Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Noble  Whine, whine, whine. |
Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough -- I have seen the
light, I agree completely. When a Skeptic criticizes someone who disagrees with The Truth, or when a Skeptic objects to being held to minimal standards of logic, rationality, science or classical skepticism they are
not -- I repeat
not -- whining and anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously on the side of Ignorance. This is because the Skeptic is a Champion of Truth, and as such, cannot be held to any such standards.
On the other had The Ignorant -- those who disagree with The Truth -- are whining if they object to whatever standards of proof are demanded, without any logical justification or even demonstration of it being expected in any other circumstance; if they ask for support for whatever the Skeptic proclaims to be True; if they require some real logic or support for the Skeptics proclamations; if they expect to be treated with respect; if they expect a fair, objective evaluation of their claims and the support they provide for them; etc.
The two circumstances are completely different -- in fact polar opposites. Th e Skeptic's position is Truth, pure and simple. There is no need for
any standards in support of the Truth -- any purported statement in its support (or equivalently, against statements against it unequivocal acceptance) is unnecessary but if granted should be considered a blessing and met with applause. However weak, irrational, incomplete, unsupported or even contrary to fact such a statement is, it is beyond reproach. On the other hand, since contrary statements are opposed to The Truth, they are therefore, ipso facto, False and Ignorant. No evidence however strong is strong enough to be worth considering, no standards of evidence, however standard elsewhere or exceeding what is standard elsewhere are strong enough, no logic which might be applied to its defense is valid. They deserve only denigration.
So, I agree completely. When you objected to being asked to support your claim, you were not whining. When you accused those who asked for it of "playing a game" you were not whining. When you turned it around and claimed that by requesting that you support your claim that the requesters were making a claim that
they were required to support, you were not whining. All this was simply a Skeptic Championing the Truth and was therefore fair, rational, right and elegant. But of course, when I challenged the fairness, rationality and rightness of your statements, I was -- I now fully see -- whining. The only proper response to anything a Skeptic says is unhesitant acceptance, with, perhaps some cheers and applause thrown in.
