"Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

"Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

Moo (guest) 21 Oct 2010 10:24

Don't know what this is all about? Shame on you! Go read the News section of the forums!

Let's poke at this, shall we? Ignoring that I'm obviously one of those jerks (and proud of it!), I will say this has been an interesting read, and I was actually smiling at the aspect that Bill is convincing someone that 2012 is a bunch of crap.

… And then I went to the woo site, and saw 'Kyle's' comments about the ongoing debate between him and Bill. While Bill is apparently making some progress in debunking certain aspects of 2012, it is clear Kyle is simply using it as ammo to fuel the less 'mystical' aspects, and more into the 'conspiracy' ends.

Jesse Ventura is praised as a god of 'truth' there, which is pretty outrageous to say the least. With Bill showing them their earthquake 'evidence' is bogus, they are now spouting off that the 'Global Elite' are building bunkers to escape to, so we can all be fried to death by the oncoming 'Solar Flares', or their own Doomsday weapons.

Kyle additionally is cherry-picking his end of the debate, using the fact Bill mentioned that one of the two groups who were making projections of the solar storms said 2012. He flatly ignored the 2013 prediction, as it didn't help his case.

Ultimately, after seeing both Part 1 and Part 2, it would seem that while Bill may be making progress involving showing them that the Maya 2012 Doomsday is a hoax, Kyle is now turning his attentions more toward Global Conspiracy, and a plot of the Global Elite to kill us all. Which is even more absurd then the Maya Doomsday, in my opinion.

Am I the only one who has had the thought that if the 'Global Elite' kill all of us 'nobodies', THEY would be the ones forced to the manual labor that they pay others to do? Wouldn't that make the 'Global Elite' the 'Lowest Class', then? I don't know, maybe I'm thinking too rationally.

Ultimately, I don't think Bill is making substantially positive progress. Progress in terms of Mystical 2012 New Age BS being a hoax, but with Kyle turning to the 2012 Global Conspiracy card… this is going to turn into a losing battle, it seems.

What boggles my mind is Kyle is playing the card that the 'Global Elite' are using 2012 to hide their true plans. This… is stupid. I thought 2012 was supported by individuals who believe the 'Government' is hiding the truth of it? Now it's suddenly a guise by the 'Global Elite' and/or 'Government' to hide their nefarious plans of killing us all/mind control?

This is nonsense. I strongly recommend people who haven't read the letters in the News section to do so now. I do also recommend NOT visiting Kyle's website, as it's turning into a Global Conspiracy Theory Woo Site now. I also would like to offer Bill advice on this matter: Be very careful on how you handle this. Choose your words carefully. This is a delicate matter.

I'll now offer my own comments regarding the 'jerk' part. Yes, I agree, sometimes being kind and polite is a good thing. I would like to note in my personal defense, I generally start off open minded in all of my debates. I am usually insulted first, and then strike back in turn when the gloves are off. Immaturity deserves the same.

Oh well. Here's to hoping Kyle and his followers realize 2012 is BS in every aspect of it, and that Jesse Ventura is not some 'Conspiracy Theory Hero'. He's just an old wrestler past his prime, feeding off the 'Woo' virus in the air. Oh, and I guess he has some political ties… but let's get serious here. He openly speaks to skeptics and woo's on his show. He could not have any 'inside access', unless it's staged or faked.

Anyway, what do you others think of this? You've heard my mixed opinions. Do you all think Kyle is on to something, and 2012 is a Global Elite/Illuminati/Government hoax to blind us for when they all hide into their secret underground bunkers and purge us all?

… Or are blippin' underground 'bunkers' beneath airports and nuclear test labs normal because, gee, airports NEED the space and nuclear test labs kind of don't want their stuff above ground? Hrm. Yep. I want opinions about this whole thing.

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

(account deleted) 21 Oct 2010 11:13

… Or are blippin' underground 'bunkers' beneath airports and nuclear test labs normal because, gee, airports NEED the space and nuclear test labs kind of don't want their stuff above ground? Hrm. Yep. I want opinions about this whole thing.

My opinion is that you're trying to change the subject.

Astrogeek pays all the bills, handles all the legal threats, etc. for this website. The least we can do is try not to make him look bad.

