What evidence would work?

[Russ_Watters]

So anyone that believes differently from you is a "liar/crackpot/fraud/troll"?

No, anyone who lies, uses persistently faulty logic, misrepresents, puts words in other people's mouths, etc. is guilty of those things. That post of yours right there is a very good example of the last two in particular.

We're not mirror images of each other, MR - only you use those tactics. Don't assume that because you use them that the people you are arguing with think the same way (heh - you probably don't; It would be tough to imagine such a stark lack of self awareness).

 

[Magical Realist]

No, anyone who lies, uses persistently faulty logic, misrepresents, puts words in other people's mouths, etc. is guilty of those things. That post of yours right there is a very good example of the last two in particular.

So cite some examples of your claim. Show where I've persistently used faulty logic, misrepresented, put words in people's mouths, etc. making me a liar/crackpot/fraud/troll. I'll wait..And while you're at it, show how any of those actions constitute me being a crackpot/fraud. Do you even know what those words mean?Crackpot means I'm crazy. Fraud means someone pretending to be something when they aren't. Show how I fit those definitions. Post where I've lied about anything. Prove that I'm crazy. Should be easy to do if you aren't lying.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So cite some examples of your claim...

Prove I'm crazy.

As I said, the post I quoted was a good example: I've never said any such thing, don't believe it and certainly never practiced it. And you probably know that, so that makes it both lying and trolling. If you didn't know it, that would just make you delusional, but functionally it has the same effect. Note: I don't believe you are crazy, I believe you are doing this on purpose. And I've stated that before.

 

[Magical Realist]

As I said, the post I quoted was a good example: I've never said any such thing, don't believe it and certainly never practiced it. And you probably know that, so that makes it both lying and trolling. If you didn't know it, that would just make you delusional, but functionally it has the same effect. Note: I don't believe you are crazy, I believe you are doing this on purpose. And I've stated that before.

I simply asked you on what basis you are calling me a liar/crackpot/fraud/troll. That's not misrepresenting anything. Now prove all those other claims. Prove I somehow secretly knew your answer when I asked you that question. Prove that I lied. Oh and now you DON'T think I'm crackpot? So you lied. Is that what misrepresenting and trolling looks like? Thanks for demonstrating that.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I simply asked you on what basis you are calling me a liar/crackpot/fraud/troll.

Now you are misrepresenting yourself! That's not what you said. You said I consider anyone who disagrees with me to be a liar/crackpot/fraud/troll.

 

[Magical Realist]

Now you are misrepresenting yourself! That's not what you said. You said I consider anyone who disagrees with me to be a liar/crackpot/fraud/troll.

Here's what I asked you:

"So anyone that believes differently from you is a "liar/crackpot/fraud/troll"?

After that I explored the implications of that assumption. That's not misrepresenting anyone. But to be honest, the fact that you included crackpot in your description of me kinda proves it has to do with my different beliefs. IE. that I'm delusional for believing in ufos, the paranormal, "..So I think you are lying that is wasn't based on belief. And I think you consider me a crackpot for it just as you said you did.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Here's what I asked you:

"So anyone that believes differently from you is a "liar/crackpot/fraud/troll"?

After that I explored the implications of that assumption. That's not misrepresenting anyone.

Making the assumption about me is misrepresenting me. Denying it is misrepresenting yourself.

IE.that I'm delusional for believing in ufos, the paranormal...

And in the post you quoted, I explicitly stated otherwise. So that is a misrepresentation too.

 

[Magical Realist]

Making the assumption about me is misrepresenting me. Denying it is misrepresenting yourself.

And in the post you quoted, I explicitly stated otherwise. So that is a misrepresentation too.

It's not a misrepresentation. You really do believe I'm a crackpot..ie. nutcase, whackjob, loon, I know all the perjoratives that are hurled by people like you at believers like me. That is demonizing people for their beliefs. It is an accurate representation of your hateful mindset, lie about though you may. And since you've provided no evidence of your claims that I've lied or used faulty logic or am a fraud, I'll take that as lying too. The more digs you take at me, the deeper your hole gets.

 

[DaveC426913]

So anyone that believes differently from you is a "liar/crackpot/fraud/troll"?

No. Just those who are willfully naive and clutter good discussion with dreadful logic.

 

[Crcata]

I simply asked you on what basis you are calling me a liar/crackpot/fraud/troll. That's not misrepresenting anything. Now prove all those other claims. Prove I somehow secretly knew your answer when I asked you that question. Prove that I lied. Oh and now you DON'T think I'm crackpot? So you lied. Is that what misrepresenting and trolling looks like? Thanks for demonstrating that.

You literally accused him of saying something he didn't say. That's misrepresentation of what he said, and putting words in his mouth. BOTH lol.

It literally happened and is documented above. He got you.

Lol

 

[billvon]

It's not a misrepresentation. You really do believe I'm a crackpot..ie. nutcase, whackjob, loon,

You may believe you are delusional - but he didn't say that. So while you may be projecting something onto him, it is your imagination rather than reality.

I know all the perjoratives that are hurled by people like you . . . .

Claiming that a whole group of people are "people like you" and all act the same is the very definition of bigotry.

The more digs you take at me, the deeper your hole gets.

You are so deep in your own hole you can't even see out any more.

 

[Russ_Watters]

It's not a misrepresentation. You really do believe I'm a crackpot..ie. nutcase, whackjob, loon...

