I felt the LUV, baby! 
No, you just claimed the question was stupid.
I have a thick skin. I didn’t say I was offended. I said you were rude.
It is a matter of the right tool for the right job. You would not use a hammer to cut a board, and you would not use a saw to drive a nail. Likewise, you would not ask for scientific evidence that Jesus loves you, and you would not ask for Biblical evidence that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. A metaphysical claim is a claim about existence, and an analytic epistemology is required to address it. An emprical claim is a claim about observation, and a scientific epistemology is required to address it. It does not mean that either one is “above” the other. Merely that they are different.
No, people here aren’t asking how they could have helped him to be his best. And I think I know why. Because he was an arrogant, holier-than-thou asshat who admitted to (and seemed kind of proud of) being an asshat, and those kinds of people generally don’t want you to help them be their best. They want to be left alone to be asshats, or preferably to have an admiring circle who thinks their asshattishness is “fresh” and “funny.” You reach out to help them, they’re either going to ignore you or slap your hand away most of the time. Trying to help them be their best is a waste of time and energy. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have so much time and energy to spare that I want to waste it trying to help someone who doesn’t want and won’t accept my help.
Now if somebody asks for help, or seems receptive when help is offered, we should help them, certainly. Piling on someone who is genuinely trying to do better is a shitty, shitty thing to do. That’s not what happened here, though, as we all seem to agree. SS rejected all offers of help, and was banned because of his own freely chosen actions, and anything other than banning would have been protecting him from himself.
Of course, that leads to the question of how much we should protect posters from themselves, or if we should even protect them from themselves at all. That’s a thorny one, really, because that pretty much boils down to whether or not we’re responsible for other people’s actions. My personal view is that we have very little, if any, moral obligation to protect other people from themselves, at least in this context. We’re not toddlers needing someone to run around behind us smacking our hands and saying “No, no, that’s hot, don’t touch!” because we don’t know any better than to stick pennies in the light sockets. We’re pretty much all mentally competent adults here, and are thus solely responsible for the things that come out of our mouths and our keyboards. After all, we’ve got options and the capability to weigh those options.
I don’t like the idea of a mandatory cooling off period. It implies that we’re not fully competent adults capable of choosing our own behavior, and that’s rather insulting. Besides, we already have a de facto cooling off period mechanism. Any banned poster can cool off for a bit and then petition for reinstatement. We’ve all seen people have out of character meltdowns, get banned, calm down and come back. It doesn’t happen often, since a lot of meltdowns really aren’t that out of character, but it does happen.
No, sir, I did not.
That’s better. Look, in order for paranormal phenomena to occur, there needs to be a physical mechanism for their occurrence. There ought to be something measurable and testable. If there is no physical or observational evidence of a phenomenon, or of the effects of a phenomenon, then for all practical purposes, it can be said not to exist. This is not to say that such a phenomenon does not, in fact, exist; but it is unreasonable, to my mind, to speculate seriously about things for which no good evidence exists. You can claim, for example, that under my bed there exists a purple dragon which is only visible to you. There may very well be such a beast, but if I can’t see it, and it in no way affects my existence, what meaning does it have for me?
I’m sure I could have worded that better, but since I’m typing this with a kitten on my lap, it’s the best I can manage. I trust my meaning is clear.
I honestly don’t recall much about SnakeSpirit. I joined in the attacks for the sole purpose of defending Glee. I know for a fact that Glee is a man of honor. Our experiences go way back, and his thread inviting people of faith to counsel him (an atheist) was utterly astounding in its courage and beauty. I’ll never forget it.
Judges, we’ll need a ruling, it seems as though we have two winners here.
To the best of my knowledge, I’d never stumbled across SnakeSpirit before. I don’t at all read any paranormal threads, couldn’t possibly care less. I opened the glee pitting 'cause I know glee and was surprised to see him being pitted. Imagine my shock when I saw it was over nothing, using an AK47 when someone misprounced your name as it were. Going ballistic, assuming malice where the possability was quite high that a simple error had been made.
so I, along w/others who had more experience w/the lad posted as such.
I admit, I called him a schmuck. but, I would contend that “schmuck” is a fairly mild epitaph for some one who screamed out “you liar” w/o reason.
It took him a long fucking time to even grudgingly admit that his OP was “OTT”. but never backed down from asserting that the Pitting itself was justified. It wasn’t. he kept digging in his heels, calling us all trolls etc etc.
I have little sympathy for someone who starts a nasty pit thread over nothing then gets bummed that few folks agree w/him.
Then, can you explain what you meant when you said that my comment appeared to be "a rather stupid thing to say?
Possibly, but be careful with making that claim, as it could hoist you by your own petard. If your premise is to be accepted categorically, then you must accept that there needed to be a physical mechanism for the emergence of the universe — which, of course, would mean a physical mechanism preceding physical existence. A claim about the paranormal might well be a claim about the supernatural. Inasmuch as science deals only with nature, you have to approach supernatural claims analytically.
Well, the key word there is appeared. As in “from my current point of view”. Look, I don’t want to get drawn into a long argument over semantics, especially over something so minor. Suffice it to say, I meant what I said and reading too much into it is going to lead to misunderstandings such as this. That said, I can see why my choice of wording would lead one to misinterpret it, so: I apologize.
Indeed. I do accept there must have been a physical mechanism for the formation of the Universe. I don’t know what that mechanism was, nor do I need to. It is enough to see that the Universe does, in fact, exist (if only in my mind–and that is enough) to know there must have been a cause; a triggering event. At this point, langauge fails us, because trying to describe something which occured outside of time and space is impossible. That may be because of limitations of human thought or simply because such things are actually impossible. In which case, the Universe has always existed, since by definition the Universe includes all of time and space. In that case, what the Universe looked like prior to the event we call the Big Bang my be an unknowable; in fact, it almost certainly is. It is here in the realm of the unknowable that physics and metaphysics meet, and where we will simply have to agree to disagree, since no one can prove anything here, either analytically, or empirically.