---

"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain

Last edited on 21 Oct 2010 11:43 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

3WMElliott 21 Oct 2010 11:39

I see your points, it has an air of open-endedness in that not all issues are deemed resolved so to speak - Galactic Alignment isn't an alignment, we get it, that's done… but "that doesn’t explain things like the US government building deep underground bunkers, the vivid dreaming phenomenon that more and more people are experiencing everyday and even if the earthquakes are ‘normal’ this year, extreme weather has been on a significant rise the past decade" and so on and so on.

To think based on little (if any) evidence that bunkers and underground networks are being built specifically because 'something' will happen in 2012 for example is really no different than actually making a claim that 'something' will happen in the first place. There is still this concept of 'something', we've just agreed that it isn't a black hole in the center of the galaxy and it isn't Nibiru etc etc.

We're ticking off those somethings but there will always be a something that persists - generally one that nobody can test, in the case of dreams, or pieces of information only 'the elite' would know. Those are still claims, they're still under the burden of proof, they are not evidence of an unknown something.

Reminds me of some Nibiru proponents who post videos of fires and mudslides and whatnot, all caused by Nibiru, obviously. But importantly, many proponents, once you say "No, fires happen, there's no link to a body we have no evidence of" or whatever, comes out with the 'well something's going on' approach. You aren't going to debunk a 'something's going on' until that something is defined, and soon as that something is defined it's generally debunked and oh look the circle is complete and keeps on rolling.

While there are high hopes for more exposure of fraudulent claims among 'pro-2012' sites (as in wher-hey, we are getting talked about within their circles), it's almost set up to be 'but, you know, despite what they say and how chummy we all are, something will still happen.'

Hey, we'd all hope for these guys to come to the conclusion that everything's a-Ok, it's normal old Earth on its boring day to day whip around the Sun, but will we get it from someone who titles the post worldwidewakeupNOW vs 2012Hoax.Org (emphasis my own, is it a talking point? Meh, iunno)

I think this post calls for a tl;dr - It's great, it's interesting, but I'm skeptical as to whether (in this case at least) it will ultimately convince anyone.

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

Astrogeek 21 Oct 2010 16:53

I think this post calls for a tl;dr - It's great, it's interesting, but I'm skeptical as to whether (in this case at least) it will ultimately convince anyone.

I am also skeptical of that outcome. I think the only thing I have done so far is to inform Kyle that some of his concerns are not grounded in fact. But, in doing so I have also convinced Kyle (and hopefully other people at that site) that he can talk to me openly.

When we commented on jcaterra's videos, we didn't call him an idiot or things like that… we discussed the topics openly and from a factual basis. Jcaterra showed his colors by banning us from commenting on his videos. So did he "win", or did we? Again it depends on what you define as a "win". Certainly other people saw our comments before he removed them. Did we convince anybody? Probably not, but the effort was worth it, wouldn't you say?

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

Astrogeek 21 Oct 2010 16:46

Ultimately, I don't think Bill is making substantially positive progress. Progress in terms of Mystical 2012 New Age BS being a hoax, but with Kyle turning to the 2012 Global Conspiracy card… this is going to turn into a losing battle, it seems.

I think you have missed the point of the article.

I'll respond with a question: What does "win" or "lose" mean to you in this context?

The point of the article was that a reasoned and calm debate, even with someone that I have strong points of disagreement with, will keep the dialog open, where copping an attitude will shut the door.

My goal in that discussion is not to convert Kyle, or anyone else at that site, to my point of view. My goal in the discussion was to lay out my point of view and hear his arguments against it. My goal in posting the article was to show what a calm and reasonable debate can be like (admittedly, Kyle left that particular door wide open with the way that he phrased his email to me), and what the result can be. In addition, the article was not about anyone in the forums specifically, but rather about the level of debate.

It seems to me that in recent years that there has been an unfortunate trend toward acrimony in debate. This does not serve to forward the discussion, and it divides and separates points of view rather than work toward a common ground. If I have any chance of convincing anybody at that site that my point of view is valid (and I will admit that the chances of doing that are very slim) then I have to talk to them. If I shut Kyle down after his first email to me, I would not be talking to him, and he would be writing off this site rather than considering our opinion.