Again: not only is that not true (well -- crackpot yes, the others no), it isn't what you said before. You said I believe anyone who disagrees with me is those things, not just you. You aren't just misrepresenting me, you are misrepresenting your own previous statement.

The reason the statement is a great example is that it clearly required a certain amount of planning. It's worded as a statement, yet has a question mark at the end, enabling a couple of potential weasel-paths to back-pedal from it if necessary: "Oh, it's a question, not a statement" or "Oh, it's a hypothetical assumption, not necessarily what I think you are -- I'm not accusing you of that." You put it out there for a reason: you purposely put words in my mouth I didn't say while (trying) to leave yourself a way to weasel out of it. That's trolling.

If I said "So you drown babies? Wow." you'd (rightly) accuse me of trolling. Oh, but I can back-out of it: it's an assumption, a hypothetical to explore the implications of it - I wasn't calling you that. OR -- it's a question, so I was asking you if you drown babies, not claiming you do. It's a purposely set-up trolling angle.

Further evidence of your nature is provided by the good posts you make in the science forums. About every month or two, you post a thread asking a real, honest question and you demonstrate the capability for a genuine attempt at learning (you don't always follow-through for long if you don't like the answer, but at least you start well). You choose to behave in a way that is downright respectable in some of those threads. That choice runs counter to the choice you consistently make here in the fringe forums: you choose to troll. That demonstration of intent an capability precludes simple delusion/insanity as an explanation for your behavior here: you're doing much of it on purpose.

 

[Magical Realist]

Again: not only is that not true (well -- crackpot yes, the others no), it isn't what you said before.

So now you admit calling me crazy, even though you denied that earlier. Waffling has become an pure artform for you hasn't it?

You said I believe anyone who disagrees with me is those things, not just you. You aren't just
misrepresenting me, you are misrepresenting your own previous statement

I asked you if that is what you claimed. I didn't claim anything.

The reason the statement is a great example is that it clearly required a certain amount of planning. It's worded as a statement, yet has a question mark at the end, enabling a couple of potential weasel-paths to back-pedal from it if necessary: "Oh, it's a question, not a statement" or "Oh, it's a hypothetical assumption, not necessarily what I think you are -- I'm not accusing you of that." You put it out there for a reason: you purposely put words in my mouth I didn't say while (trying) to leave yourself a way to weasel out of it. That's trolling.

Hey you're the one trying weasel out of thinking I'm crazy because of my beliefs. If you'd just quit lying and be honest, my statements wouldn't be so hard for you to twist around.

If I said "So you drown babies? Wow." you'd (rightly) accuse me of trolling. Oh, but I can back-out of it: it's an assumption, a hypothetical to explore the implications of it - I wasn't calling you that. OR -- it's a question, so I was asking you if you drown babies, not claiming you do. It's a purposely set-up trolling angle.

Until you answered my question it would be hypothetical. Although not so hypothetical now that you admit calling me crackpot or crazy because of my beliefs.

Further evidence of your nature is provided by the good posts you make in the science forums. About every month or two, you post a thread asking a real, honest question and you demonstrate the capability for a genuine attempt at learning (you don't always follow-through for long if you don't like the answer, but at least you start well). You choose to behave in a way that is downright respectable in some of those threads. That choice runs counter to the choice you consistently make here in the fringe forums: you choose to troll. That demonstration of intent an capability precludes simple delusion/insanity as an explanation for your behavior here: you're doing much of it on purpose.

You're 'the one who called me crackpot/liar/fraud/troll. You have so far provided zero evidence for any of those claims. That's lying and trolling right there. Now you're trying to claim you never thought me crazy because of my beliefs even though you called me crackpot. There's very little I believe from you at all at this point. And that's the sign of trolling--backpeddling and changing one's meanings and intents to avoid being pinned down on anything. It's basically what gets you nothing more than ignored.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So now you admit calling me crazy, even though you denied that earlier.

Lol, you just can't stop, can you!

 

[Crcata]

I love how Russ predicted MRs follow up troll argument of "I asked, I did not state" so spot on lolol.

 

[Yazata]

I'm still curious about the anger and hostility that the whole subject elicits among self-styled "skeptics". I see it here on Sciforums and in organizations like CSICOP. It reminds me of the anger that the "new atheists" wear on their sleeves.

It's pretty simple to explain: we don't like liars/crackpots/frauds/trolls.

That doesn't really answer the question that I asked. It just demonstrates that the kind of attitude that I was addressing is a real phenomenon.

 

[Russ_Watters]

That doesn't really answer the question that I asked. It just demonstrates that the kind of attitude that I was addressing is a real phenomenon.

Well, you didn't ask a question, but I did respond to both points:
1. Yes, it's a real thing.
2. I explained why.

But really, does it need explaining? Those things aren't nice. When people do not so nice things to other people, the other people get upset. So you should be nice. I think I learned that in kindergarten.

 

[Magical Realist]

Well, you didn't ask a question, but I did respond to both points:
1. Yes, it's a real thing.
2. I explained why.

But really, does it need explaining? Those things aren't nice. When people do not so nice things to other people, the other people get upset. So you should be nice. I think I learned that in kindergarten.

Still waiting for you to support your childish and insulting labels with my actual statements. Are you making any headway on it? lol!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Still waiting for you to support your childish and insulting labels with my actual statements. Are you making any headway on it? lol!

We finished that conversation already.

 

[Magical Realist]

We finished that conversation already.

Where you couldn't support any of those slurs. You couldn't even decide if you thought I was a crackpot or not. Yeah...you're finished alright.