|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
 Posted - 03/13/2007 : 17:53:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Gorgo wrote:
quote:
Again, not to mention the people that simply think there are gods and angels.
Good point. There is certainly a whole spectrum from extreme magical thinking to hard-core rationalist. Many if not most people are somewhere in the middle.
Is it so unfathomable that there might be mostly "people somewhere in the middle" in the Green Party too?
Edited to add: After all, we have presently 5 Green Party voters here. Do we have as many woo-woo's?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/13/2007 17:55:32 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 18:46:27 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse wrote: quote:
Is it so unfathomable that there might be mostly "people somewhere in the middle" in the Green Party too?
I just want to make it clear that I haven't expressed a stance either way on Greens having proportionately more woo woos than other political groups. My point was that the term "woo woo" is too vague to apply a scientific approach to discovering whether or not most Greens are woo woos.
This whole stupid debate boils down to a petty misunderstanding. If beskeptigal had simply used the word "many" instead of "most", there wouldn't be a debate about the integrity of her political skepticism. And she made it clear right from page 2 that she was oversimplifying and generalizing based purely on personal experience. No one here has actually demonized the Green party.
I might also point out that be never said that the Green party has a higher proportion of magical thinkers than the population at large, but rather, a higher proportion of magical thinkers who tend toward New Age types of magical thinking. As Gorgo mentioned, there is also magical thinking among Christians. I would argue that, depending on how one qualifies as a "magical thinker", most people are magical thinkers. And if that is the case, it would make sense that most Greens are magical thinkers. See - the more we analyze this conversation, the stupider it sounds exactly because the terms we are talking about are vague. This topic cannot be analyzed totally rationally. If you want pure reasoning, let's discuss something definable, such as if most Greens earn less than 50K a year, or if most Greens live in cities.
quote:
Edited to add: After all, we have presently 5 Green Party voters here. Do we have as many woo-woo's?
Yeah, I voted for Green party in this survey. But I've voted for a Green party candidate once in my life and regretted it. I also do not associate with Greens because the ones I've met I've found highly annoying, overly-idealistic, self righteous dipshits. Like be, I've also met really intelligent Green party supporters, but they were definitely the minority. I voted for them in this survey because their official platform most fits in with my personal politics. |
"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 03/13/2007 18:48:47 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 00:04:21 [Permalink]
|
McQ said:
quote:
Well, I sure am glad we're practicing more civility on the forum. What a complete lack of manners and class you've shown, Dude. Calling people assholes because their opinion differs from yours.
No, I'm calling you assholes because you are oblivious to rational thinking on this. beskeptigal was not stating an opinion, she was stating a conclusion (a derogatory one, at that) about an entire group of people based on her very limited (when compared to the size of the whole group) exposure to them.
She devolved into logical fallacy when I called her on it at first. After a simple request for evidence she attempted to shift the burden of proof onto me, by insiting I prove her wrong! Several times, in fact!
This isn't the first time she has slandered an entire political party either.
EVery one of you jumping my shit in this thread would be breaking your whole foot off in the ass of anyone who came onto these boards and behaved like beskeptigal is now, but towards democrats.
"The majority of democrats are idiots, because the ones I have met are idiots!"
Evidence?
"Prove me wrong!"
The flogging would commence.
You damn well know it too.
So yes, you are assholes and hypocrits for defending the absolutely indefensible thing beskeptigal is doing here.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 03/14/2007 : 00:51:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
No, I'm calling you assholes because you are oblivious to rational thinking on this.
Your current behavior does not look like the result of rational thinking. It looks more like malignant narcissism. quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I stated in my post that I was overgeneralizing, Dude. I was trying to discuss some larger issues without getting bogged down in political correctness.
And you couldn't just disagree, Dude, you had to show everybody what an exceptional skeptic you are.
I usually agree with much of what you write in this forum, but in this thread you are now in my opinion far away in dogma land.
|
| Edited by - Starman on 03/14/2007 01:40:55 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 03:04:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Dr. Mabuse wrote: quote:
Is it so unfathomable that there might be mostly "people somewhere in the middle" in the Green Party too?
I just want to make it clear that I haven't expressed a stance either way on Greens having proportionately more woo woos than other political groups. My point was that the term "woo woo" is too vague to apply a scientific approach to discovering whether or not most Greens are woo woos.
This whole stupid debate boils down to a petty misunderstanding. If beskeptigal had simply used the word "many" instead of "most", there wouldn't be a debate about the integrity of her political skepticism. And she made it clear right from page 2 that she was oversimplifying and generalizing based purely on personal experience. No one here has actually demonized the Green party.