Going back to the original point, Phil Plait used to appear from time to time on "Coast to Coast AM", which is most certainly a cesspit of woo. Why do you think he did that?

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

Capercorn 22 Oct 2010 04:01

I don't think the point of debate is to convince your opponent to your way of thinking. For me (and most politicians), the point of debate is to convince the observers of the debate who are on the fence about something. And while facts are facts are facts, appearances have a lot to do with human thinking. Politeness combined with confidence is the best way to convince others to your cause. Having facts to back up your assertions helps too, sometimes.

I also want to point out that destruction of one's worldview is a time consuming process. I speak from experience. When I was born, both my parents were Catholic. Very shortly after, my mom suddenly converted to Fundamentalist Protestantism. At age 7, in a very emotional appeal, my mother convinced me of this woo. The woo defined my life for nearly a decade. It was when I was a freshman in High School, when I was finally presented with the evidence for evolution did that start to falter, but it was not an easy process. My conversion to skepticism took nearly 2 and a half more years, finally ending when I got the courage to check out "The Demon Haunted World" from the library, and even that devastated me. Even today, I still don't know where I am on the "big questions" in life.

Rant aside, converting anybody to skepticism takes a good long time. We, as primates, seek social order and clear definitions of who is in charge. Skepticism removes that, and forces the individual to examine claims on their own merit. Skepticism goes against human instinct. Remember that.

I've read his posts, and I see myself in them. He has doubt now, he's questioning. To go into metaphor, the fire is but kindling, if we are not careful, the kindling will be extinguished.

Remember that argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy of logic, and in my book all logical fallacies are but woo. Stay above the mud throwing, let the truth speak for itself.

Ex scientia, laureola super ignarus.

(P.S. I think this is my first time posting; found you on Astronomy & Space, great resource you have… And my friends (raised by engineers) don't believe me when I say that woo is prevalent in 21st Century America)

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

Astrogeek 22 Oct 2010 04:54

Hi Capercorn!

Welcome to the site, and thank you for the kind words!

I think you have summarized the context of my discussion with Kyle very well. Thanks!

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

UndeadxNurse 26 Oct 2010 23:16

Excuse my french, for a moment, but there's a difference between being a jerk, and being an ass, as I'm sure that Astro would agree.

Everyone can, and has the right to a certain extent to be a jerk, but no one should be an ass because it's uncalled for, if you're labeled as a jerk simply because you slammed someone else' theory into the dirt, then I suppose you're a jerk, calling it like you see it, you may be a jerk, but not an ass.

If you were to act like an ass, then you would repeatedly bash the individual without confronting their theories or, assertions, which has occurred in the forums, and as the owner, the landlord, the big-dog of this website, Astro has every right to remove, replace or, correct any material that's submitted, which leaves me with the final word of saying..

If Astro tells you to straighten up.. Then do it or, leave. It's that simple. I'm here to help people, I'm here to call it like I see it, I'm not here to communicate with people whom act like angry teenagers.

---

Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.

Moo (guest) 26 Oct 2010 23:37

… Well that was entirely random of you, Nurse. I think you kind of… missed the topic! Maybe. Unless you were commenting on the exchange between Jim and I. The entire purpose of me posting this thread was not in an attempt to defend myself, to note. I am QUITE proud of my jerkism. Never been ashamed of it, never will be.

The POINT was to discuss the discussion between Bill and Kyle. Nothing more. It sort of spiraled when Jim opened up on me, but hopefully that was resolved.

UndeadxNurse 26 Oct 2010 23:44

Actually, it was more of a general statement of opinion on the topic of "jerks" entirely.

Tsk, tsk.

---

Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.

Moo (guest) 27 Oct 2010 00:05

Yeah, well… I'm throwing tentacle monsters at you, now!

(PS: Welcome Back! It hasn't been as sexy around here with out you.)

UndeadxNurse 27 Oct 2010 01:12

Tentacle monsters from the galactic equator? I've always wanted one!

P.S.
Thanks, it's good to be back.

---

Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.

