Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Stereotypes

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stereotypes

    Sorry - I read it and decided it would not be helpful to post it, so I withdraw the post. Seems I can't delete it or remove the poll so maybe the moderator can do that for me?
    23
    Sketpics more so than proponents
    39.13%
    9
    Proponents more so than skeptics
    4.35%
    1
    The proposed stereotypes are far from accurate
    30.43%
    7
    Both stereotypes are accurate and represented here
    26.09%
    6
    Last edited by Kamarling; April 5th, 2013, 03:20 AM. Reason: Decided to withdraw the comments

  • #2
    We need another poll to ask who conforms to the stereotype of constantly stereotyping other groups.

    You can probably figure out how I voted.

    ~~ Paul

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
      We need another poll to ask who conforms to the stereotype of constantly stereotyping other groups.

      You can probably figure out how I voted.

      ~~ Paul
      Perhaps, one day, you will figure out why I asked for the poll to be removed. As a matter of fact, I can't figure out what motivates you at all. Something a bit sad about your compulsive need to sneer.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
        Perhaps, one day, you will figure out why I asked for the poll to be removed. As a matter of fact, I can't figure out what motivates you at all. Something a bit sad about your compulsive need to sneer.
        But you had the "proposed stereotypes are far from accurate" item, which allows people like me to express my opinion. I'm not sure why you withdrew the poll.

        I believe we all spend too much time stereotyping. It seems to act as a diversion from actually discussing the issues.

        ~~ Paul

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
          Sorry - I read it and decided it would not be helpful to post it, so I withdraw the post. Seems I can't delete it or remove the poll so maybe the moderator can do that for me?
          Sorry, I don't know how to get rid of the poll. I tried deleting the first post, but that got rid of the thread also so I undeleted it.

          AP

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by paqart View Post
            Sorry, I don't know how to get rid of the poll. I tried deleting the first post, but that got rid of the thread also so I undeleted it.

            AP
            Why not just get rid of the thread then? Kmarling could just start another one. It's not like we're losing anything more than one decent comment. That person will be welcome to repost.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Craig Weiler View Post
              Why not just get rid of the thread then? Kmarling could just start another one. It's not like we're losing anything more than one decent comment. That person will be welcome to repost.
              Go for it as far as I am concerned. My original intention was to question the stereotypes and gauge the prevailing opinion about whether they were accurate or not. But on second thoughts I feared it might have the opposite effect of pushing people into camps (stereotyping). So I withdrew my comments and asked for the poll to be removed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
                Perhaps, one day, you will figure out why I asked for the poll to be removed. As a matter of fact, I can't figure out what motivates you at all. Something a bit sad about your compulsive need to sneer.
                What is wrong with the poll? Apart from a trivial obvious typo, it is fine.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, I did write a personal view including a description of the stereotypes as I see them. I then decided that it probably wouldn't add anything useful to post it so deleted it and asked for the poll to be removed. People will have made their minds up without needing to be counted on one side or the other.

                  For the record, I think that skeptics do fit a general stereotype more so than proponents but there is probably a good reason for this: in my experience (here and elsewhere) skeptics are usually atheists and always materialists (physicalists, if you prefer). Again, in my view, they tend to be dogmatic, arrogant and condescending. There are always exceptions and there are one or two here, but in general, I would not like to spend an evening with most of the skeptics here, much less any of those who support JREF or some of the atheist blogs.

                  The proponent stereotype is more difficult to make stick because many proponent views are not necessarily opposite to the skeptics. Many are indeed quite skeptical to a degree. Most are not creationists, many are not even religious, many enjoy science, many are very well educated and many have come from a skeptical background before changing their views. Yet proponents are still taunted as being religious conservatives who believe a simplistic biblical account of a God who designed all creation, who are superstitious and credulous, who ignore scientific evidence and who are unable to think critically.

                  It seems the votes are happening despite my reluctance to keep the poll so I have now added my views to the mix. I will, no doubt, be told how wrong my views are but that's fine: I don't intend to get into a debate so I'll go back to lurking.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
                    For the record, I think that skeptics do fit a general stereotype more so than proponents but there is probably a good reason for this: in my experience (here and elsewhere) skeptics are usually atheists and always materialists (physicalists, if you prefer). Again, in my view, they tend to be dogmatic, arrogant and condescending. There are always exceptions and there are one or two here, but in general, I would not like to spend an evening with most of the skeptics here, much less any of those who support JREF or some of the atheist blogs.
                    I think you are defining the word skeptic to refer to this set of people specifically. I know lots of skeptical folks who are religious or certainly not materialists. If I were to narrow down the proponents to a certain subset, I could come up with a nasty group, too.