I might also point out that be never said that the Green party has a higher proportion of magical thinkers than the population at large, but rather, a higher proportion of magical thinkers who tend toward New Age types of magical thinking. As Gorgo mentioned, there is also magical thinking among Christians. I would argue that, depending on how one qualifies as a "magical thinker", most people are magical thinkers. And if that is the case, it would make sense that most Greens are magical thinkers. See - the more we analyze this conversation, the stupider it sounds exactly because the terms we are talking about are vague. This topic cannot be analyzed totally rationally. If you want pure reasoning, let's discuss something definable, such as if most Greens earn less than 50K a year, or if most Greens live in cities.
quote:
Edited to add: After all, we have presently 5 Green Party voters here. Do we have as many woo-woo's?
Yeah, I voted for Green party in this survey. But I've voted for a Green party candidate once in my life and regretted it. I also do not associate with Greens because the ones I've met I've found highly annoying, overly-idealistic, self righteous dipshits. Like be, I've also met really intelligent Green party supporters, but they were definitely the minority. I voted for them in this survey because their official platform most fits in with my personal politics.
This is very well said. (Not sure about the 'dipshit' part. I haven't had that experience. Some of my friends who are Greens do believe in the trade tower conspiracy but otherwise they are intelligent. I don't quite know why they are willing to believe in the 911 CT.)
I view the Evangelicals in the right wing party to be just as errant in their beliefs. It's interesting we don't use the woo term as often with religious fanatics we use the fundie term. For company I'd prefer an illogical woo believer to a fundie any day. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/14/2007 03:05:16 |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 04:48:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
McQ said:
quote:
Well, I sure am glad we're practicing more civility on the forum. What a complete lack of manners and class you've shown, Dude. Calling people assholes because their opinion differs from yours.
No, I'm calling you assholes because you are oblivious to rational thinking on this. beskeptigal was not stating an opinion, she was stating a conclusion (a derogatory one, at that) about an entire group of people based on her very limited (when compared to the size of the whole group) exposure to them.
She devolved into logical fallacy when I called her on it at first. After a simple request for evidence she attempted to shift the burden of proof onto me, by insiting I prove her wrong! Several times, in fact!
This isn't the first time she has slandered an entire political party either.
EVery one of you jumping my shit in this thread would be breaking your whole foot off in the ass of anyone who came onto these boards and behaved like beskeptigal is now, but towards democrats.
"The majority of democrats are idiots, because the ones I have met are idiots!"
Evidence?
"Prove me wrong!"
The flogging would commence.
You damn well know it too.
So yes, you are assholes and hypocrits for defending the absolutely indefensible thing beskeptigal is doing here.
OK, so the man who stated, "I'm calling you assholes because you're oblivious to rational thinking..." is thinking rationally?
Right.
Take a pill, Dude. You are being irrational because you can't come to grips with the fact that it's just your opinion that beskeptigal stated an opinion and you think she categorically stated a fact. Get over it. You aren't the rational one here.
And if you call me or anyone else an asshole again, I will make sure that your life here on the forum is pure hell or short lived, because if one of the admins or mods doesn't soon do it, I will make sure that your ISP knows that you are being abusive to the members here.
People here couldn't make it any more clear that this is a matter of opinion. Now it's become a petty name-calling rant by a disgruntled person.
So, make yourself scarce on this and go lick your wounds or make your apologies for your ill manners and childish behavior. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 03/14/2007 13:53:05 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 08:10:26 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
No, I'm calling you assholes because you are oblivious to rational thinking on this.
Um, excuse me, but I (and I'm not the only one) did no such thing. I have repeatedly and specifically challenged your application of critical thinking and I have disagreed with your claim that beskeptigal was stating a fact. Instead of countering my argument, you completely dismissed it as “a bunch of retarded shit” then told me to go fuck myself. Now, buddy, I know that's a classic ad hom attack, so you really need to chill out right now ‘cause you're making yourself look like a hypocrite.
quote:
EVery one of you jumping my shit in this thread would be breaking your whole foot off in the ass of anyone who came onto these boards and behaved like beskeptigal is now, but towards democrats.
"The majority of democrats are idiots, because the ones I have met are idiots!"
Evidence?
"Prove me wrong!"
The flogging would commence.
You damn well know it too.
You have mis characterized beskeptigal's statements and set up a false comparison.
So here's an alternative comparison that I think better fits this situation: Let's say a Green made statements similar to be's, only with Greens and Dems reversed, and instead of the “woo woo” criticism they used one that would make sense in terms of commonly held generalizations about Democrats – let's say they said something like:
“The Democratic Party has some values I can identify with, but the majority of the members are overly pessimistic and as you point out by how often they have compromised their traditional values in order to cater to the center. Cowards, rather than strong leaders. IE a lot of them are idiots.”