Moo (guest) 21 Oct 2010 12:04

For the sake of answering one of those, the 'vivid dreaming phenomenon', I believe Juju and I have agreed that conspiracy theories generally come from people with large imaginations. To suspect their dreams are influenced by their 'superior' ability to imagine things is not something I'd write off. In my experience, dreams tend to be a mix of things I've had often on my mind, and things I've experienced.

An example to this would be, if I am so focused that earthquakes are a sign of 2012, I might have a dream about a major earthquake doing some damage somewhere. The problem here is almost like the web.bot thing. People influence the web.bot, which causes it to 'predict' things that people discuss in depth. Dreams can be influenced if you are constantly exposed to something, and your subconscious dwells on it.

Ultimately, I do bring up two key points involving it.

1) Do we really understand how dreams work?

2-A) If the answer is "No", why assume things?

2-B) If the answer is "Yes", why the hell can't I see into the future in my dreams? :|

To my knowledge, we barely understand the human mind in any sense of depth, and dreams are a marvel of their own merit. I do not find it hard to accept that dreams can be influenced by the personality and thoughts of the person in question. If you already believe in something to the point little can change your mind of it, why should your mind think any different, and thusly supply you with dreams of mixed and morphed scenarios?

Basically, I find 'vivid dream phenomenon' to be a bunch of bull. Especially in the case of 'IT'S MIND CONTROL!'. I MOSTLY go against this because how can we control that which we barely know how it functions?

As for 'bunkers', uh… I think preparing for ANYTHING is smarter than not preparing. Like NASA and it's solar storm research, this is intelligent. I think greater efforts into preparing for possible unknown circumstances is not suspicious, but a sign of extreme intelligence.

Granted the examples given by conspiracy theorists are pathetic at best. You'd imagine people would do a better job of not making their secret Global Elite bunkers so obvious.

Anywho, that's all for Elliott.

As for you, Jim, uh… not trying to make Astrogeek look bad. If the subject is indeed my attitude to those that throw the first stone, I rightly do not care. I fight mud with mud. It's my terrible, terrible upbringing.

If you mean me pointing out that the woo-site is using Bill's efforts to fuel their conspiracy crap? Yeah. That's on topic and it's bogus.

Mike Poulin (guest) 21 Oct 2010 12:34

Wait a minute these people you speak of praised Jesse Ventura Really Jesse Ventura. Why because he was the govenor of Minnesota and couldn't handle it and they all blieve it's some conspiracy covered up by the goverment yay for that logic lol.

(account deleted) 21 Oct 2010 13:06

As for you, Jim, uh… not trying to make Astrogeek look bad.

Never said you were trying to. But you seem not to care whether you're embarrassing him or not. In fact, you're trying to justify doing it, because he's being nice to people you don't agree with.

If the subject is indeed my attitude to those that throw the first stone, …

This is not an ""if"". You know very well that that's the subject. And it's not fair to say that it's always been the other person who threw the first stone.

… I rightly do not care. I fight mud with mud. It's my terrible, terrible upbringing.

More excuses and justification. Your upbringing makes you verbally violent, but there are remedies for it. Enabling your hostility and excuse-making here would be no favor either to you, or to those who are close to you.

If you mean me pointing out that the woo-site is using Bill's efforts to fuel their conspiracy crap? Yeah. That's on topic and it's bogus.Bill's message is to

The topic is "don't be a jerk", even to people with whom you disagree.

---

"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain

Moo (guest) 21 Oct 2010 13:27

No. THIS topic is about the article we were given. This is NOT about one's personality, namely mine. Do not get off topic on the topic I've posted, which is a discussion on the letters Astrogeek was kind enough to show us.

I don't agree with Kyle, but I have yet to verbally attack him. Do I think his actions of how he's posting the letters and using them to fuel his conspiracy theory fires is right? No. He's giving me reasons to not agree with him. I do not need to be open minded when someone has made their case clear. Will I go out of my way to attack him? No. Because I have never launched the first blow.

Regardless, I will always be openly hostile to those that throw the first punch while stating their case, due to not wanting to be wrong. Go look back at every example of tearing into a woo-artist. They ALWAYS initiated the insults. In fact, considering dharma, I took THREE posts of constant mud-slinging before I decided enough was enough, and was done playing nice.

