Creepy trail cam and gopro pics

What are you worked up about? then he/she just gave you fodder to analyze, deconstruct or agree/disagree. what is the problem with that then?
Click to expand...

This is an emotional area for James R, and for good reason. Science is like his form of religion, and if you go against it in any way well just watch out. If he can't censor you he will more than likely assault you with ad homs and mocking insults about being stupid and gullible which ofcourse we all know isn't proper sci forums protocol. But it's his god damn group and science is the gospel and well that's just the way it's gonna be whether anyone likes it or not.
 
Magical Realist said:
This is an emotional area for James R, and for good reason. Science is like his form of religion, and if you go against it in any way well just watch out.
Click to expand...
It's such a pity to have a brain and yet never use it. That's what I find most frustrating. You can lead a horse to water but ...
 
James R said:
It's such a pity to have a brain and yet never use it. That's what I find most frustrating. You can lead a horse to water but ...
Click to expand...

Right, James. That's why you make your points based on your scientific expertise and let it stand on it's own merit for others to decide freely for themselves. Done.

The beauty of it is that readers will most likely take away or extrapolate something of importance from all perspectives. The rational, scrutiny or scientific points as well as the unknown or loopholes yet to be understood or verified. It makes one think. period.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
It's such a pity to have a brain and yet never use it. That's what I find most frustrating. You can lead a horse to water but ...
Click to expand...
You are too kind, I think. The evidence suggests MR has a brain, but chooses to use it to attack rationality. I am sure it is a political or psychological choice he has made.
 
James R said:
The opening post is a drive-by posting of a youtube clip, with no analysis or commentary from MR other than his personal opinion that the clip is "legit", supported by zero evidence or investigation. There's no point of discussion raised. There's no evidence that MR has looked into any of the 5 cases mentioned. In fact, all indications are that MR's only source of information on these cases is the video clip he has posted. He might as well have posted a link to an episode of Sesame Street that he happened to enjoy watching.

There's no evidence that MR switched on his brain at any point in the process of cutting and pasting the link.
Click to expand...
In my view it is just anti-rational trolling, to annoy scientists. No better than Fat Freddy.
 
exchemist said:
In my view it is just anti-rational trolling, to annoy scientists. No better than Fat Freddy.
Click to expand...

well, everyone has a point of view, don't they? maybe your expertise is not in reading people's intentions. no one is perfect.

The evidence suggests MR has a brain, but chooses to use it to attack rationality
Click to expand...

More like he finds the idea of UFO's and the paranormal fascinating foremost. You can't read that? again, no one is perfect.

No better than Fat Freddy
Click to expand...

btw, one can tell by reading between the very obvious lines that fat freddy believed in his topic. it wasn't for the purpose to just 'attack' rationality. but the likes of fat freddy gives you an opportunity to prove what is rational or irrational and to everyone that may learn a thing or two because of the debate, so why hate? lol.

The core aspect about the rational and logic is there is no competition because it's foundational, so there is no need to be insecure, if that is the point one is trying to make. Of course, logic can be misapplied because not all variables or info is known, depending on the subject matter.
 
Last edited:
The principles of logic, however, are very hard to misapply without deliberate and wilful ignorance.
 
Daecon said:
The principles of logic, however, are very hard to misapply without deliberate and wilful ignorance.
Click to expand...

the principles of logic are equally futile and inconclusive when you don't have all the facts but believe you do and jump to conclusions based on omission/lack of facts. that's a two-way street: misapplied logic to which you can neither verify existing or non-existing but conclude to be non-existing instead of the logical neutral position of which can't be verified for or against. you make the same mistake as believers (a type of faith in the unknown) but the type of logical fallacy you trump as more realistic is founded on which you have no knowledge of either but decide conclusive by actual ignorance. logic: if I can't perceive it or do not have the ability to prove, therefore it doesn't exist. that's actually illogical, even if based on a conceptual idea that is dreamed up. unless that idea can be proven to be false, it's still a possibility.

btw, logic can be misapplied without deliberate intent. heck, that was just pure logic but I believe not definitively but that there may be a possibility based on unexplained clues there is more than our current understanding of reality.
 
Last edited:
birch said:
well, everyone has a point of view, don't they? maybe your expertise is not in reading people's intentions. no one is perfect.



More like he finds the idea of UFO's and the paranormal fascinating foremost. You can't read that? again, no one is perfect.



btw, one can tell by reading between the very obvious lines that fat freddy believed in his topic. it wasn't for the purpose to just 'attack' rationality. but the likes of fat freddy gives you an opportunity to prove what is rational or irrational and to everyone that may learn a thing or two because of the debate, so why hate? lol.

The core aspect about the rational and logic is there is no competition because it's foundational, so there is no need to be insecure, if that is the point one is trying to make. Of course, logic can be misapplied because not all variables or info is known, depending on the subject matter.
Click to expand...
Because I don't accept your analysis of either of these people.

What they both lack is any sense of posting in good faith. Anyone who has dealt with them has found they duck and weave, prevaricating, changing their stories, flip-flopping between being serious and having a laugh when things get tough for them, and so on.

I have no trouble discussing things with people who argue their corner in good faith. But I've been around on forums long enough to smell someone who is disingenuous - or shit-stirring, like Dumbest. I have no time at all for people like that, personally.

And spare me your psychobabble about "insecurity". I am just a grumpy old git, like a lot of men my age.
 
You are too kind, I think. The evidence suggests MR has a brain, but chooses to use it to attack rationality. I am sure it is a political or psychological choice he has made.
Click to expand...

Posting video, photo, and eyewitness evidence is an attack on rationality? Since when?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top