How do you get from “I thought maybe it referred to a female body part” to “It is utterly obvious, beyond any doubt at all that he had already seen the word used for female genitalia”? While I freely admit it’s been a while since I’ve had any hands-on experience in the matter, I vaguely remember that females have other “body parts” besides their genitalia. Perhaps the “female body part” Skammer was referring to was her breasts. Or her ass, or even her elbow. I had never heard “woo-woo” used to refer to a female’s genitalia until I read this thread - the closest to it was “hoo-ha”. I have, however, heard woo-woo used to refer to questionable belief systems, in the same context as Dio used it, and I would never have thought that he was using it the way you seem to think he is.
It could, depending on context.
No.
You can respond to his question, or you can ignore him, but “reacting” doesn’t require calling him a jerk.
Lactose intolerant?
Surely there is an excellent way of determining these double standards - or, at the least, to get revenge on your detractors.
Given that woo-woo, in the terms used that you have complained about, is apparently an acceptable word, why not simply use it yourself, in those exact same terms, to insult people back? If you get moderated, you will have evidence of that double standard to parade. If you don’t, you will have successfully insulted your opponents.
I mean, flip the situation around. You can’t get the moderators to agree that an effective insulting term should be banned, or that it’s worth moderation in some way. That also means you get to use it in those same terms.
Peter Morris, I thought about you today. There’s a local steam train that you can ride on here and it was crossing the road so all the traffic had to stop. Its whistle sounded like “Wooooooo…woowoowoowoooooooooo!!”.
[Moderator Note]
I don’t see much point to this post other than to goad Peter. This thread is enough of a train wreck already. If you want to address Peter’s posts, go ahead. If all you want to do is ridicule him, it would be better to do so in the Pit.
I wasn’t actually goading him. I really did think about him today when I had to wait for for this to pass by. It’s an old train and it really does sound like “woooo!wooooo!”.
Check out the National Spiritualist Association of Churches: “Spiritualism is the Science, Philosophy, and Religion of continuous life, based upon the demonstrated fact of communication, by means of mediumship, with those who live in the Spirit World.”
(Doesn’t seem to have changed much since Arthur Conan Doyle’s time.)
You are a moderator in ATMB and you don’t even bother to look up your information? This isn’t just chit chat, Marley. Spiritualism is not a religion that I am a part of. But I hate to see a moderator spreading ignorance so casually.
I can provide other links with more personal relevance if you continue to push the idea that Spiritualism isn’t a current religion. Don’t do this, Marley. You are wasting your time.
As for New Ageism, you say,
You could say the same thing about the word “Protestant.” That gives you only a general impression. So does the word “Presbyterian.” There are many kinds of Presbyterians and you may have only a general impression from the word. Even within my own specific church building, we are a motley crew with differing opinions. I probably have a few beliefs that you would label “New Age.” The women in my mother’s family called it something else and they were all Southern Baptists.
You are the one who labels a lot of these beliefs and then says that they are not religious just because YOU are the one who is “not going to have a specific idea of what he or she believes.” WE know what we believe. I’m sorry if you are all mixed up about labels. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a religion.
Given that Peter Morris has himself used the term “woo-woo” to describe people “who totally believe in the paranormal”, in one of links posted prviously. I would like to know which definition of “woo-woo” he meant.
What if you use it in reference to yourself?
I and many others have used the term “woo” to refer to bizarre misconceptions about medicine and attempts to treat various (real and imaginary) conditions. It’s convenient shorthand for credulous silliness. It’s nowhere near any form of hate speech, and trying to label it thus is part of a pathetic effort to avoid criticism.
Referring to “woos” or “woo-woos” is not something I generally do, preferring the term “alties”, which is also not hate speech.
If credulous believers want to make an issue about intolerance of differing views, I suggest that instead of targeting the Dope (where critics may be Meanies, but woo of various kinds is tolerated), go after the alt med, parenting and autism boards where it is not only commonplace for virulent personal attacks on skeptics to be tolerated, but where having views which differ from orthodoxy are often grounds for banning.
You won’t see that here.
I’m having my time wasted.
I am not sure why we are spending time on this picayune issue, frankly. In the skepdic.com entry, the reference to spiritualism does not mean The National Spiritualist Association of Churches. It means spiritualism in general: the belief in life after death and communication through mediums. Some religious people may believe in that, and that may be a component of some religious beliefs, which appears to be the case for the spiritualist association. But “woo woo” does not refer to that religion specifically. It does not refer specifically to believers in any one religion or even to all religious believers. So it does not refer to a protected class, and even if it were harsh enough to be considered hateful, it would not be hate speech.
Because you made the false claim that Spiritualism and New Ageism are not religions. Even your Skepdic.com does not say that they are NOT religions. They say that they are “beliefs.” That does not mean “not a religion.”
The skepdic’s “spiritualism” and the “Spiritualism” I have been referring to are one and the same. They both have their origin in 1848. Read your own link, Marley.
The purpose of the SDMB is to fight ignorance.
Work on your stubborness, kiddo. Your made a good Doper, but you need to open yourself to learning when you are wrong. You don’t know diddly about 19th Century religious sects.
ETA: You can always check to see if they are tax exempt.
This is a website dedicated to fighting ignorance. Pointing out “woo” is our duty.
That’s nonsense. Do you believe there was no spiritualism before 1848, or that all spiritualists today are affiliated with The National Spiritualist Association of Churches? Both are patently false.
I also want a cite for what I consider to be the preposterous claim that New Age is a religion, a collection of religions, or a representative of religion.
My position is that there is no such thing as “New Age.” It is anything people want to claim it to be or want to point to and dismiss. I won’t deny that some of those claims include elements of religion, or better, spirituality. I will insist that many of those claims are not religion in any coherent sense of the term. I challenge you or anyone to find a coherent meaning in the wonderful hodge-podge that is the Wiki page on New Age.
Spirituality is also not the same as spiritism or spiritualism, which I agree in a loud voice is not a single strand of belief dating from 1848, even if one tiny sect professes to say so. Why should the larger world accept that notion? There are groups who claim that their version of Catholicism is the only proper descendant of the original church and nobody outside their walls accepts that either.
If the rest of the world were bound by what proponents claim, then Peter Morris would by definition be right. No possible world could function in that way.
Probably indicates you’re self-hating.
How about a phrase:
“People who have little or no knowledge of the underpinning philosophies of science, who believe a conclusion they have heard but do not know how to derive it for themselves, and who fail to acknowledge that science is merely one epistemic system among many others — specifically, a system that relies on the tautology of empiricism and is tested by the unfalsifiable hypothesis of falsification.”
Will that do? Or is it too hate-speechy?
Erm… have you got another one? Something a bit shorter; I’ll never remember all that!