I >am< nice to start with. If my 'attacks' are more memorable to your selective memory simply to prove your own point, my apologies for doing what these people do, Jim. Perhaps we should cease talking to each other, as apparently my stance toward 2012, and toward the rude woo-artists, is against your dogma.

To each their own. You take a neutral minded approach regardless of what they say. I will turn ugly when they do so, given enough provocation to justify that enough is enough. Happily, I have assisted in chasing the more right-winged ones off.

Do you think they can be shown 'the truth', given their attitudes? I admire that if so, and even I >try< to do so as well. But when they turn ugly, and show they have no interest in changing their stance, I see no reason to continue coddling them. A verbal beatdown in exchange for a verbal beatdown. An eye for an eye. That is my way.

Please note the sarcasm in my upbringing statement. I do not find fault in my attitude. It is simply the difference between us. If you ALL believe I am unjustified in striking a blow in the same dirty manner those who only wish to cause fear and paranoia into our recovering guests, I will be more than willing to excuse myself from these forums.

As far as I can tell, however, my jokes, my attitude, and my stance are widely appreciated AND complimented by many of our recovering visitors. As long as I can keep one person smiling, one person happy throughout this? I'm never giving up. I will rip at the throats of the fear-mongering woos, the mudslingers, and the right-winged absolutes.

That is who I am. And I am proud of it. Our off-topic discussion is over, Jim. Please remain on topic about discussing the conversation between Bill and Kyle.

Astrogeek 21 Oct 2010 16:55

Well, moo, to be fair to Jim, you were the one who brought up your own behavior ("I'm a jerk and proud of it").

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Moo (guest) 21 Oct 2010 17:00

Admitting to something warrants not chastising of it. To acknowledge one's 'faults' is progress enough, no? Regardless, I did feel if I didn't mention it, I'm sure 'someone' would have eventually.

Regardless, we're off topic. And I'm sad you haven't commented on these little discoveries of Kyle's end of the sharing of the letters.

Astrogeek 21 Oct 2010 17:16

I didn't expect him to instantly convert to skepticism. As I said, I'm just talking with him.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

TheGreatJuju 21 Oct 2010 23:14

Eh….

Moo, I agree with you completely about this Kyle2012 character. It's pretty clear that he's "arguing" from imagination. In the exchanges with Astrogeek, he encountered a position he could not refute. Rather than admit he was wrong, he elected to shoehorn this new information into his existing paradigm, ad hoc. As such, either out of desperation or because he genuinely cannot distinguish between rational thought and imagination, he resorted to the classic woo fail-safe of inventing a new claim. In effect, he has created a new conspiracy about the refuted conspiracies. It's pathetic, yes, especially since his site is plastered with ads and woo-woo "novellas" that he is selling.

< soapbox >
That said, I can't really disagree with Astrogeek. There are some people who have shown up on this board who are simply not amenable to reason, and it would not have mattered whether we rolled out the red carpet and gave them free chocolate. They were here to fight, period. Dharma, Pandora(?) and Kopenhagen spring immediately to mind. Other posters like Steve and Beehive are mind-numbingly ignorant, but are not noticeably hostile for the sheer sake of it. Still other posters (I'd guess the majority, though I haven't calculated this) seem genuinely curious for the most part and seek to have their concerns addressed, rather than pursue some argumentative agenda.

So for clarity I'll break it down as:

1) Hostile woo artists and doomsayers,
2) Woo artists and doomsayers, undecideds with sympathy for conspiracy theories
3) Regular folks looking for answers.

I've had my share of short moments with the first two categories. With exception to the occasional "idiot" card, I try to avoid overt insults on this board, but I at times tend toward generosity with sarcasm and ridicule. The aforementioned exchange with Steve is a prime example, made worse by user Jesus — I mean 'Mark' — injecting his opinion after the fact, where in retrospect I should have perhaps held off a bit or disengaged altogether sooner than I did.

