Starts a thread IN GQ, no less. With the explicit presumption that there must certainly be an objective, consistent, and evidence-based answer to a factual question about an entirely fictional, superstitious, and woo-based subject.
Much like other woo-based questions that start out in GQ, moved to IMHO where it can get properly [del]rogered[/del] answered. But perhaps unlike those other woo-based questions, I don’t know if we can assume naïve goodwill. Anti-vaxers, homeopaths, and flat-earthers apparently believe (sincerely) their nutbaggery, but something about B-Rad’s sincerity…
I am getting faint indications at the extreme range of my trolldar in that direction.
Fotheringay-Phipps is the SamuelA of Trump/Russia discussions. Nowhere near as rude, obviously, but the insistence on dismissing the overwhelming evidence in his efforts to carry Trump’s water is equally as frustrating.
So, we have a guy in Cafe Society who bumped a zombie about The Courtship of Eddie’s Father to insist that a TV station in Philly removed the original theme song and substituted You’re My Best Friend by Queen. One station. On its own. Despite being presented with evidence why this couldn’t be the case, he continues to insist that his memory is “100% accurate.”
He’s SamuelA for every discussion ever. He just wants to “win”. He pivots, words change meaning, citations aren’t read, victory is self-declared, and on and on.
Except that the concept of “ghost” has been independently invented in multiple cultures around the world, with multiple traits for the ghosts. A Chinese ghost is going to be different from a Congolese ghost is going to be different from a Cherokee ghost is going to be different from a Aztec ghost, is going to be different from…so to claim that there is any consensus among “experts in ghosts” would require either artificially (and tautologically) restricting the definition of ghosts to “things that fit the definition that group x has for them” or to assume that they are real and that the question has an objective answer.
There’s no consensus among self-proclaimed “experts” even as to what a ghost is, let alone how long it survives. Are they spirits of the dead, psychic impressions, or demons disguised as people? And “experts” tend to accept anything that suggests supernatural activity as evidence of ghosts, meaning that vast variety of putative phenomena are lumped under this category. There is no independent verification of what constitutes a ghost.
I have a friend who believes in ghosts. He doesn’t like when we joke about them. It’s difficult for me to understand.
I have no doubt there’s some fucked up inexplicable shit that happens to these people, but there are so many alternative explanations to many of these phenomena, “ghost” doesn’t strike me as a solid default.
Good for you, naita! SO many woo-based questions need a terse, one-word answer. I often type “No”, then delete it for fear it’ll look like threadshitting. When I really just want the OP to face facts.
Man, CastletonSnob is an odd duck. He asks if southpaws are more prone to schizophrenia and dying younger. The thread that follows is much better than one would expect from such a crass kick-off.
It’s a legitimate question with some basis in truth. It appears right-handed women live five years longer than left-handed women, on average, and the gap is ten years among men. The most apparent reason for this is that left-handed people are more accident prone, living in a right-handed world - but some evidence points to left-handed brain structure increasing susceptibility to neurological disease. I’m left-handed, I’ve had to face these facts about myself. Honestly? With all the benefits I believe my left-handedness conveys, it’s probably worth a shortened life-span (to me.)