Re: [Debunking Debunkers] Imagination Deficiency Disorder: Study on skeptics
>>Why in the world would you find it odd that I'd find it odd I a scientificstudy is, well, odd?<<
Given that it seems that many of your positions contradict scientific
>>Funny you think it's scientific though, tons of debunkers over on DD Twoare 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 thisout 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
>>It's not "my study," I didn't conduct the study. Anyway...moving on. Itdoes 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
"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,
- "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...:)
- "Given that it seems that many of your positions contradict scientific
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...