Like you, I like to think that I typically refrain from sheer nastiness until provoked, and maybe I do. But perhaps the board in general would be better served by considering Astrogeek's advice. Despite the few people who actually deserve what they get, I'm not sure that a policy of no-holds-barred pummeling, defensively or offensively, is necessarily a good one, even if it is occasionally effective. Because, after all, it is that final category of reader/poster that Bill and crew created this site for, with the goal of helping them dismiss irrational 2012 beliefs in mind. In the course of achieving this end, we are required to deal with members of the first two categories. I think it can behoove everyone to remember that, even if we find a certain joy in arguing (as I do), the stakes here can be higher than just debunking nonsense for the thrill of it. There are plenty of example cases scattered around this forum.
< / soapbox >

But yes, Moo, I could not agree with you more about Kyle2012's shenanigans, though I don't think Astrogeek conveyed any expectation of instant de-wooing. He was more focused on the fact that parties with diametrically opposed positions can at least communicate in a manner that falls somewhere under the admittedly relative umbrella of "civil." He probably didn't anticipate the direction Kyle chose to take things, but I doubt Astrogeek (or anyone) was surprised by it, either.

Cheers.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 21 Oct 2010 23:17 by TheGreatJuju Show more

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

Astrogeek 21 Oct 2010 23:57

Well, I certainly wasn't surprised by his continued acceptance of things I consider nonsense. I don't think I anticipated his posting the entire conversation on his site. He's showing more integrity than I expected, and frankly, that was a surprise. I don't think I would have posted the same article if he hadn't done that.

Quite frankly, I had zero expectations. I have conversations like this in email all of the time. I only share a select few of them with you guys. This one was special because he left the door wide open for a dialog, and I willingly accepted that invitation. I have no expectations for the future of this conversation either, other than I will attempt to learn why he believes what he does. My only goal in this process is to learn more about why people think that way.

I fully expect that this conversation will go on for a while, until one or the other of us tires of it, or gets angry. I'm enjoying it, and I think he is too.

My point (in the article) remains: If I had blown off Kyle, or shut him down with insults or by casting aspersions about his intelligence, I doubt he would have posted the conversation, or that we would now have a link at the top of his blogroll. Both of those are positive things, in my view.

And let me make it clear (in case Kyle reads this): I strenuously disagree with many of the things he says on his blog. He and I probably do not agree on much of anything with regard to 2012. However, I will continue to treat him with respect as long as he does likewise to me.

There's a saying among Christians that most people are familiar with: Don't preach to the choir. If you are in the business of changing people's minds about something, it does no good to only talk with people who already think the way you do. In order to change people's minds, you have to talk to the people who think differently, and convince them.

Vive la différence!

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Mike Poulin (guest) 22 Oct 2010 18:30

You forgot about Dane Christenson and Ivan Gorelik Juju.

Moo (guest) 21 Oct 2010 23:28

Nice way to sum it up, Juju. Kudos for that. As for the rest of it, I do largely agree. And I do agree that arguing is a stimulating and enjoyable aspect in some circumstances. But, blah. I'd give more commentary but I feel bleck today.

Re: "Don't Be A Jerk" Discussion

(account deleted) 22 Oct 2010 20:11

Let's not overlook that our opponents aren't the only ones who've been abused in our forums: some of the people who've come here for help have also complained about being ridiculed and insulted.

One point that won't be lost on our critics (and rightly so) is that while "2012" drives kids to suicide, so does bullying and abuse. Abuse can even be a root cause of irrational fears like those we're trying to help people with here. A guest view (M. G. Harris) on our own website explains this:

I myself spent teenage years first obsessed that the world was going to end in 1981 (one of the Nostrodamus daftnesses), then about nuclear war (which was a real possibility but not as bad as we believed, turned out the Russian military prowess had been hugely exaggerated), then about terminal illness. I had a morbid bent…it wasn't hard to see where it came from. Marital breakdown had twice wrecked our family life, so I had first hand experience at how powerless a child is in an adult world.
http://www.2012hoax.org/m-g-harris

Just in case Moo chooses to respond to this post with his typical bully's technique of "deny, justify, minimize, rationalize, and shift the blame", I'll point out that I grew up in a violent family, too, so I know that game very well. I used to be quite good at it. But I finally recognized that I was harming others, and that choosing to continue it was a calculated, evil behavior. So I stopped making excuses for myself, and made a serious effort to change my ways.