I accept your apology. On the other matter, I submit that there can scarcely be a physical mechanism before there is physicality. And if the universe is eternal, then we would expect to see 100% entropy. In any event, given the recent advice I have received from Priceguy, I would like to apologize as well to you and everyone else for so abruptly stating my opinion with only technical jargon.
Fair enough.
As far as the other discussion goes, this probably isn’t the place for it. I can practically feel eyes glazing over as I type. Suffice it to say there exist significant difficulties in describing the conditions and cause(s) of the Big Bang, as you’re well aware. I don’t think we can sensibly discuss events occurring prior to the BB, since by definition time and space didn’t exist at that point. I suppose it’s possible in this case that both the cause and the effect are the same thing, but that’s just too weird to wrap my brain around.
The real lesson of SnakeSpirit was: Don’t forum hop.
He dragged his whiny IMHO and GD “skeptyk v. believer” threads all over the forums and attacked people who wouldn’t let him win the GD and attacked the Mods when they wouldn’t let him play his forum/posting tricks to get the upper hand. He didn’t have the maturity to deal with not winning (or, at least, living with a ‘draw’ like Aeschines can) in on online debate. That’s why he’s gone. You can bet he’s terrorizing some other board with his childish antics right now.
So, everyone, take this never-ending, eye-bleeding, brain-concussing GD debate back to GD, you putzes.
No, that wasn’t what I was saying. Although it is disjointed and a bit rambling throughout that thread, I theorize that there is a state of precognition, a physical state that is not truly precognition in the classical sense of the word (more in a very literal sense) and is not dependant on or localized within a person (lottery winners), nor is exhibitive of an inherent predictive ability. Instead I was stating that every lottery win is the state of precognition being fulfilled, and that every lottery win happens exactly as they do now because of this state of precognition, a term of my own coin and best used to describe “anti-chance”.
Glee, the only reason that I pointed this post out in your pitting is that it is demonstrative of the prejudice you paint the paranormalists with and how it is not the first time you have taken us to task in an agressive and unfair fashion. Perhaps you see it as fair and effective to debate this way, I don’t know. I just remember that it colored one of my first experiences in Great Debates and made me very wary of sharing my beliefs and arguing for them because I saw that intolerence and invective was acceptable here (at least when it comes to belief in the paranormal). In fact, it has always stayed with me and made me cautious and slghtly abhorrent of this board, it set the tone and sadly has turned into a symphony over time and further experience. Admittedly, I have perpetuated it in some degree by my own prejudice and perceptions as well as a slight persecution complex. However, now, some truth of this board’s transgression is being brilliantly, objectively, and expertly illuminated by Sentient Meat and Aeschines. Well done.
It’s a shame that Snakespirit had to go out in this fashion, although I won’t say it was unfair or unpredictable.
Regarding the OP, Aeschines, I do believe many people on this board could benefit from the idea of backing away from the keyboard. I do this frequently in Great Debates, and perhaps I have a reputation for abandoning a point just to deprive my opponent the satisfaction of a kill. If so, I don’t care. I use this board to relax and engage in fruitful conversation, not so that it can haunt me and preoccupy my thoughts while I’m away from the computer. I do not wish to have Great Debates ringing in my head while I’m trying to read a book or enjoy a relaxing lunch. When I get to that point in a thread, I’ll just back away, because no online debate can possibly be that important.
I know myself to be a very emotionally competitive person; however, I also know intellectually that I needn’t “win” every conversation.
The recent debate on whether ghosts could ever be proven scientifically was not one I had intended to enter; Snakespirit nevertheless conjured me by citing me in an older thread, which seemed to suggest that I was somehow in support of the conclusions he drew from my words. I didn’t want my appearance of support to persist.
I’m not sure that you and I will ever precisely see eye to eye on the paranormal, Aeschines, because I’m not sure that you and I tackle the problem the same way. However, in many posts I have found you to be a clear-headed thinker with a wealth of personal experience, and I understand exactly why you think we, as a board, could do more to keep people from flaming out so dramatically.
Whether or not this can ever be achieved, given the text-only limitation of this board as it now exists, remains to be seen. I say the burden of patience is upon the technology. If we could only hear the other person’s voice, perhaps, many of our current misunderstandings would vanish.
Thank you, Fish.
Am I a 'mock-‘em-hard skeptic’?
I know that I had my go rounds with lekatt, but that’s the exception.
As to things being hard, you just’d have to be patient enough to respond to so many different people. To be so patient, you’d have to think that there was some good that was gonna come of it.
I dunno, considering when you get to give people epitaphs, it might be construed as a threat, or at least wishing death on him. 
but it was a lovely service, don’t you agree? 
How come this post is single-spaced? I never knew you did that.
I would also posit that, given what he’s sacrificed for this country, physically and emotionally, and how he’s dealt with it, probably demonstrates more maturity than you know exists.
And you are likely wrong in yet another regard as well. Regarding your comment that he’s terrorizing another message board right now, I would say, based on some of the things I’ve known of him to say, that he’s actually somewhat relieved to be freed from his addiction to this one.
Like Dio, Lissener and some of the other more outspoken and difficult to understand posters to this board, I think they have more to offer than the averaged bear once you learn to recognize what’s really there.
Perhaps, but if they can’t get their message across in a way that the listener can understand, comprehend, and feel unthreatened by, then their post is useless. It’s preaching to the choir.
Meh, we were nicer to him than he deserved. Schmuck.