ARGH! Upon rereading (right after I thought I’d clicked “Preview” instead), I realize that offering to ‘buy you a glass of wine’ could be taken as implying the whole “whine” thing. Oh so sorry. I so didn’t mean that. I just always choose wine because I don’t like beer. However, this was the first time I’d forgotten not to use my substitution in the Pit.
Please forgive me. And if you’d rather, I’ll just offer dinner in its place.
(Double checks to make sure she previews first. Ok, I think. Good.)
Huh? Did you just imply that I’m a theist? You drastically misunderstand my position.
“Morbidly obese” does not have the same connotation as “delusional.” Moreover, it’s something that is quantifiable and falsifiable: it is a term of science. Moreover, science has very little to say on the subject of the supernatural, by definition. Your analogy falls apart.
Let’s try a different one, a counterexample. If there’s a debate on (say) Social Security, and I come into the thread and say, “Look, folks, everyone knows that Social Security is already bankrupt, and it’s all due to Reagan’s policies, so we may as well give up,” then you may appropriately call me delusional: I believe something that is falsifiable and, moreover, false. Your calling me delusional is still rude, but sometimes rudeness in a debate is unavoidable.
If I come in and say, “Look, folks, everyone knows that Social Security won’t matter in twenty years, because by then the Rapture’s going to come,” then calling me delusional is inappropriate, because what I said is not falsifiable (at least, not for another twenty years). It’s still rude, but because it’s rude and incorrect, it’s assholish.
Huh? A claim to knowledge a priori is just a confident guess.
Famous atheist Robert Anton Wilson has a great quote about how most Catholics get through the day without bumping into things; does anyone have the quote at hand? It nicely encapsulates my attitude toward folks with beliefs I consider peculiar.
I would describe her as “someone who believes in leprechauns, and furthermore makes serious and consequential life decisions based on that belief.” Is this a trick question?
Or do you mean to ask me how I would describe her in judgmental terms that weren’t namecalling terms? If that’s what you mean to ask, I’m afraid it’s a poor question: I see no reason to pass judgments on other folks’ guesses about nonfalsifiable issues.
It is not necessary to call them anything, using a strict definition of “necessary”. Descriptive phrases are useful, however, in sorting out the things one encounters on a daily basis. I think you are confusing “calling” with “describing”, which is why I asked for a phrase that is accurate but non-pejorative. If someone you love comes to you with an idea that seems nonsense to you, are you not at least going to think that it is nonsense? How would you go about conveying that thought to your loved one?
I don’t know… because the human mind is inherently a rational, categorical, analytical tool? Why shouldn’t I call them something?
Why does believing in Pixies who rule the world get a label, but believing in a God who rules the world become something you can’t even name?
I mean, honestly, is the game now that anything you do which is irrational is to be hushed up and covered up and ignored? Why shouldn’t we call a spade a spade? Why should we call delusions delusions? Why should we afford greater respect to someone’s beliefs who believes in God than someone who believes in Pixies?
I used the term sacred cow, don’t think that Loopy did.
In any case, it seems that you’re championing the cause of politeness. Which is all well and good. Except when being polite clashes with reality.
If someone is running naked down the street brandishing a sword, we don’t say “Awwww, he’s so spirited and free!” We say “What a wacko, lock him up!”
Likewise, if someone runs their life (or god forbid the country) based on their belief in a magic invisible elephant, or a giant invisible panda, or a collection of gnomes and pixies, or a God…
Not a trick question. I suspect that I am not sharp enough to trick you.
How would you pass judgement on someone who decided how your child was schooled, or your army deployed, or your laws administered, if said entity was doing so based on “guesses about nonfalsifiable issues”?
I, for one, am not telling you not to use anything. I’m just telling you how people will view you if you use certain words. That’s not the same thing as telling you that you “shouldn’t” use them.
Fine. Use the term. Get used to being deemed an asshole. Stop being bothered that people deem you an asshole. In other words, “I’m sorry it bothers you.”
If it’s important to you to say it in just that way, by all means—say it in that way. It won’t change the fact that people will view you as an ASSHOLE, but that is not our problem. And once again, “Sorry if it bothers you.”
You do whatever you want to do. Deal with how people react to you—how you’ve been told, over and over and over again—how people will react to you. You think it is important to tell others something in a way that they consider deliberately insulting to them, so you just keep on doing it. We will decide that you are being deliberately insulting to us, and we will think you are an asshole. We won’t be going out of our way to be deliberately insulting to you, but we will make a judgment, have a reaction, and that reaction/judgment will be:
Yeah. That’s the one.
“Boo hoo hoo. I can’t insult people and have them like me for it.” This reminds me a little of the concept, “Poor me, I hurt my hand when hitting you.”
