|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2012 : 03:42:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
When I first came onto SFN back in early 2006, I became a member because I wanted to post an aerial photo of landscape in Alberta that strongly resembled the head of an Indian warrior. Immediately, some people thought I was up to some kind of woo advocacy, or that the image (which is of real landscape, though entirely natural) was faked. It took some time for me to establish that I was just showing how much natural things could appear to be unnatural. SFN, like almost every place on the Web, is harsh to noobs. (The essential anonymity of the Internet has always made it a notorious den of rudeness and lies.) But I stuck it out and found I was forced to hone my skepticism more and more. |
You are misremembering. Not a single harsh word from anyone here on SFN in that thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 04:31:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Not bullying and being civil does not mean we must be all sweetness and light. And it certainly doesn’t mean a prohibition on skepticism. |
No, but to please the people for whom conflict is anathema, we would need to ban skepticism from these pages.| We will never satisfy everybody. That’s a given. |
Then we have to choose whom to annoy. Knowing that we're going to piss somebody off, where do we want to position our forum on the spectrum that runs from "100% sweetness and light" on the one end down to "pure hell on earth" on the other? My point about Mozina was that those threads probably repulsed both the wilting flower types and those who prefer we come out with both barrels blazing.
You seem to think that SFN leans more towards the harsh end. I think that on a per-thread basis, we're highly amorphous and it'd be hard to determine an "average." I say "amorphous" because if a newcomer seems to be sincerely requesting help understanding something, he'll be treated much differently than some woo-steeped cynic who shows up with a chip on his shoulder. There will, of course, be visitors who look at a single thread and incorrectly generalize about how people are treated here (first impressions and all that), but we can't help them unless they make themselves known.| And we might also be slamming the door on a chance to change that persons mind. |
But some people are completely immune to having their minds changed, no matter how civil we might be. I contend, for example, that Lyndon didn't stop talking to us because I called him an idiot, but because we threaten his profit margin. And we may very well have changed some other minds in the process. We need to not only consider how our reactions might affect the people we're directly corresponding with, but we also need to consider the "lurkers." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 05:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
When I first came onto SFN back in early 2006, I became a member because I wanted to post an aerial photo of landscape in Alberta that strongly resembled the head of an Indian warrior. Immediately, some people thought I was up to some kind of woo advocacy, or that the image (which is of real landscape, though entirely natural) was faked. It took some time for me to establish that I was just showing how much natural things could appear to be unnatural. SFN, like almost every place on the Web, is harsh to noobs. (The essential anonymity of the Internet has always made it a notorious den of rudeness and lies.) But I stuck it out and found I was forced to hone my skepticism more and more. |
You are misremembering. Not a single harsh word from anyone here on SFN in that thread.
|
You're right! Sorry, SFN! This post by beskeptigal points out, "OK, the folks at BAUT think Google Earth was hacked and this image is false."!
Supergranny, a Canadian lady from Oz using GE, was the formation's "discoverer." She posted here, too. I was just the "Indian's" first press agent.
Here's how the landscape in question looks:
Note that the whole "Indian" is actually a depression, not a raised area.
Anyway, so my comments about being really tough on noobs was wrong in referring to SFN, but right if directed to BAUT. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 05:40:08 [Permalink]
|
| All groups have have less than civil members, the only reason ours are given grief is that ours are usually correct! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 07:22:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
All groups have have less than civil members, the only reason ours are given grief is that ours are usually always correct! |
Correct now, anyway. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 09:37:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
No, but to please the people for whom conflict is anathema, we would need to ban skepticism from these pages. |
Then it's a good thing I'm not suggesting that.
Dave:
But some people are completely immune to having their minds changed, no matter how civil we might be. |
True. As I said, if we get to only one or two people I'd be happy. It was fine to be firm with Lyndon. And if it's true that he didn't stop talking to us because he was called an idiot, than calling him an idiot was unnecessary. He failed to make his case and when he saw he wasn't going to make it here, he bolted. What did calling him an idiot add to the thread?
Also, I am aware that some of us are mostly playing to lurkers. So do I want to play to those who get off an a good flaming or do I want to play to those who want to learn something? I don't think we need give up being entertaining by not calling people morons, idiots, and just generally being hostil to the the person rather than to the claim. I'm not suggesting sweetness and light. I specifically said we need to be firm in our skepticism. And for some people, that will be viewed as hostil. Well... We can't help that. But do we really need to take the extra step and flame them?
And I've said repeatedly that if someone comes at us with attitude, that person can expect attitude back. It can be done, and in fact it has been done without resorting to the kind of insults I sometimes see coming from our direction. And let me be clear about this. I'm as guilty as anyone else is of doing that. (Well maybe not as guilty as some.)
I also agree that not all threads are like the ones that bother me.
