something that we really can. We lie to our friends when we say we have other plans when we really just don't want to see them. Sometimes we lie outright and with specific intention. Sometimes the lies are subtler and are such a part of our subjective reality that we are convinced they are truth. Culture lies to us, our parents lie to us, the government lies to us, our minds lie to us.
I am curious to see how, without leaving the chair in your room, you substantiate through th |
The Skeptic Psychic
www.writingup.com/blog/skepticpsychic |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 06:25:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Apparently their exchange only got worse from there. I assume Halfmoon is a woman because of describing herself as having “sweet skeptical reason” (I love that!) She talked about how her fruity friend changed the subject and piled on loads of alleged bullshit evidence. She advised all us skeptics to not assume that just because someone is crazy that doesn't mean they won't be prepared to pummel you all the hell with devious ways out of the “debate.” She lastly bemoaned that winging it with these people might not feel like a “victory,” even though from a purely logical point of view, she felt she had stronger arguments.
A quick glance at the profile tells us that Halfmooner is male, retired, and likes dogs.
The lesson here is to not jump to conclusions, especally when the facts are so readily available.
You may return to your desk....
|
"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! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 01/19/2006 06:28:42 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 07:48:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
OK, I don't like what she wrote on her blog nor do I like many things she said in this thread, but THAT is INAPPROPRIATE.
Okay, I'm open to suggestions. In light of comments like the following...quote:
From skepticpsychic's blog...
What I didn't know until I read their fine print that their biggest pet peeve is the dismal psychotic psychic, out there pretending to predict people's future, leading the world into hell. A great many of the forum members have personally vowed to take down every last psychic, as if we are child molesters or serial killers.
[...]
The truth is there are no absolutes. And in a world of 6,000,000,000+, I frankly don't care if Sylvia Brown is or isn't psychic. People who believe that one person has the only truth over the next is misguided and needs to control. If my new Skeptic Friends can't see their own contribution to the US vs. THEM fray, they are part of the problem and as bad as the fundamentalists.
... can we come up with a more accurate description, a better word than "condescending", a more suitable word than "bitch"?
"condescending" fits. Replace "bitch" with "liar".
You insult female dogs using it the other way.
I also bemusedly note she has yet to respond to the requests for more information and instead feels it necessary to misrepresent and lie about what happened here. When caught, she claimed to be joking. This is one of the standard fundie games. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 08:21:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic...
That's why I suggest that everyone needs to turn the skepticism on themselves so you won't inadvertently lie to yourself and end up as bad as the losers you are out to get.
I think this one tiny line where Barbara expresses her paranoia, considering herself a loser who people are "out to get", may just tell as much about her as most of the other confused, delusional rambling she's done up to this point. It seems likely that beskeptigal has hit the nail on the head. Barbara With is seriously mentally ill.
Paranoid, delusional, by her own admission subject to hallucinations and hearing voices in her head, interjecting her confused "satirical" lists, and posting completely unrelated political commentary. There's more than a little indication she's got a screw loose. (I know, "screw loose" is not PC.) She's a pitiful human being with a severe handicap, probably more deserving of sympathy than disdain.
Unfortunately she's gotten herself into a position where at least some people are turning to her for advice and consultation. That may be the most dangerous aspect of her illness. Otherwise, outside of her displaying occasional episodes of total detachment from reality, her problem seems like it might be fairly benign, and even possibly pleasant for her, as she seems to be wavering back and forth across the border of La La Land. (I know, La La Land is also not PC.)
Thanks, beskeptigal, for pointing out how Barbara's problems could easily be attributed to a mental disorder. And thank you too, marfknox, for your expressing your concern about the language in my previous posting. I will try to apply more consideration in the future. Sorry about pushing the envelope.
|
|
|
|
skepticpsychic
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
