Is prejudice against sceptics socially acceptable?

Originally posted by and14263

I will state here, I am not a sceptic as you will see from my post history... merely someone who likes to rant.

And14263.....

Now, that would be quite a thread.....

A thread full of ranters!

Maybe being "on topic" in such a thread would really be "off topic" which would really be "on topic" which would really be "off topic".....

On second thoughts.....don't start that thread!

Cheers
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by m0r1arty
reply to post by rival

 

Originally posted by rivalNow if you can point to just one VERIFIABLE instance of skepticism,
that isn't clearly a simple case of differing viewpoints then I would be
happy to debate.

No problem my fine friend, here is one:

Originally posted by rival
I personally haven't seen any relevant evidence that there are any skeptics
on this site. From the evidence presented I personally believe that
it is the OP's responsibility to prove his claim.

Just because you say skeptics exist, does NOT make it so.

Now if you can point to just one VERIFIABLE instance of skepticism,
that isn't clearly a simple case of differing viewpoints then I would be
happy to debate. But I doubt that you'll be able to because none
exist. it is your claim and therefore the burden of proof rest with you...

I'l be awaiting your reply......

*que crickets chirping*

Of course this is only verifiable to you - but it does show the well hallmarked signs of a sceptical mind:

Doubting a premise based purely on a claim, asking for evidence which is irrefutable to that claim and showing a willingness to debate it further once said evidence is presented.

The chirping cricket part could be construed as rude by some - but I'm certain that you are only adding dramatic emphasis here.

So now that you have proven yourself to be the very sceptic that you claim doesn't exist can we debate this further?

-m0r

HA! I knew you were going to point at my post as evidence, but FAIL!
I simply have a differing viewpoint.

And the cricket chirping reference was literal. I have a an Asian cricket cage
and I cue the crickets to chirp (they are trained), and they help my
Norwegian Blue parrot and I relax between furious rounds of keystoking,
(I am training him to type at the moment--because my Great Dane has a
sore paw and it hurts when he has to hold down the caps key).

And by the way 'Skeptic' is not spelled with a "C"...
...you silly English person.




[edit on 11-8-2010 by rival]

Originally posted by rival
HA! I knew you were going to point at my post as evidence, but FAIL!
I simply have a differing viewpoint.

And the cricket chirping reference was literal. I have a an Asian cricket cage
and I cue the crickets to chirp (they are trained), and they help my
Norwegian Blue parrot and I relax between furious rounds of keystoking,
(I am training him to type at the moment--because my Great Dane has a
sore paw and it hurts when he has to hold down the caps key).

And by the way 'Skeptic' is not spelled with a "C"...
...you silly English person.
a little unsettled and nervy.

Okay, so now the onus is on you to prove that you knew I would use your post as an example.

My reply to you covered all the requirements for stating a perfectly validated sceptical outlook existing on these boards (Granted only verifiable to you - but it was you who was asking) so please do me the honour of exposing to me how you knew it would be used beforehand (With evidence of course - we are in a sceptic thread).

And by the way 'Sceptic' or 'Skeptic' are both spelt with a "C", just one version uses a K in lieu of an additional "C".

Also, I'm not English - but I do appreciate the Monty Python reference

-m0r

Well the opposite is true: prejudice against 'cownspih-wah-cee theorishts' is completely socially acceptable. Although in saying that, more and more people are questioning the mainstream media and seeing through it, so in my neck of the woods, it appears to be happening less. Just takes a few bold individuals to have the balls to stand up and say something.

I can see why some skeptics p$$$ people off as it may seem they are solidly ingrained into their beliefs and will not change etc etc... but life really comes down to perception. If there wasn't any big bad illuminati/etc then we wouldn't have much of a challenge would we? Same goes for skeptics. I think proper skeptical minded people are great to cut the signal to noise ratio on ats a little finer.

I for example, have seen many ufos and believe in them 100%, have studied up to commercial pilots licence so are trained to see things and recognise them in the sky - however I especially delight in debunking ufo threads where possible, go figure!

Guess I'm a wannabe skeptical conspiracy theorist!