                    Regarding the small group of skeptics here, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to have a beer with us. We are really not nasty at all. In fact, I think if you tallied up the nastiness, the proponents would win. Perhaps it's a majority versus minority thing.

                    ~~ Paul

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
                      I think you are defining the word skeptic to refer to this set of people specifically. I know lots of skeptical folks who are religious or certainly not materialists.
                      ~~ Paul
                      We all know that you know fine well who and what I am talking about so don't do the definitions thing again. I would have thought you had worn out that tired old tactic during your goading of Lone Shaman. I bet you literally roll about laughing every time you get him to explain his definition yet again.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
                        We all know that you know fine well who and what I am talking about so don't do the definitions thing again. I would have thought you had worn out that tired old tactic during your goading of Lone Shaman. I bet you literally roll about laughing every time you get him to explain his definition yet again.
                        No, actually, I do not. The fact that you don't believe I am trying to have a reasonable conversation in that thread suggests to me that you have lumped everyone into confined categories and are too blind to see the differences between people.

                        ~~ Paul

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
                          No, actually, I do not. The fact that you don't believe I am trying to have a reasonable conversation in that thread suggests to me that you have lumped everyone into confined categories and are too blind to see the differences between people.

                          ~~ Paul
                          If you want to be precise - as you demand with your definitions gambit - define "everyone". I made the point that proponents are hard to categorise because of their diverse beliefs - and yes, I did include the proponents on this forum. I think the only category you are concerned about being confined within is that known to the rest of us as pseudo-skeptics. You only pretend to have reasonable conversations but you are playing a game. The game, I would guess, is to keep your massive ego happy. Nobody strings out discussions the way you do. You are doing it with Lone Shaman and you did it with Maaneli in the Ganzfeld thread, long after you should have conceded (no, I'm not going to attempt to summarise those discussions - anyone who is interested can form their own opinions by reading them).

                          Don't you ever ask yourself, why? By the way, if you are housebound or disabled in some way, then I can sympathise with your need to participate and that might explain the 12,000+ posts. If not - the question remains: why? It is not as though you have anything new to say that you didn't say in the first thousand.

                          You see folks, this is why I returned to lurking many months ago - I get drawn in and end up all emotional and it isn't good for me. So its back to lurking for me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kamarling View Post

                            Don't you ever ask yourself, why? By the way, if you are housebound or disabled in some way, then I can sympathise with your need to participate and that might explain the 12,000+ posts. If not - the question remains: why? It is not as though you have anything new to say that you didn't say in the first thousand.
                            The board won't move on until that question is answered. Paul has a ready answer for every post except that one. You have my sympathy Kamarling.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
                              If you want to be precise - as you demand with your definitions gambit - define "everyone". I made the point that proponents are hard to categorise because of their diverse beliefs - and yes, I did include the proponents on this forum. I think the only category you are concerned about being confined within is that known to the rest of us as pseudo-skeptics. You only pretend to have reasonable conversations but you are playing a game. The game, I would guess, is to keep your massive ego happy. Nobody strings out discussions the way you do. You are doing it with Lone Shaman and you did it with Maaneli in the Ganzfeld thread, long after you should have conceded (no, I'm not going to attempt to summarise those discussions - anyone who is interested can form their own opinions by reading them).

                              Don't you ever ask yourself, why? By the way, if you are housebound or disabled in some way, then I can sympathise with your need to participate and that might explain the 12,000+ posts. If not - the question remains: why? It is not as though you have anything new to say that you didn't say in the first thousand.

                              You see folks, this is why I returned to lurking many months ago - I get drawn in and end up all emotional and it isn't good for me. So its back to lurking for me.
                              Kamarling,

                              I sympathize with what you are saying here. I don't understand it either.

                              But another thing I don't understand is why more people don't use the ignore list. If you haven't tried using it I suggest you try it.

                              http://forum.mind-energy.net/profile.php?do=ignorelist

                              I find it lets me enjoy having discussions with other members who have something interesting to say.

                              I'm not suggesting anyone use the ignore list to hide from views they don't want to face. I'm suggesting they use it to tune out posts that have nothing useful to say and only clutter up the forum. When people reply to posts like that they are only contributing to create more clutter. You should consider that there are other people on the forum looking for useful information and having difficulty. Because of all the clutter finding useful information can be like looking for a needle in a haystack. You can't stop other people from posting but you can control what you post.

                              The thread on the origin of the genetic code could have been a real asset to the forum, but with over 1800 posts it is impossible to find anything useful in it. I wish the people running this forum would recognize such clutter is a problem and try to do something about it.
                              Last edited by anonymous; April 8th, 2013, 08:15 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X