Oh, you’ve got to be kidding. We’re telling you that you are using deliberately insulting language, and for that, people will react badly—will not like you—and you are whining about being some put-upon minority. Get real. Anyone—anyone who makes a point of using a word that they’ve been repeatedly told is insulting is going to be treated the exact same way. This has nothing to do with your poor, oppressed status (cry me a river), it has everything to do with you wanting to insult people and not have any consequences for it.
Boo hoo hoo. More petulance. “It’s those meanie theists who insist on not liking me after I insult them!” Yeah, because it’s only theists who bristle at being insulted. Just them.
Why do you even let this bother you? You expect us to not be bothered when you use insulting language, so why are you bothered when we insult you back (think you’re an asshole)? Are we not entitled to use a perfectly accurate term to describe our feelings about someone who is going out of their way to insult us? We (or at least a lot of us) are not asking to change your minds, we are just telling you that we don’t like it, and we think ill of you for calling us names. And for this you whine. This is rich.
Boo hoo hoo. You poor victim. Boo hoo hoo.
And just because “What an asshole” offends your sensibilities, doesn’t make us wrong for viewing you that way.
Nobody is censoring you. Don’t let yourself be cowed. Just get used to be considered an asshole, and move on.
But if it bothers you, well—I’m sorry it bothers you. :shrug:
I apologize for not having given you my ideas about what I would say in the same situation. My mother is probably the person I would know best who would fit the description of “delusional.” However, as long as no one is screaming at the top of their longs, throwing things or holding a gun, here is some of the things I might try to convey…
[ul]
[li]Well, everyone is allowed to believe whatever they wish. (Emphasis there that I think it IS a belief, NOT a fact.)[/li][li]Everyone is entitled to their opinion(s). Which again, has the same qualifier I used above.[/li][li]We’ll have to agree just to disagree.[/li][/ul]
All that usually comes after patiently trying to explain my position. Because see, if I think they are an asshole, telling them that is unlikely to get them to change, which would be my goal. Specifically pointing out that they’re being too loud, overly rambunctious (because they’re in a nursing home, china shop), insincere (like those folks who say “I’m sorry” with a smirk) or unforgiving (I’m not going to be your child’s Godmother due to you not inviting me to your recital Thursday), are examples. Again, I have to ask everyone that argues against the whole respect (which I’d like to clarify once again that it is ALL that I am advocating) thing, what is your purpose for doing so? Is it to get them to change? If so, is that the best way to go about it? If not, then what is it that you aiming for?
Jeez, you missed a lot. To borrow another posters example, say I walk in and say “There are robot turtles from Andromeda whose master plans I’ve read of in the book of the prophet Terrapinius, who has forseen the robot turtles will vaporize the Earth in 20 years with their supraluminal subspace warp cannon. Stop all taxes, and let’s party like it’s 1999!” You say to me “I’m sorry mister Loopy, but you can’t expect us to take you seriously. You strike me as deluded.” And you’re being rude? I’d say you’re being correct and entirely sensible. Can you, in techincal terms, falsify my claim until the 20 years have passed? Well, no, because I’ve positited beings who live in Andromeda and can do things faster than light. You’ll never see them, and you’ll never see it coming. The fact that my claim is completely unfalsifiable, because the events predicted defy all physical means of observation, would suggest rather strongly that, despite the outlandishness of my claim, I take it as true regardless of the paucity of evidence and the utter lack of consistency with anything we’ve ever observed of reality. So the burden is on you to falsify my position before you can declare me deluded? I think you set the bar far too high. The burden should be on me to somehow demonstrate that this bizarre belief of mine, unfounded and unprecedented as it is, deserves credence. If I cannot do so, because that is impossible, and I even know it, yet I still believe with all my heart, it is completely right and proper to characterize my position as delusory.
Hrm… no offense meant, but what books of his exactly gave you that idea?
I’ve read everything of his that’s in print, and a few that weren’t. Also seen Maybe Logic (which I would fully endorse).
Wilson describes himself as “model agnostic.” That is, he’s a sometimes student of Crowley and Korzybski, and believes that all we can do is make models of reality. However, we should always be conscious of abstracting, and that our models are not reality, only an aproximation thereof.
In cosmic trigger he discussed letting various metaprograms run the show for a while (ala John Lily M.D.)
Here is a quote which should sum it up
“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.”
Well, you can see above my thoughts to Contrapuntal on the matter. But I have another question, since I’ve never believed in Pixies and am not a theist… Would you say that the love you feel for whoever (mother, son, significant other) is much more of a deeply held conviction, then say, the world’s best roller coaster, who should be shot for making films or if the color purple makes everyone puke?
Ya see, I think I could silly-like spar with folks on the latter and gladly call them delusional. On the former, even if I could point out what I thought to be rational evidence to the contrary (hmmm, one son was lavished with a Mercedes while the other has been cut out of the will and not spoken to for 16 years), I see it as deserving more respect. Obviously, YMMV.