If someone had written something like this, I honestly would have had the same reaction as I had to beskeptigal equally caustic criticism of Greens; I would have shrugged and thought Yeah, I could see it that way. I would also have filed it as “opinion” because when used in such a generalized sense, “pessimism” is about a definable a “idealism”, “cowards” about as definable as “woo woos”.
Also, if this hypothetical critic of Democrats had been as soft in their other wording as be, if they had repeatedly reminded us that they were generalizing, if they had repeatedly stated that they were open to changing their mind, as she has been, I very much doubt the “flogging would commence”. Except, perhaps, from you.
|
"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 03/14/2007 08:12:54 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 11:00:05 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
You have mis characterized beskeptigal's statements and set up a false comparison.
You have lost your fucking mind.
beskeptigal said that the majority of the green party were "magical thinkers".
I asked her for evidence.
She challenged me, more than once, to prove her wrong.
It is all right there for you to read.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 11:49:54 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
You have lost your fucking mind.
beskeptigal said that the majority of the green party were "magical thinkers".
I asked her for evidence.
She challenged me, more than once, to prove her wrong.
It is all right there for you to read.
You sound like a broken record. You have yet to actually address the specifics of my response to your objection that you've repeated enough times already. Instead of countering what I've said, or at least simply saying something like: "I disagree, I think magical thinker is clearly defined well enough that what beskeptigal said must be considered a claim of fact."
We all know what magical thinking is, but what is a magical thinker? That gets much more vague because most people engage in magical thinking at least about some things. So what qualifies any individual for the label "magical thinker". Before we can decide whether beskeptigal made a claim of fact, we have to be able to understand the meaning in clearly definable terms of what she wrote. So please, tell us all what are the definable terms that qualify a person as a magical thinker more so than non-magical thinkers.
Or just tell me I've lost my fucking mind again. You know, whatever. |
"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 03/14/2007 11:51:32 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 16:09:43 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
You have yet to actually address the specifics of my response
You refuse to acknowledge the logical fallacy that beskeptigal continues to use here. When confronted with a request for evidence you either provide it or qualify your claims as opinion or hypothesis. You don't insist that someone prove you wrong!
All your blathering in this thread amounts to nothing but a load of red herrings. You are attempting to distract from the issue at hand, so none of the "specifics" of your imbecilic posts are worth responding to.
beskeptigal is engaged in political bigotry and has devolved into logical fallacy when confronted with a simple request for evidence. She is making broad derogatory claims about an entire group of people based on what amounts to anecdotal evidence.
My point, in it's entirety, is that the skeptics here would not tolerate Billscott doing such a thing (rightly so), and we should not tolerate anyone else doing it because you happen to agree with their politics.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 16:11:18 [Permalink]
|
McQ said:
quote:
And if you call me or anyone else an asshole again, I will make sure that your life here on the forum is pure hell or short lived, because if one of the admins or mods doesn't soon do it, I will make sure that your ISP knows that you are being abusive to the members here.
Calling you an asshole is not against any rules.
Your threatening me, however, is. Asshole.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 16:57:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Marf:
Or just tell me I've lost my fucking mind again. You know, whatever.
Actually, no. Dude, I am a patient man. Plus, I consider you an asset to our site. Usually, even when I don't agree with you, as happened in this thread in our short discussion about our ability to filter out all political bias, I respect your opinion.
And you have the right to challenge a claim of fact, or an opinion. Even though the rules regarding how one deals with those two things are not exactly the same. I see that you have, on no uncertain terms, come to the conclusion that a claim of fact was stated and needs to be defended. I also see that there is disagreement with that conclusion. I have read the thread many times now and here is something I think you should consider. Even though it first seemed as though a claim of fact was being made, beskeptigal did one of two things. She either stepped back from her claim of fact or she never meant her statement to come off as a claim of fact, which in subsequent posts of hers, she maintains as the truth. She say's she was only voicing her personal observations, which is something I did too on the very same subject.
Once she has stated that it's an opinion, what's the beef? You are free to disagree with her opinion until the cows come home but frankly, you already "won" the claim of fact objection (if there really was anything to win) when she said, in so many words, that her claim is anecdotal in that it is her own personal observation. In other words, it's an opinion. (Not that it's all that important, but I happen to believe that she was only stating her opinion from the git-go, even though I felt that it was somewhat hyperbolic in presentation. But even that she warned us of in the post that is at the center of this disagreement.)
