When did the C+S designation become worthless?

[steve001]

Well I guess I am responsible for reducing the emphasis on this. After the departure of a certain person, there seemed less need to enforce that rule. I mean I don't see why someone can't make a sceptical point so long as they don't try to hog the discussion, or make stupid, trivial, or repetitive comments. sometimes we all make sceptical comments about particular subjects.

Suppose Malf or Steve001 wanted to report a precognitive dream - where would he post it

I find it easier to judge comments on their merits.

However, the distinction still exists, and can be reimposed if necessary.

David

Don't worry, I wouldn't because I've never had one.

 

[David Bailey]

Don't worry, I wouldn't because I've never had one.

Neither have I, but Dr. Michael Shermer had an extraordinary paranormal incident - have you read about it?

David

 

[Kamarling]

Don't worry, I wouldn't because I've never had one.

Should we interpret that as you would never have one (use of the word "wouldn't" rather than "haven't") seems to suggest that. If so, is that because such dreams are impossible?

 

[steve001]

Should we interpret that as you would never have one (use of the word "wouldn't" rather than "haven't") seems to suggest that. If so, is that because such dreams are impossible?

Interpret it as a joke.

 

[Kamarling]

Ahh, right ... as I usually do. Got it.

 

[steve001]

Neither have I, but Dr. Michael Shermer had an extraordinary paranormal incident - have you read about it?

David

Yes, I did, but I don't remember well enough to comment all that he recounted.

 

[Arouet]

Actually, though there is a genuine issue here, I don't think it has ever been clearly understood. In the early days of this forum there was a lot of whining from certain members about being treated as outcasts, and in effect complaining of being considered second-class citizens.

You call it whining, but perhaps consider it from our perspective.

The issue wasn't over there being subforums where certain viewpoints where limited. The issue was that we were (and still are apparently) made to feel like pieces of crap that shouldn't even be permitted to participate in those subforums to explore those ideas from that perspective. That we are "stuck on stupid" and too dim to have an opinion worth hearing about how we would interpret things from different perspectives.

It was designed to demean and diminish us. We know this because otherwise it would have been presented without the demeaning language. How could it not be take as insulting?

On the old forums (a few years ago) there was a zone called 'the haven', which seemed to work rather better. Maybe it was simply more strictly moderated, but it seemed to exist, and have its own conversations quite happily without apparent dissent. (Or maybe I missed the dissent, I'm a relative newcomer myself).

I suppose that when this new forum was set up, in effect it was considered that all of it was like the old haven, and then a special area was set up to allow more broad discussions. Perhaps simply that restructuring didn't quite serve the same purpose. In a lot of ways it was working ok, but I've found that private conversations are perhaps serving the purpose which the old haven did, which in a way is ok, but sometimes I think it's a shame that discussions are driven underground like that, it's a kind of failure somewhere - though I don't place the responsibility for this on anyone in particular, it's more to do with the physical structure or layout perhaps.

I also think it is a shame. And unnecessary. Look, I get that there have been times where skeptical points of view have krept into those threads. For my part it's either been when I haven't noticed or when a discussion has gone into skeptic bashing. Or when a newcomer starts a thread in the science section not realizing it should have gone into CD. But it's not the majority of threads. I don't think it is the intention of any of the regs to stop those discussions.

I don't object to clamping down on that and will do my part to be more mindful of it

But there is no reason those kinds of discussions can't go on. And I'd even like to participate in some of them. I think there are some members of this forum who particularly dislike and distrust people who they identify as having certain beliefs. I'm not saying I don't understand why. I do. But it is unfortunate because I think these members foster the divisions between us. But I don't think that does anyone any good. We need to bridge the gap. Not necessarily meaning we all have to agree with one another, but that we need to mutually respect one another. That's accomplished only by bringing us together, not apart.

I know this makes some people roll their eyes, but think about it. This place could really be something special. A true haven for intellectual discourse about these topics which we all share a passion for, regardless of metaphysic.

I'm not saying trust will happen overnight. But it's something to strive for and it will never happen if we keep putting up these artificial barriers.

 

[Kamarling]

That we are "stuck on stupid" and too dim to have an opinion worth hearing about how we would interpret things from different perspectives.

I agree that "stuck on stupid" was an unfortunate and derogatory term but I think I remember why it was coined. It was to do with the repetition of certain stock explanations for NDEs, etc., usually along the lines of Blackmore and Wiseman. Perhaps that's why Small Dog was not very well received when he (let's face it) arrogantly pursued a similar line of argument. And by arrogantly, I mean that his accusations of the lack of intellectual or professional faculties were directed at the proponents.