Dave:
We need to not only consider how our reactions might affect the people we're directly corresponding with, but we also need to consider the "lurkers." |
I am very close to agreeing with you. We do need to consider the lurkers. It's my thinking that if we come off as far more reasonable, logic and critical thinking based, and firm in our arguments, we might do better with both lurkers and the people we are directly corresponding with.
I find it difficult to understand why asking for us to be a bit more civil is even being met with resistance. What could it hurt? If we are firm in our resolve to promote critical thinking, logic and science, and I think we should be, what can it hurt to return fire with facts and clearer thinking rather than fire? Why take any of what those who must resort to that sort of thing personally?
And again, in situations where someone lies, I am not suggesting that we don't call them out on their lies. I'm not suggesting sweetness and light or hand holding. I'm suggesting that we be firm without resorting to flaming. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 11:10:52 [Permalink]
|
From my experience posting on skeptic sites over the years, I have come to the conclusion that most of the insults from skeptics are derived by a lack of a minimum of respect for people. Any respect they have for others comes from what the other person believes and thinks and has nothing to do with any minimum respect for them because they are people. They believe people, like me, who believe in God or hold any other irrational belief actually requires insulting. It is somehow good or needed.
It is too bad because I have changed my mind on many subjects through arguments made by skeptics. One issue where I have changed my mind is legalizing drugs. I am leaning toward that conclusion now. I guess my point here is that I am not open to rejecting my belief in God but that does not mean I cannot be persuaded on other issues. Many skeptics will paint a broad brush with believers thinking they cannot have any rational thoughts if they are irrational on just one. And will dismiss them as idiots and feel good about themselves.
Of course I am generalizing and not all fit this description, if any, but that is how I feel over all the insults by skeptics thrown my way over the years for believing in God. Of course I believe the trolls bring it on themselves and may deserve the insults, but that does not mean you have to insult them.
I would like to know why skeptics here feel the need to insult others? What is the motivation? Without knowing the motivation you really cannot come to a conclusion on whether it is reasonable or not.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 14:13:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
True. As I said, if we get to only one or two people I'd be happy. |
Well, we know we've gotten to one or two people over the years.| It was fine to be firm with Lyndon. And if it's true that he didn't stop talking to us because he was called an idiot, than calling him an idiot was unnecessary. He failed to make his case and when he saw he wasn't going to make it here, he bolted. What did calling him an idiot add to the thread? |
Actually, I'd defend that particular instance on stylistic grounds. He'd already called me an idiot, and was asking me if I thought his Nitrofill heroes were idiots, so I told him who I thought the idiot was.| Also, I am aware that some of us are mostly playing to lurkers. So do I want to play to those who get off an a good flaming or do I want to play to those who want to learn something? I don't think we need give up being entertaining by not calling people morons, idiots, and just generally being hostil to the the person rather than to the claim. I'm not suggesting sweetness and light. I specifically said we need to be firm in our skepticism. And for some people, that will be viewed as hostil. Well... We can't help that. But do we really need to take the extra step and flame them? |
I think that sometimes, with contemptible scam-artists for example, flaming them is appropriate. And it's more honest than treating our readers as if they'd be shocked into fleeing by extremely mild insults like "idiot" or "moron."| And I've said repeatedly that if someone comes at us with attitude, that person can expect attitude back. It can be done, and in fact it has been done without resorting to insults coming from our direction. |
I'd like to see an example of what you mean, here, before I respond to this bit.| And let me be clear about this. I'm as guilty as anyone else is of doing that. (Well maybe not as guilty as some.) |
I'm certainly not saying that you're holding yourself up as sinless, Kil.| I am very close to agreeing with you. We do need to consider the lurkers. It's my thinking that if we come off as far more reasonable, logic and critical thinking based, and firm in our arguments, we might do better with both lurkers and the people we are directly corresponding with. |
That "might" is what we're discussing here, I think.| I find it difficult to understand why asking for us to be a bit more civil is even being met with resistance. |
I don't think it's resistance, but discussion.| What could it hurt? If we are firm in our resolve to promote critical thinking, logic and science, and I think we should be, what can it hurt to return fire with facts and clearer thinking rather than fire? Why take any of what those who must resort to that sort of thing personally? |
What sort of audience do we want here? Personally, I think I'd rather have it like a local bar, where heated discussions are obviously heated discussions, and not hidden away behind a veneer of stilted verbiage. There already are skeptics' forums where they enforce formal rules against personal insults, and they actually feel (to me) less friendly and open because of the constant concern about not stepping over the line (because not all insults require insulting language).
But maybe that's just me. Of course, it's tough to get an unbiased assessment from our membership and visitors, since those repulsed by flaming have already left. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 14:14:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
From my experience posting on skeptic sites over the years, I have come to the conclusion that most of the insults from skeptics are derived by a lack of a minimum of respect for people. Any respect they have for others comes from what the other person believes and thinks and has nothing to do with any minimum respect for them because they are people. They believe people, like me, who believe in God or hold any other irrational belief actually requires insulting. It is somehow good or needed.
