|
|
|
|
#1
10-06-1999, 08:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skeptics are a closed-minded, line-following, cowardly bunch with no real balls.
They live in a tiny world with their huge egos and never really accomplish anything, except recruit more spineless wannabes.  ------------------ There's always another beer. 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#3
10-06-1999, 08:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beer, so your skeptical of skeptics,eh?
|
|
#4
10-06-1999, 08:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beeruser, is it true that you're the guy Nicolas Cage based his characterization on in Leaving Las Vegas?(
|
|
#5
10-06-1999, 10:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I realize this was a post that slithered down the board list from the Pit where Beeruser intended it to be, but an excess of anything is wrong. That would include skepticism. Moderation in all things, including moderation!
|
|
#6
10-06-1999, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, since it’s in Great Debates, I’ll do some debunking.
I note with interest that BeerUser failed to provide any proof for his opinion that "Skeptics are a closed-minded, line-following, cowardly bunch with no real balls." I’ll start with your allegation that skeptics have no balls. If you meant to say that skeptics have balls but that they are not real, please correct me, and I’ll be glad to debunk that, too. You cannot simply make an assertion of this nature and expect people to believe it. We need facts. A link to an original source, a book, anything would be a start. And no anecdotes-- The simple fact that you heard somewhere about a ball-less skeptic is not proof. Even solid proof of the existence of a single or even a few ball-less skeptics does not mean that you can make a blanket assertion as to the ball-lessness skeptics in general. Remember that correlation is not necessarily causation, especially in the esoteric field of testicular deficiency. Keep in mind that you make an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary proof is needed. As to your second assertion, it assumes a priori the correctness of the first. Ergo, it is meaningless until you can prove the foundation. So until you provide some real evidence, I refuse to believe that skeptics are any of the things you claim. Can I wink-smiley thing a whole post? I’ll try ------------------ Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
|
|
#7
10-06-1999, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Manhattan, where can I send the retainer? You're just the kind of lawyer anyone could possibly want?
Now, to the topic at hand.... Some skeptics are of the female persuasion. With the rarest of exceptions, and ignoring incomplete transsexual operations, female persons are not possessed of balls in the anatomical sense. Therefore it is safe to believe that at least some skeptics are ball-less. Further, I have never, whether in real life or in observations of fiction, non-fiction, or the Web, observed a skeptic attempting to recruit an invertebrate organism (except for one discussion with a theologically-minded octopus, but my own mental state was not conducive to objective observation at the time, and I may have hallucinated it). Therefore I would have to take exception to BeerUser's comment about "...recruit[ing] more spineless wannabes."
|
|
#9
10-06-1999, 11:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dammit, here I have been travelling on my life-journey, thinking that I am a fairly skeptical person if not a full-blown skeptic. Then Beeruser posts his well-reasoned definition of a skeptic, and I find the props knocked out from under me. I suppose that I will have to think of myself in different terms from now on, as I would never think of questioning Beeruser's use of terms. Maybe I could use "realist", as I do live in the great big objectively verifiable world, usually.
I would like to second Polycarp's high opinion of manhatten. Any attorney who is also an old Deadhead can't be all bad. ------------------ Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University Cave ab homine unius libri
|
|
#10
10-06-1999, 11:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are apparently unaware that "wannabe" is an invertebrate species know for its lack of testicles, grossly swollen ego and ability to follow a line precisely. It is also much prized for ease of recruitment by various groups, but I am generally told that skeptics find them unappealing, preferring to let the wannabes attach their leech-like mouths to the less discriminating. Therefore I must also object to Beeruser's assertions.
------------------ "Eppur, si muove!" - Galileo Galilei
|
|
#11
10-06-1999, 11:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dr. Fidelius said:
Quote:
|
|
#12
10-06-1999, 11:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, I will admit that I am close-minded. Every time I leave my mind open, the cat gets out.
|
|
#15
10-06-1999, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
He can't possibly be Occam. Look at that stubble!
