If it’s proof you’re looking for, Libertarian’s your man. One order of modal logic, with a side order or Latin – coming up!
Pecking at the smallest chick is ugly behavior, y’all. While the OP obviously needs to learn much about the ways of debate, taunting NRBQ or NIMH or or whatever he calls himself into a public meltdown t’aint The Way.
NHIBI, it would be really, really wise for you to ask for this thread to be closed and then lurk for a while. Read the boards, watch how debates happen. Go to the library and read more.
In additon, you have much also to learn about being a skeptic. While I completely agree that ghosts more than likely don’t exist, dismissing them out of hand and scoffing without knowledge makes you as ignorant as any true believer. Read up on the pro-supernatural material, understand the pro-ghost arguments so that you gain insight into the reasons why people believe in ghosts. Then read up more on science and the standards of evidence so that you can craft your own arguments to discredit supernatural stories.
But also know your limits. You can never completely disprove the existence of supernatural beings. The most you can say is that the believers haven’t given sufficient evidence to compel belief in an objective observer. Remember, beliers already think that all skeptics are just bullheaded God-haters, so don’t give them any further reason to confirm their bias. If you’re going to be a skeptic, you have to be willing to be convinced that you are wrong.
If I may, here’s a reading list of useful books on logic and skepticism:
The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan
Good Reasoning Matters, Leo Groarke (seriously, that’s his name, not a typo)
A Concise Introduction to Logic, Patrick Hurley
Fads and Fallacies, Martin Gardner
Flim-flam, James Randi
Yes, We Have No Neutrons, A.K Dewdney
Voodoo Science, Robert Park
In summation, if you wish to be a good skeptic:
[ul]
[li]Question everything (including your own assumptions)[/li][li]Treat all evidence, pro and con, fairly.[/li][li]Respect your opponents (unless they’re real maroons, in which case go to town!)[/li][li]Learn all you can about the beliefs of your opponents.[/li][li]Be willing to admit when you don’t know or understand what is said.[/li][/ul]
No amount of namedropping or “big words” could possibly make Lib appear smarter than he is. I’m afraid you have to face the possibility that he actually is as intelligent as you fear he is.
See, there are those who use an extensive vocabulary simply in order to appear bright. And then there are those who do so because they actually are bright. I hate to break it to you, but Lib is of the latter species.
Best suck it up.
Thank you, Gobear. Finally someone who isn’t condescending or saying “He’s unable to understand BIG WORDS”, when I never said anything like that.
I’m sorry, since big words confuse me, I can’t understand you. :rolleyes:
[Hijack]
Having seen a post that contains the word rubric and also reference to Og and When come back bring… in perfectly coherent writing I wonder have Og and When come back bring … outlived their usefulness. They are usually used as an aside and look very bloody stupid in a considered post. I hope that they will both soon pass, by leaping, over a carnivorous fish of the class Chondrichthyes and disappear.
[/Hijack]
My apologies for the hijack, in a thread about hijacks and all.
What about those black people, eh? WHAT ABOUT THOSE BLACK PEOPLE!?!?
At LAST the Voice Of Reason!! 
Yay Gobear
As for me…
In summation, if you wish to be a good skeptic:
[ul]
[li]Question everything (including your own assumptions) CHECK[/li][li]Treat all evidence, pro and con, fairly. CHECK[/li][li]Respect your opponents (unless they’re real maroons, in which case go to town!) CHECK[/li][li]Learn all you can about the beliefs of your opponents. Check (working on it 
)[/li][li]Be willing to admit when you don’t know or understand what is said. CHECK[/li][/ul]
Guess that means I am a fairly good skeptic huh?
Never Have I Because I You would do good to heed this mans advice. I have and am a better person for it.
Banned for Racism. :mad:
Bull. Sorry m’friend but I really disagree with you in this case. I won’t tolerate (to whatever degree I can control it) the idea that smart people should “hide their light under a bushel”.
The OP’s rant was not about disagreeing with Lib, it was about the fact that Lib didn’t dumb himself down to a level that the OP felt comfortable with. I’m perfectly happy to shred someone for that behavior. People weren’t shredding the OP over the fact that he took on Lib, they were shredding the idea that being dumb makes you right.
Over and over the OP kept whining about how Lib used big words and was smart as though that was a bad thing somehow. Had the OP gone after Lib for insulting him or for attacking him or even for Lib’s positions on issues, fine. I doubt you’d see 1/100th of the vitriol that the OP got. But going after people because “they’re smart”? Um. No way. That reminds me way to much of the high-school dumb jock (“Hey smart kid. Nice, the way you answered all th’ teacher’s questions. Betcha think yer smart, dontcha?”) mentality and frankly, I think that kind of crap needs to be squashed and squashed hard.
Fenris
I have neither said nor suggested that big words confuse you.
If you intend to complain that others are misrepresenting you, perhaps you shouldn’t misrepresent others.
Oops. Hit “submit” too soon.
I think you’re way off-base with the idea that the OP is being “picked on” because he’s “the littlest chicken” or because he(?) needs to learn better debating techniques. He’s being picked on because the idea that someone should pretend to be dumb is a pretty loathesome one.
Fenris, I am unhappy with him using big words and famous names to make himself look smarter.
An example:
If I taught myself the words and phrases associated with an occupation or science and then used it in appropriate spots, I could make myself look more intelligent by appearing to have a great aptitude and understanding of said subject. It doesn’t mean I have a aptitude for said science or ocupation
I’m sorry, it’s just that when I do try and answer things to the best of my ability instead of joking, they go “BIG WORDS don’t use big words for Never Been”.
I like kittens.
(You might want to stop posting now. IANAMOD)
[/quote]
I don’t think you’re getting his point. He’s not saying that Lib ought to be dumb, he’s complaining that mean old Lib is using big words that the OP doesn’t understand. To a (minscule) degree, I can support that. If you’re going to argue with people, use common terms that both sides can understand. I haven’t got a great deal of patience with the “I get a headsache just talking down to your level” attitude–I don’t see it as being too different from any other mystery monger saying “Believe this because I told you so ('cause I’m smarter’n you).”
The whole basis of logical argument is to persuade not to bully. And watch that “dumb jock” stereotyping. The two most intelligent men I’ve ever known were both hulking football players, and I’ve known too many dimwitted nerds and too many smart athletes to buy into that noise.
In any event, Fenris, glad to see your return, big hugs.
I understand. It’s easy to lash out at everyone when you feel you’re under attack.
My original point remains, however.
You assume that Lib uses big words and references unusual people simply to appear more intelligent than he is.
Have you even considered the possibility that he simply is that smart, and uses that kind of language as a matter of course?
I apologized, I am waiting for an acceptance of said apology.
Yes.
And, what? Discarded it?