It is too bad because I have changed my mind on many subjects through arguments made by skeptics. One issue where I have changed my mind is legalizing drugs. I am leaning toward that conclusion now. I guess my point here is that I am not open to rejecting my belief in God but that does not mean I cannot be persuaded on other issues. Many skeptics will paint a broad brush with believers thinking they cannot have any rational thoughts if they are irrational on just one. And will dismiss them as idiots and feel good about themselves.
Of course I am generalizing and not all fit this description, if any, but that is how I feel over all the insults by skeptics thrown my way over the years for believing in God. Of course I believe the trolls bring it on themselves and may deserve the insults, but that does not mean you have to insult them.
I would like to know why skeptics here feel the need to insult others? What is the motivation? Without knowing the motivation you really cannot come to a conclusion on whether it is reasonable or not.
|
I think much of what you describe is real, but exists in differing shapes on all sorts of Web sites, often in the form of newbie bashing. I doubt we are worse than other types of sites, or, at least not significantly worse.
On skeptic sites, I think the form this hostility takes is shaped by a kind of siege mentality. Elsewhere, we critical thinkers are outnumbered and often overwhelmed by by thinking that is foggy or worse. When on their own kind of site, we feel safe and comfortable amongst people with somewhat similar thinking.
When someone comes in with differing views and manners of thinking, they are initially viewed as an invading outsider, and people reflexively defend their turf.
I'm not trying to defend this behavior, only to try to explain it. As you know, I'm part of the problem myself. When someone comes here with a faith riding upon their shoulders, they may think of it as a guardian angel whispering guidance, but some of us instead see a rabid, insane monkey on the person's back.
The reality is that there's no angel, no monkey. Hard as it may be, we should try, as fellow humans, to communicate. I'm 67 years old, but I feel I'm still trying to grow up, trying to learn to deal with diverse people. I hope all you younger people are, too. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 14:28:35 [Permalink]
|
Sort-of off-topic, but...Originally posted by Convinced
From my experience posting on skeptic sites over the years, I have come to the conclusion that most of the insults from skeptics are derived by a lack of a minimum of respect for people. Any respect they have for others comes from what the other person believes and thinks and has nothing to do with any minimum respect for them because they are people. |
When I meet a stranger, either in real life or on the 'Net, I grant them a certain "default" amount of respect for simply being human. How they act and other factors then determine whether that amount goes up or down over time. The minimum is zero, usually reserved for those who purposefully seek to enrich themselves by harming others while making them think they're the best of buddies (that might apply to some religious leaders, but not run-of-the-mill believers, by the way). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2013 : 07:07:33 [Permalink]
|
I was reminded of this thread when Chris Hallquist blogged about it. I did read Bond's essay, fully expecting to find some revelation that I could love, but found the whole thing confusing, and while I can't find fault with anything Chris Hallquist wrote, I am disappointed that neither one of them said while (some?) modern day Muslim countries ain't pretty, none of them have caused the torture, death and poverty that modern Christian countries have, and we can't completely forget Western interference in Muslim countries when we talk about how bad (some?) Muslim countries are. What was the last country that Iran attacked? The laser focus on Islam is misguided.
I also have to say that this is not only one of the better skeptic forums, it is just one of the better forums. Most of the problems I've had here are due to my own lack of skill, not the fault of the forums. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 03/02/2013 15:52:27 |
|
|
|
energyscholar
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2013 : 15:17:52 [Permalink]
|
| What was the last country that Iran attacked? |
Leaving out the Iran Crisis of 1946, which doesn't really rise to the standard of attacking a country, that would be the Russo-Persian war of 1826.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War,_1826-1828
I can see why US political pundits are so worried about Iran's bellicose policy of aggression, given that they (well, their distant ancestors) last initiated a foreign war of conquest only 187 years ago.
|
"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper |
| Edited by - energyscholar on 03/02/2013 15:44:10 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2013 : 20:27:45 [Permalink]
|
Maybe they just saw the movie 300 and shit their pants.
And in my experience some skeptical boards are more hostile, most are less. At one forum I was constantly hounded by abusive private messages until I just quit going there.
Waste of time trying to change Dave's mind about tone. He'll be an ass as much as he wants to whomever he wants until me and him are the only 2 left on the boards. Then he'll be sorry. |
 |
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 03/03/2013 22:34:56 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2013 : 15:22:04 [Permalink]
|
| It doesn't help that Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, and by no means has this always been limited to political means (though to be fair, some comments have been limited to political means but were taken out of context). |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2013 : 17:44:00 [Permalink]
|
| What Iranian leaders have called for the destruction of Israel? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Questioning skepticism