Incidentally, I have probably been your biggest critic yet we have had private conversations which ended up with civility. Others have been much more accommodating when it comes to the avenues you prefer to explore. I really don't think that you are generally regarded as dim, if fact I - your big critic - usually defer to your superior education and debating skills.

 

[steve001]

I agree that "stuck on stupid" was an unfortunate and derogatory term but I think I remember why it was coined. It was to do with the repetition of certain stock explanations for NDEs, etc., usually along the lines of Blackmore and Wiseman. Perhaps that's why Small Dog was not very well received when he (let's face it) arrogantly pursued a similar line of argument. And by arrogantly, I mean that his accusations of the lack of intellectual or professional faculties were directed at the proponents.

Incidentally, I have probably been your biggest critic yet we have had private conversations which ended up with civility. Others have been much more accommodating when it comes to the avenues you prefer to explore. I really don't think that you are generally regarded as dim, if fact I - your big critic - usually defer to your superior education and debating skills.

Well, he's a damn lawyer that's why you should. ;-)

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Well, he's a damn lawyer that's why you should.

Victor Zammit is a lawyer and he wrote a case for the afterlife based on analyzing evidence from a lawyer's perspective.

Should we also bow to his superior education and debating skills?

 

[steve001]

Victor Zammit is a lawyer and he wrote a case for the afterlife based on analyzing evidence from a lawyer's perspective.

Should we also bow to his superior education and debating skills?

Oops, I put an emoticon in via my mobile which didn't appear. I've added one.
In Zammits case no.
It really bugs you to no end what I said about Tallis doesn't it?
How how longer are you going to carry on this Trumpian style assault. It reminds me of high school. He and you prove the adage " real life is just high school with money". Do I follow you around this forum? Be like K9!, if you don't like what I say don't engage.

 

[north]

There are a large number of scientism proselytizers that I have on ignore. However when they post outside of CD, they often manage to drag others into the usual "debates" / regurgitation of talking points that then takes threads off track.

I would welcome the return to strict moderation of the "banned" of seven.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Oops, I put an emoticon in via my mobile which didn't appear. I've added one.
In Zammits case no.
It really bugs you to no end what I said about Tallis doesn't it?
How how longer are you going to carry on this Trumpian style assault. It reminds me of high school. He and you prove the adage " real life is just high school with money". Do I follow you around this forum? Be like K9!, if you don't like what I say don't engage.

Doesn't it bug me? No, not really.

Actually I think you're a great addition to this forum. You've probably convinced more people to at least question materialism than I ever could.

 

[steve001]

Doesn't it bug me? No, not really.

Actually I think you're a great addition to this forum. You've probably convinced more people to at least question materialism than I ever could.

I'm all ears and eyes waiting to see this world is immaterial. Here's an easy way to do that. You or anyone could demonstrate the world is immaterial. http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/a-pk-diy-device.3412/

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I'm all ears and eyes waiting to see this world is immaterial. Here's an easy way to do that. You or anyone could demonstrate the world is immaterial. http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/a-pk-diy-device.3412/

Actually no PK wouldn't automatically mean the world is immaterial.

Just as nothing you've ever posted is a confirmation of materialism.

 

[David Bailey]

There are a large number of scientism proselytizers that I have on ignore. However when they post outside of CD, they often manage to drag others into the usual "debates" / regurgitation of talking points that then takes threads off track.

I would welcome the return to strict moderation of the "banned" of seven.

Why don't you pick a recent case that is particularly bad in your opinion, and hit the report button. Remember that I don't have the time to read everything on this website, so I do rely on reports.

David

 

[David Bailey]

Don't worry, I wouldn't because I've never had one.

How do you think you would feel if you did have one?

David

 

[steve001]

How do you think you would feel if you did have one?

David

I would say that was a curious thing. But what I would not do ever, is assume it was precognitive. I would remain in an indeterminate state. One curious thing cannot be conclusive in my point of view. Do you understand?

 

[steve001]

Actually no PK wouldn't automatically mean the world is immaterial.

Just as nothing you've ever posted is a confirmation of materialism.

Are you so sure? Pk is a demonstration that the mind can control reality. You do realize that? It's actually no different than Radin using the double slit. Speaking of evidence, there is a post I made sometime this month. In that post I link to a recently aired current season of the show "Ghost Hunters". In that show the crew caught something interesting. See if you can find it.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Are you so sure? Pk is a demonstration that the mind can control reality. You do realize that?

Yes, I'm sure.

I, however, would agree that if any Psi phenomenon would give materialism trouble it would likely be PK. But it doesn't prove immaterialism just by existing.