Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Debunking Debunkers] Imagination Deficiency Disorder: Study on skeptics

Expand Messages
  • > Rush <
    ... study is, well, odd?
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 18, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >>Why in the world would you find it odd that I'd find it odd I a scientific
      study is, well, odd?<<

      Given that it seems that many of your positions contradict scientific
      analysis.

      >>Funny you think it's scientific though, tons of debunkers over on DD Two
      are tripping over themselves saying how it isn't.<<

      I have no idea if it is or isn't, I didn't read the entire thing. The
      quotes you provided suggested to me that it wasn't, but it wasn't worth
      going on about.

      >>Also, who the heck appointed you Grand Poobah: "since I have to point this
      out to you, I will." This isn't my fourm anymoe so I can't say what I want
      to say to THAT. So instead I'll suggest you pleasure yourself.<<

      Your post suggested that you were of the mind that only skeptics do what the
      "study" mentioned.

      >>It's not "my study," I didn't conduct the study. Anyway...moving on. It
      does not merely prove as you beleive, in error, that "people are people" it
      illustrates specific traits and behaviors of a specific group of people;
      debunkers and skepti heads.<<

      Heh, those "traits and behaviors," as you quoted them, are displayed by all
      groups of people, in significant numbers. In other words, people are
      people.

      Cordially,
      Rush

      "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We
      WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch
      of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...
      There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
      the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
      criminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
      becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a
      nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just
      pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
      objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then
      you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game,
      and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." -Ayn Rand,
      Atlas Shrugged
    • Clyde Wary
      Don t you find it odd that you would need a scientific study? One that uses the rules of science? One does not need a scientific study; these things are
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 19, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        "Don't you find it odd that you would need a scientific study? One
        that uses the rules of science?"

        One does not need a scientific study; these things are intuitively
        clear. But it's nice to see confirmation from that quarter.

        "Since I have to point this out to you, I will: Many skeptics are no
        better than believers."

        They are "true belivers," in the most debased of that terms
        definitions! The most dogmatic are the atheists, who hold a negative
        belief about something, which by definition, can hide
        Himself/Herself/Itself from being detected.

        "Hell, many so-called skeptics believe in god, of all things."

        Maybe there's hope for some of them...:)
      • Clyde Wary
        Given that it seems that many of your positions contradict scientific analysis. Are you saying that many of her positions defy such analysis, or that the
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 19, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          "Given that it seems that many of your positions contradict scientific
          analysis."

          Are you saying that many of her positions defy such analysis, or that
          the topics she has those positions about defy analysis? If the
          former, I would suggest that any position an individual takes on any
          topic can be analyzed in view of the psychological motives that enter
          into such formulations. Anyway, give some examples...and even if
          they are unanalyzable, that still doesn't make them wrong...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.