(italics mine)
ONE MORE TIME WITH FEELING! I do not think that anything (ever, in the history of the world, into infinity and beyond) should ever be “hushed up and covered up and ignored”!!! I can repeat that until the cows come home if I’m still misunderstood.
Please don’t hesitate to let me know.
Sorry guys. I really knew that and intended it to be attributed in the right place to the right person, but alas poor Yorick, I failed. Mea culpa.
Yes, I am and that’s another wonderful way to put. However, with your above scenario completely crashing into reality, I wouldn’t say either of what you’d suggest. I’d yell; “Hurry quick! Let’s call the police. Have a blanket close by so we can cover him and the children won’t likely be as traumatized. Bill, since your the biggest fellow here (and he ain’t moving yet), you take chase and subdue him if the police aren’t here soon enough.” That, although wordy, supplies actual instructions on how to correct the situation and who/what should be done. In your example, would a lot of your neighbors just be standing around wondering who is gonna call or would they all go in to do so, leaving the little kids that should be rounded up, gaping on the sidewalks? Just a thought.
For this, I’ll refer you to my last post. It depends on if my goal is to change behavior or not or if I’m just wanting to vent/ridicule/whatever.
Agreed. I just believe that they can co-exist.
Absolutely. On me. (That didn’t sound right either. :p) As long as the $3.99 is to your liking.
[QUOTE=faithfool]
[ul]
[li]Well, everyone is allowed to believe whatever they wish. (Emphasis there that I think it IS a belief, NOT a fact.)[/li][li]Everyone is entitled to their opinion(s). Which again, has the same qualifier I used above.[/li][li]We’ll have to agree just to disagree.[/li]
I am slightly familiar with your situation with regards to your mother and by no means do I presume to know what is the best course for you. You seem to me to be stronger than I would be in a similar situation.
[/ul]
My goal is simply to have my postion understood
I am not aiming for anything at all, really, other than a way to describe behavior that seems unfounded in reality to me in such a way that is descriptive but not offensive.
Yes, I’m being rude–but so are you, Mr. Robot Turtles, because you’re trying to impose your nonfalsifiable beliefs on me. In doing so, you’ve leapt straight out of goodanalogyland into badanalogyland, because we’re not talking about the bastards who try to impose their beliefs on me. I’ve made it perfectly clear, I hope, that being rude to them isn’t a big worry for me.
Contrapuntal, I’m not exceedingly familiar with Wilson’s writings, but the Wilson quote you offer --“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence”-- sounds to me like a soft atheist (i.e., one who lacks belief in any God). While I agree with the second sentence of the quote, I don’t agree with the first: if one doesn’t assume certitude about something (even if it’s only “the universe has objective existence”), it becomes awfully hard to think about higher-level issues. But that’s like four hijacks removed from the main thread, so I probably shouldn’t pursue it :D.
Boy Contrapuntal, I’m very sorry that you know anything about my mother. When I rant on here, I always hope that it’s purged from people’s memories. However, I didn’t particularly mean her, or that situation. I meant mothers in general or any given circumstance. Those are, typically, how I’d reply with whatever specifics I felt I should add in.
As to the other… do you describe all behavior out loud? He’s running too fast. That bathing suit is too small on her. Good grief, look at that make-up!
If you’re not doing it to help in those kinds of examples and rather just a running commentary on something they’ve done (choose the wrong swimwear or application of cosmetics), then surely you do it all the time? If not, what’s the determining factor?
Is there a problem with quoting going on or something?
I am not Contrapuntal (Double )
But, suffice it to say, Wilson has described himself as a “model agnostic” so I’ll take his word on that .
The terms connote nothing. They rather explicitly state something.
So, delusory is not a term a scientist could use? And lets see what science has to say about claims of the supernatural:
The Universe was created in six days - Falsified. Adam was made from the dust, and Eve from his rib - Falsified. The entire world was flooded, destroying all life, except for two of every living thing, kept on a wooden boat - Falsified The read sea was parted, and the Jews crossed into the Sinai - Falsified Joseph blew a horn, and the walls of Jericho fell - Falsified
Shall I go on? Shall I discuss how impossible it would be, by any means conceivable, to resuscitate a man who has been dead for days? That there were no solar eclipese in Palestine circa the presumed death of Jesus? That no one else recorded earthquakes, or rent tapestries, or any of the other miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ life? Certainly it’s not possible to refute the existence of a being you cannot observe, but the great majority events recorded in the Bible have been shown quite conclusively to have simply never happened. Science can be brought to bear on supernatural claims, when the supernatural event should have left some observable trace, according to the very claims that are made. I can’t think of a single claim made by scripture that isn’t either completely impossible to verify, or if verifiable, hasn’t been convincingly falsified. Yet people believe anyway. A scientist couldn’t call that delusory?
I so didn’t mean that. I just always choose wine because I don’t like beer. However, this was the first time I’d forgotten not to use my substitution in the Pit. 