------------------ "The world ends when I die. And as far as I'm concerned, the rest of the universe might as well call it a day too." -- Matt Groening
|
|
#18
10-06-1999, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Personally, I think believing is the natural state of the human animal. We didn't evolve this far by questioning things. It is no great mystery that people believe things. What's strange is that once in a while people question their beliefs.
So, I no longer look down on people for believing the far-out stuff they do. I realize that I am a pervert for not believing. But it's a damn good thing there are skeptics around. If it hadn't been for skeptics, the Egyptian economy would have collapsed in antiquity, because the believers kept burying the gold and the skeptics kept digging it back up.
|
|
#19
10-06-1999, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beeruser is right; you are all wrong. The three-part proof is as follows:
Feelings (Argumentum in flagrante) It simply feels better to be credulous. Try it some time. It's so much easier to assume people are telling the truth, and that they know what they are talking about. Takes a lot of the work out of life, and if you run with a crowd of right-thinking people, you must be right too. It's also friendlier. Where do you all get off telling people they are wrong, anyway? So by the simple standard of civil interaction, skeptics suck. As for Beeruser and his interactions with you all - well, you're probably just a bunch of poopyheads anyway. (And thus add evidence to his naked assertion.) Desires (Q. What do you call 10,000 skeptics chained to the bottom of the ocean? A. Where did you find 10,000 skeptics?) There is a way that the world should be. All good people know what it is. Skeptics keep screwing it up; ergo, they suck. Plus, since it is given that we cannot know reality, why do you bother making assertions about what it isn't, or waste time trying to determine what it is? Timewasting troublemakers = suck, no? Beer (Argumentum in fermentum) 'Fess up: how many (true) skeptics don't drink beer? And if you drink beer, HOW do you drink beer? EXACTLY! The carbonation hurts like hell taken intravenously. Ergo, you suck. So does Beeruser, I imagine.
|
|
#20
10-06-1999, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
DavidForster wrote:
Quote:
Although I do drink ROOT beer on occasion. ------------------ The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
|
|
#21
10-06-1999, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hellfire and damnation. I don't just drink beer, I brew my own. I'm skeptical about anyone who says they enjoy typical commercial American beers. Like making love in a canoe...
|
|
#22
10-06-1999, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, I'm a spineless wannabe, and I really resent being called a skeptic!
(Wait a minute...) ------------------ sigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigsig
|
|
#24
10-07-1999, 12:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dr F:
Quote:
That is all. Waste Flick Lives!
|
|
#25
10-07-1999, 12:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, yeah, I also think that Beeruser is being a little too broad-brushed.
Waste Flick Lives!
|
|
#27
10-07-1999, 08:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I, too, consider myself a skeptic and brew my own beer. This is beyond coincidence...
We're through the looking glass, people. Waste Flick Lives!
|
|
#29
10-07-1999, 08:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possibly we have a pattern here. The credulous masses have a great will to believe whatever an authority figure tells them, therefore they are more likely to beleive thay enjoy commercial beers. The skeptics, on the other hand, are more likely to say "This is the best you can offer? I'm sure that through a little hands-on experimentation I can do better." We are less likely to accept something just because we are told that manny other people accept it...
|
|
#31
10-07-1999, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Satan:
All the vitamins are in the sludge.
|
|
#32
10-07-1999, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tracer: Close enough! You, too, suck. Welcome to the club.
|
|
#33
10-07-1999, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Youuuu raaaang???? Did someone call me? Hmmm...
My dear DrugUser, er... I meant BeerAbUser, er... whatever... : Where are you? Getting over that hangover? Note: I don't drink beer (I guess I'm in the minorities), my son won't let me...  , and I am a skeptic!
|
|
#35
10-08-1999, 12:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Satan, if you are serious, you are missing one of the things that makes life a little more bearable.