---

"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain

Last edited on 22 Oct 2010 20:15 by (account deleted) Show more

Moo (guest) 22 Oct 2010 23:59

Nice post, Jim! Up until that unjustified last part, where you decided being childish would further justify yourself. Couldn't agree to disagree, could we? I'm not going to feel very sorry if my 'bullying' drives a woo-artist to suicide. Really, I won't be. I really, truly will not care in any shape, way, or form.

They invoke scare-tactics and strong-armed tactics to force people to support them. My sympathy does not exist for them. At least, the woo-artists >I< choose to attack. Now then, Jim, kindly read my last post about dropping this crap. It's cluttering up the forum, and frankly that last one was absolutely chilidish and pointless flaming.

Thanks.

Capercorn 24 Oct 2010 18:04

What's a "woo-artist"? The con-artist who knows that he's lying just to make money, or the genuinely concerned people who lack the Skeptic's worldview?

Because I know for certain that you're never going to drive a con-artist to suicide.

Remember, any logical fallacy is woo in my book, and personal attacks (or argumentum ad hominem, for formality's sake) are a logical fallacy. Therefore, personal attacks are woo. Any skeptic who engages in logic-woo harms the cause of science education, by making skeptics as a whole look like jerks.

Conversion to skepticism takes a while. It takes a good long while. For Kyle, we need to show him that his beliefs don't make sense, and then throw "The Demon Haunted World" on him once he has enough doubt. And given a few years (and 2012 coming and passing), we will have a skeptic in him.

I like forum Rule 4. It's a good rule.

Last edited on 24 Oct 2010 18:07 by Capercorn Show more

Moo (guest) 24 Oct 2010 18:28

You need to add another category to that, Capercorn. Giving me a lose/lose choice isn't very fair. You forgot "Those who don't know anything, but decide to listen to one person's opinion and take it at face value, ignoring the opposite opinion out of ignorance."

You also forgot "People who are convinced of these conspiracies, to the point of 'infecting' others into their misery and suffering."

And finally "People who have been hurt by all of this, and just want to return the pain."

Ultimately, the only people I'd wish physical harm upon are the con-artists. The rest need a good smack to the face to snap out of it, nothing more. Well, maybe except your second one. That one could use a hug, then a smack if they keep it up.

Astrogeek 26 Oct 2010 03:44

Any skeptic who engages in logic-woo harms the cause of science education, by making skeptics as a whole look like jerks.

I agree. There are far too many 'skeptics' out there who think that being a skeptic is an excuse for acting… well, like a jerk. I see it over and over in various forums (and before anyone gets any ideas, I am not referring to this forum, or anyone here specifically).

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Twinklestar (guest) 27 Oct 2010 01:11

'I'm not going to feel very sorry if my 'bullying' drives a woo-artist to suicide. Really, I won't be. I really, truly will not care in any shape, way, or form.'

Moo these kind of comments will get you no where. I mean actually wanting people to kill themselves is sick.

Moo (guest) 27 Oct 2010 01:13

You mean the same people who want every person on the planet to die a horrible, horrible death?

Nope, don't care if they commit 'ritualistic' suicide due to their own insane beliefs that we should all die in 2012 because they say so. I'll do the gene pool a favor and drive them insane.

Twinklestar (guest) 27 Oct 2010 01:48

'You mean the same people who want every person on the planet to die a horrible, horrible death? Nope, don't care if they commit 'ritualistic' suicide. I'll do the gene pool a favor and drive them insane.'

Who are these people? I have read nothing on this site about what you just wrote. This is plain silly rantings.

Moo (guest) 27 Oct 2010 01:59

… Then you really have not read much of this forum. Kindly do not even consider speaking to me again until you do.

Twinklestar (guest) 27 Oct 2010 02:07

Who has said they want every person on the planet to die a horrible death? WHO?

Moo (guest) 27 Oct 2010 02:13

Ivan Gorelik is the main jerk who has openly stated it. Others have voiced their opinions on wanting 2012 to be a Doomsday. Again, these are people who have visited this forum before you have, so I do not expect you to have noticed them.