And I’m a little hurt I didn’t get a hug like the others did. 
:rolleyes:
Hey, neither did I! :mad:
{{{{{Updike}}}}}
{{{{EddyTeddyFreddy}}}} There you go! 
The nasty, condescending responses that are aimed at people who used to try to discuss things like the paranormal were by no means limited to Great Debates. I was taken aback when I first ran across it here - the message I got (which was stated fairly clearly - I don’t believe I was reading things into it) was that there was to be no tolerance of this kind of discussion on these Boards. Not simply that the poster didn’t agree, but that the poster didn’t even want it discussed here. There was no reason to discuss it because it was totally wrong, end of story, end of discussion.
You (generic “You”) can defend this kind of attitude by saying it was muddle-headed New Agers trying to have a Great Debate about whether auras exist or not, but that isn’t what I saw, and I’ve seen it more than once.
This board does indeed have a general standard of requiring extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims. Poorly constructed arguments that appeal to prejudice, emotion and paranoia instead of facts are given short shrift. Claims for alternative medical treatments and controversial scientific theories are met with an insistence on documentation. Anyone who traffics in these subjects and becomes defensive, abusive and shrill when encountering skeptics would no doubt be happier elsewhere.
This board orientation may come across as “unfriendly” to true believers, but I find it refreshing and attractive considering the vast reams of Internet-aided garbage being spewed out these days.
This is not a commentary on Aeschines’s posts, with which I am largely unfamiliar.
just adding in- what makes anyone think that all beliefs should be accorded the same level of respect? As a matter of politeness IRL, I will be respectful of someone’s religious beliefs, and generally not get into conversation about it, however, if some one started talking to me about how they believed that the Easter bunny was real, unless they were under the age of 6 or so (or had some serious level of cognative/emotional disability), I’d point and laugh.
Some people may have that attitude, but that’s not the attitude that appeared in the linked thread, and it’s not the attitude that I see for the most part. The attitude that I see for the most part is impatience with people who incorrectly claim scientific evidence for paranormal beliefs and who get all ridiculous when the incorrectness of their specific claims is pointed out.
Daniel
Wait…are you trying to tell me the Easter Bunny isn’t real?
I’d like to see a Scientologist on the boards, but there’s no way that would happen.
nope -got it straight from the tooth fairy.
I coulda sworn there was one around here at some point.
Ah ha! I’m not crazy. Ok, well, we all know that’s not true, but…I did remember this correctly:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4964931&postcount=3
Anyone know what the username was? I can’t find it.
The thread linked in the linked thread is unavailable
This isn’t what I’m talking about at all. I’m not talking about people being told to back up their claims with facts; I totally support people being required to maintain a fair level of accuracy and logic here. The problem I have is with the attitude that we will not discuss these type of subjects here because they are too ludicrous for wasting our time and energy on.
I should say at this point that I have no dog in this race. I am firmly on the fence about paranormal events because of the lack of proof one way or the other. What I resent is being told that these subjects aren’t fit for discussion here because of some mythical intellectual rigor on these Boards. It’s certainly not a big deal in my life, but I did want to back up what Aeschines and Rubystreak have noticed and commented on. They’re not the only ones who have seen this prejudice here.
Could you give an example of the majority of posters saying that the subject of a paranormal thread isn’t fit for discussion? I’ve never seen that here. I’ve seen requests for proofs. And I’ve seen the wide eyed shot all the pieces or ridiculed when they refused to bring either proofs of the scientific variety or even simple logic to the thread. But I’ve never seen a thread shut down because the subject was claimed to be not fit for discussion. Now, I’m not talking about one or two bone heads saying such a thing (you get that in ANY thread)…but by the majority of skeptics debating a non-skeptic about the paranormal.
For instance, as I said earlier in this thread I started a thread on Bigfoot not so long ago in GD. Some folks got that it was mostly tongue in cheek but others didn’t. Logic was mainly used to show that there IS no Bigfoot like creature probable in North America. Also, cites were brought in about some of the Bigfoot ‘evidence’ (films, foot prints, hair samples, etc)…mostly of the debunking kind. Even though there have been Bigfoot threads in the past several skeptics engaged in the debate and either brought in logical arguements or actual cites. No one said that the subject wasn’t fit for discussion.
In the end I was convinced…there is no Bigfoot. 
Ok, you probably guessed that I already thought that way before I started the thread (and I actually got called on this in email by some of the posters in the thread…I WAS interested in what people thought of the History Channel show that sparked the thread though). But the point is that the discussion WAS engaged in by the skeptics…even though many of these same posters have had to post the same things in other threads before. There was no attempt to shut down the thread despite it being on a paranormal subject.
-XT
As xtisme notes, there is little to no occurrence of posters responding to bizarre propositions with “We’re not going to discuss that” or something similar. What does happen is that in addition to straightforward refutations, the original poster often faces a degree of ridicule, especially if they persist in their efforts at promoting the paranormal, “urine therapy” or whatever. That’s what I meant by “short shrift”.
As noted, the prevailing board standard is that one needs to supply proofs for claims, particularly far-out ones; it is not incumbent on others to disprove something. And since the wackier stuff is by its nature often impossible to disprove (“A race of space aliens who all look exactly like Sasha Cohen exists somewhere in the universe - prove me wrong!”), fence-sitting is not a reasonable or viable response.
I’ll be in my bunk.
…ummmm, is what I’d say if someone made that claim. 'Cause, y’know, I’m flippant. Yeah, flippant. Heh-heh-heh.
Well if you pop into the Pit right there at the top you’ll see a post titled Bryan Ekers you are a thread-pissing dumbfuck. Is that what you mean by “tone”?
Oh yeah. You’ll give it up for NoPoohBoy and Ali G for cyrying out loud but when I** lay my heart right out there for all the world to see I get NOTHING.** Bitch. I hate you. You suck. ** Asschins** was right. How could I have been such a fool?
Yeah, but wait a sec. Wasn’t all that contingent on me being female?
[checks]
Sorry, can’t help you.
I’m not talking specifics here (I know how you nit-pickers love to pick your nits) and I’m not interested in going there; I’m talking about a tone and a trend I’ve noticed here. If you haven’t noticed the same, I won’t dispute your experience of these Boards. I know what mine has been.
You and I will probably need to agree to disagree on that. I think it can be.