oolon wrote:Michael K Gray wrote:sacha wrote:Steersman:
Do you honestly wonder why you are on numerous "ignore" lists?
...You may as well be a Baboon.
I had hoped that Steersman may have been an effective police presence, pointing out our many logical infractions, our descent into group-think but, alas: no.
Have the FfTB no-one who is able to logically engage with us?
Oolon is a lost cause, a member of the Borg who is fighting a losing battle against his assimilation, and Steersman is just bloody boring and entirely vapid:- never actually making a single substantiated point.
PZ, Beccy, Jen! Send us your best champion, I beg of thee.
The two so far have been abject failures.
We could do with the policing and I, for one, would welcome it.
Quite happy to accept that this place is piss-take central of a bunch of pompous bloggers... But calls for 'policing' the purity of your sceptical thinking while at the same time dismissing a member of your community because they challenge the group-think (albeit in a verbose way) comes across as pompous bullshit and worthy of ridicule as well. Logic, who needs it when it interferes with my hate!
oolon,
You know exactly what was written,
and you are quite clear on the intent.
I know you find it enjoyable when your disingenuous interpretations result in a defensive, or aggressive reaction.
You knew what MKG was referring to when he used the word "policing". What I said was extremely similiar:
I personally welcome someone who is more detached, and has a different perspective than most of us, one who is logical and employs critical thinking when reviewing all of the evidence, but arrives at different conclusions.
You are no stranger to the fact that sceptics must always review their
own conclusions with detached perspective, to ensure that they have not accidentally reverted to the default setting of our human brains. One of the best things about discussions with a group of other sceptics, is the fact that we all understand how easy it is to fall victim to a logical fallacy or bias. Often we are able to catch it immediately, while still in the process of coming to a conclusion and "police" ourselves, sometimes we do not see it until we have already made our position known, and will admit to faulty reasoning, dismiss the assertion, and reevaluate. There are other times that even the most dedicated and experienced sceptic fails to recognise personal bias, or faulty logic, and a
real sceptic appreciates the correction.
oolon wrote:Policing! I thought you were a free for all freethinking collective, what needs to be policed...
Making an issue out of the use of the word "policing" as if you did not understand the context, is just another time you
pretend to misunderstand, and then act as though you have discovered evidence of hypocrisy and wave your deliberate misrepresentation like a flag, in order to lure someone here to react.
oolon wrote:...calls for 'policing' the purity of your sceptical thinking while at the same time dismissing a member of your community because they challenge the group-think...
and again, you are well aware that frustration and annoyance with Steersman has
absolutely nothing to do with disagreeing with his conclusions, nor does it have anything to do with a challenging of group-think.
Numerous regulars here have made it perfectly clear that anyone with a different perspective who arrives at much different conclusions would be more than welcome, as long as they are using logic, reason, and critical thinking when reviewing all of the evidence.
I specified "much" different conclusions because you are also being dishonest when you claim to believe that we all think alike. You have not only read through some of the thread, you have been interacting fairly regularly with numerous different people here. You have seen a significant variety of opinion, just in how
you are viewed.
There is no question that many of us see the world
very differently. One does not need to look far for evidence of that. It is on nearly every page of this thread.
The regulars here have a wide spectrum of views on nearly everything. There are even plenty of opposing opinions on subjects in regards to the FTB/Skepchick/A+ brigade. One example is the never-ending debate about showing them polite consideration or aggressively mocking them - polar opposite views, and everything in between.
Feminism, MRAs, sexism, politics and government, harassment policies, what constitutes a threat and what should be done about it, wanting, planning, or having children, to advocating voluntary human extinction, proud meat-eaters to ethical vegetarians, Bleeding Heart Liberals to Conservatives... Many contentious issues are discussed here with a vast difference in views.
There is constant disagreement on this thread. The reason it is not common knowledge to those who have had no experience here, is that we are able to discuss, debate, disagree, argue, get frustrated, angry, and even throw an insult or two, and then get over it and be friendly, agree about some other topic, and complement each other for articulating something well.
No one turns on each other like Baboons when there is a disagreement. no one forms a pack to bully someone who disagrees, no one threatens to leave, no one claims to be a victim, no one needs to be rescued, no one cries.
We stand by what we say, or we admit a mistake, or we admit we have been shown enough evidence to change our view. Using the phrase "I was wrong" does not kill us. No one moderates content, or admonishes us for our behaviour, or threatens to ban, block, or edit us. There is no hall monitor, there are no forbidden words, we are adults.
Labeling the Slime Pit as a place of "group think" is
amusing. If the goal is to offend us, or to use our accusations against us to try and show hypocrisy, at least come up with something that isn't so easy to disprove.
oolon,
That was for
others who may be reading this. It was already well known to you.
By interacting here, you are able to be the centre of attention at FTB, and by being a regular there, you have a captive audience, in
both places
The manufactured misunderstandings and accusations, and even the "polite" questions and commentary in your discussions here, are nothing but an over the top, contrived performance with the intent to antagonise, entice, and engage.
You love the game.
It also may be what is keeping PZ from banning you.
The thing is, you don't bother me at all. I think it is great that you post in both places, and I hope it continues. I give you credit for having the balls to be here under the name you use at FTB. You came here to see for yourself, even if you arrived with the intent of confirming what the Baboons say about this thread. All those other self-described "skeptics" did not need evidence, or first hand knowledge before being convinced.
I am amused at the fact that PZ seems to be disconcerted that he does not have you under his control. I am amused that he is so insecure, he cannot cope with someone actually interacting here, someone who is willing to find out for himself, instead of what he has been told, and it amuses me that because you are a regular at FTB, by not being abused and attacked by the Pit Bulls, even when peeing on their territory, you are an enormous threat to PZ's world.
I am also amused that he let everyone know, instead of keeping it to himself.
You are evidence that the approved propaganda about the Slime Pit is not accurate. The lie that PZ and company want their followers to believe about this place needs to be protected. It's the "good" and "evil" way of controlling people.
no evidence needed.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
will someone please tell the blond to go find someone to fuck her well, so she will stop bloody talking?