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by rival
HA! I knew you were going to point at my post as evidence, but FAIL!
I simply have a differing viewpoint.

And the cricket chirping reference was literal. I have a an Asian cricket cage
and I cue the crickets to chirp (they are trained), and they help my
Norwegian Blue parrot and I relax between furious rounds of keystroking,
(I am training him to type at the moment--because my Great Dane has a
sore paw and it hurts when he has to hold down the caps key).

And by the way 'Skeptic' is not spelled with a "C"...
...you silly English person.
a little unsettled and nervy.

Okay, so now the onus is on you to prove that you knew I would use your post as an example.

My reply to you covered all the requirements for stating a perfectly validated sceptical outlook existing on these boards (Granted only verifiable to you - but it was you who was asking) so please do me the honour of exposing to me how you knew it would be used beforehand (With evidence of course - we are in a sceptic thread).

And by the way 'Sceptic' or 'Skeptic' are both spelt with a "C", just one version uses a K in lieu of an additional "C".

Also, I'm not English - but I do appreciate the Monty Python reference

-m0r

Okay fine, but this is getting tiresome...

As you will see from my above reply I have included the cryptic words
at the bottom of the post "...a little unsettled and nervy."

This is a thread title that I created in the prophecy forum
detailing exactly how you would use my post as proof of your claim
which I posted prior to you posting your post which I referenced
and stated that you, after finding out that I knew that YOU would post
your post before you posted it would be left "...a little unsettled and nervy."

I'm sorry I don't know If I can continue, my parrot is developing
carpal tunnel and I don't think it is prudent of me to type for myself
while inebriated.

reply to post by rival


Sorry Bucko but I can't find your thread in your profile or those words in that order on this site whatsoever. Also even just your username 'rival' and nervy don't wield any results.

Perhaps inebriation has got the better of you on this occasion eh?

Anyway - thanks for the spam (Another Monty Python reference!) and so long and thanks for all the fish!

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


Sorry mate, I didn't intend to come in and hijack your thread. Just a little
humor. Hope ya don't mind.

"I'd far rather be happy than right any day." D Adams

To put your thread back on topic...

I appreciate skeptical replies. I've altered my views, or been enlightened
many times by so-called skeptics. But there is a skeptical prejudice
on this site. It comes with the territory. When you are in Rome and NOT
doing what the Romans do...you are gonna catch a little grief for it.

Cheers

Edit to add: I can't find that thread either....hmmmm, must be a conspiracy


[edit on 11-8-2010 by rival]

reply to post by rival


No worries mate, I enjoyed our little confab. Just a shame I didn't get to see your prediction thread on my response - would've been life changing for me so it would have!!

Whilst I agree when in Rome circa 200AD do what the Romans do these days we've a set of polite criteria (PC) to think about before we throw the Christians to the lions

I still think that treatment of sceptics here (especially in light of what will come from them over time) is unfair, unjust and quite simply silly with regards to balancing reality out through scrutiny.

Perhaps it's just me though.

-m0r

Is prejudice against sceptics socially acceptable?

Originally posted by and14263
The abuse the sceptics get forces them to come together and create bonds, as shown in this thread. It is very reasonable that the sceptics post together in the same threads

Am I sensing a new opressed minority group here?

Are we going to be throwing out the scepticist card soon?

[edit on 11-8-2010 by badgerprints]

Originally posted by badgerprints
Are we going to be throwing out the scepticist card soon?

The great thing about that though is that you would have to prove it. No-one is born into being a sceptic (or are they?) and thus what they say would have to hold up to the scrutiny of other sceptics.

Now that would be fun!!

-m0r

Now we have the UK contingent awake and free from work (for the best part) and the US striving towards it - can we get some more opinions upon the matter?

Just noticed that's a long sentence - and so here's a second line.

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty

M0r1arty old buddy Good thread s&f.

After following your exchanges with copernicus I figured you would start this thread and good luck to you.

Sadly the UFO community tend to take the same line as all traditional belief systems... it requires a leap of faith. Trouble is if you point that out it they tend to react like a baptist minister - BELIEVE or BE DAMNED.

SEwatcher