If, however, you were simply being a smart-ass, please ignore the above. Waste Flick Lives!
|
|
#36
10-08-1999, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
To add to the conspiracy: I brew my own beer and I am also a skeptic. And I believe you come to a much greater appreciation for beer if you make it yourself. And no matter how bad you are at it, it can't be worse than mass-produced American swill.
TheDude
|
|
#37
10-09-1999, 12:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK Potential friends in new time & space.... my 1st post anywhere ever...
I've always wanted to put this out into the general mind.... how bout instead of "balls' all we intelligent folks adopt the term "huevos"??? In the blessed encroachment of Espanol, it means "balls" in the macho sense, but I think can also be expanded (in the of course most generous sense) to its more inclusive meaning of "eggs" to encompass those of us ladies who just might be able to hold the little bit of our own left to us in the latter 20th century. What say y'all??
|
|
#38
10-09-1999, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK Potential friends in new time & space.... my 1st post anywhere ever...
I've always wanted to put this out into the general mind.... how bout instead of "balls' all we intelligent folks adopt the term "huevos"??? In the blessed encroachment of Espanol, it means "balls" in the macho sense, but I think can also be expanded (in the of course most generous sense) to its more inclusive meaning of "eggs" to encompass those of us ladies who just might be able to hold the little bit of our own left to us in the latter 20th century. What say y'all??
|
|
#39
10-09-1999, 08:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
your humble TubaDiva "better drink that one before it goes off, doncha think?" ------------------ 43rd Law of Computing:Anything that can go wr {segmentation fault}
|
|
#40
10-10-1999, 12:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
1) I am a skeptic.
2) 3) I do suck sometimes. On special occasions. Sometimes I even swallow. This doesn't have anything to do with my status as a skeptic, though. 3) I have no balls. This lack is not due to personal deficiency. Perhaps Mr. User is not aware that roughly half of the population of the world lack balls. Maybe Mr. User should put the beer down and do an impromptu 'ball check' among his family and friends. I think he'll find the ball/no ball split to be around fifty-fifty. ------------------ Jess Full of 'satiable curtiosity
|
|
#41
10-11-1999, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have serious doubts about this whole skeptics suck thread.
By the way, how come the opposite of skeptic doesn't have a group lable? You know, the "Oh, I believe in everything." crowd? ------------------ Tris
|
|
#44
10-11-1999, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would say that the opposite of skeptical would be credulous. Gullible carries the connotation of being easily duped and cheated while credulous simply says that one is too ready to believe.
------------------ Tom~
|
|
#45
10-11-1999, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seen around (or just made up):
Credophiles (those who just love to believe); Believeniks; Trusties; Induhviduals (with emphasis on the DUH); Normal people... Okay, Polycarp: you're right. Those other, shorter words do a better job (although, which one did you mean?).
|
|
#46
10-11-1999, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah, Tom, but I like the term "gullible" it rolls trippingly off of the tongue.
And, for the record, my beer has never exploded. Although there was one pretty dicey batch a couple of christmases ago... Waste Flick Lives!
|
|
#48
10-11-1999, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Beeruser too drunk to come to the keyboard? I don't believe we've heard from him since he started this thread. I almost miss his witty rejoinders to our comments...
Oh, and I have never had beer explode on me. However, this summer a batch of my wine proved to be a little unstable in the extreme heat...
|
|
#49
10-12-1999, 07:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hangover's gone. (Time to start a new one)
The opposite of a skeptic? It would have to be sucker (fish). Contrary to my OP, I don't mean any ill will to skeptics. We need skeptics as well as suckers. After all, it takes two to tango. And gosh, we really gotta tango. All I meant was, it takes real balls to make a leap of faith. ------------------ There's always another beer.
|
|
#50
10-12-1999, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know, Beeruser... I think it would take more courage to insist on evidence in the face of a majority who are leaping at faith.
------------------ Jess Full of 'satiable curtiosity
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