How many people need to say what I just said before you consider the possibility that we aren't all assholes? If you must disagree with how many of us have read this thread, so be it. You can do that without any objection from me. Also, If you want to challenge my credentials as a critical thinker, go for it. (In a new thread please.) I know you're good Dude, and would probably give me a very decent run for my money. But in the meantime, could you please throw me a bone and tone down the insults a bit? They don't further your argument and gosh, being called an asshole just might be taken personally, even by me. And I have a pretty thick skin…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
 Posted - 03/14/2007 : 17:13:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
McQ said:
quote:
And if you call me or anyone else an asshole again, I will make sure that your life here on the forum is pure hell or short lived, because if one of the admins or mods doesn't soon do it, I will make sure that your ISP knows that you are being abusive to the members here.
Calling you an asshole is not against any rules.
Your threatening me, however, is. Asshole.
From the registration agreement:
quote:
In your use of these forums, you agree that you will not post any information which is vulgar, harassing, hateful, threatening, invading of others privacy, sexually oriented, or violates any laws.
We reserve the right to enforce these rules at our discretion. Since we would like to keep this site as open and free as humanly possible, and place a very high value on free speech, we tend to be lax on some of the rules. But that doesn't mean we don't have them or that we won't enforce them if it becomes necessary. Again, our call, not yours…
Kil
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 20:19:01 [Permalink]
|
| Fixed post is below. Wow, a single " made half of the post disappear and moving it away from ] brought the whole missing section back. I must have angered the machine gods. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/14/2007 20:32:30 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 20:30:07 [Permalink]
|
I hate to fan these flames, and I was going to leave it as my observations, which it was, but I went back to the beginning of this dispute just to see how I had worded my post which pissed Dude off in the first place. Part of my reason for posting this is to support what I have observed with the Green Party so maybe it will get Dude to focus on the issues rather than his sense of outrage. But the other reason is, reading the following I was so struck by how completely opposite the Green Party Platform is from the Libertarian Platform. There are some exceptions, such as both agree in seeing government subsidies for corporations removed and decriminalizing 'victimless' crimes, but reading through these two party platforms, completely different world views are glaringly apparent.
I noticed Kil had made a remark, "the New Age is aggressively green. So it doesn't surprise me that the Green Party would want to woo the woo woo's, just as Republicans bend over backwards for the religious right." just before my post which upset Dude.
Becoming curious as to the post Kil had responded to I found Dr. Mabuse had actually posted "The Green Party of the United States; Platform 2004; As adopted at the National Nominating Convention; Milwaukee, Wisconsin - June, 2004
I hadn't really looked at it since Dude posted the 10 Green Party Principles (which is in the introduction to the platform) and I had spent a fair amount of time looking unsuccessfully for links that reflected what I had observed. I only came across very general things, the stand against floridated water, and a couple forums with too few people posting to give a flavor of the Green membership.
Then I actually read the platform Dr M had posted. Bummer, this might have saved 8 pages of name calling and Dude possibly holding a grudge against a few of us for weeks to come. Plus, at this point, Dude may be too upset to look at this objectively.
The following is in order it is found in the platform, not in the order of greatest woo to least. The platform is a reflection of exactly what my observations of the Green Party membership is like. This may not equate to Dude's interpretation of how I used the label "woos" in this case, so forget the label. The platform is so the people I had in mind.
quote:
II. Social Justice
A.]Civil Rights
4.)Justice for Native Hawaiians: Kanaka Maoli
Since illegal annexation in 1898, the Federal and State governments have cheated and neglected the native Hawaiian people. In 1993, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, the "Apology Bill" (U.S. Public Law 103-150). This admission of crime states in part, "the native Hawaiians have never lost their inherent sovereignty nor their national home base."
The Green Party demands justice for kanaka maoli.
d. Return of, or fair compensation for, ceded lands.
e. Immediate distribution of Hawaiian Homelands, with government funds allocated for the necessary infrastructure.
f. Prohibition of future sale or diminishments of the Ceded Land Trust.
g. A call for open dialogue among all residents of Hawai'i on the sovereignty option of full independence.
h. Hawaiian sovereignty in a form that is fair to both native Hawaiians and other residents of Hawai'i.
F.] Health Care
2.) 70% to 85% of illness in America is due to unmanaged stress. This means that national measures to reduce work hours, promote cyber-commuting for work, and increased vacation time for workers will significantly improve the public's health. We advocate access for all, irrelevant of income, to stress management training such as meditation techniques, yoga, tai chi, qigong, and biofeedback.[This claim is |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/14/2007 20:40:57 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Party, Party, Party!
