yosemitebabe said:
Woohoo! Finally, a religion I can get into!
What’s that?
Oh, you say it’s not that she walks around half-naked, just that she has to wear something other than pants?
Um. Never mind.
I tend to ignore faith and “blind faith” unless someone starts touting their faith-based beliefs as fact. Crackpots with delusional understanding, I generally offer a relatively polite correction… but if the continually ignore my evidence, I start to get annoyed.
It’s the charlatans that I don’t let up on. To me, I see no difference between Sylvia Browne and all the pimps, drug dealers, and sweatshop owners in the world. It’s just someone who’s taking advantage of other people, bleeding them dry, and desperately trying to avoid losing their base of income.
Look. You don’t know this kid. This isn’t your kid. The mom took her out of a hellish public school.
The mom has the final say, and the final choice. I respected the mom’s choice. I saw the kid, the kid was (and is) doing fine. Well adjusted, ahead of her peers academically. Do you think all parents need to consult all their neighbors and friends before they make personal decisions? Do we need to parent by committee now?
Yes. Damn, yes. Give me a freakin’ break. What do you want to do - do mind control? Be the Thought Police? How do you propose to STOP people from being (in your estimation) “irrational”? What makes you the final judge on what is “irrational”, anyway? I’m sure everyone has their private opinions about what is and is not “irrational”. I get the impression (from a previous thread) that you feel vegetarianism is “irrational”. Well, what are you gonna do about it? You think you have a right to interfere with everyone who you deem “irrational”?
I am so sorry for your dad, and no, I don’t blame you for trying to get through to him. My dad died of a heart attack, even though we nagged him to eat better. Damn. It’s painful. And I have to say - upon further reflection, that I cut far more slack in the “nagging” and “pestering” department when it comes to close loved ones and family members. It’s almost impossible NOT to want to nag. But the bottom line is, my dad made his choice - no one could force him. And I doubt that “nagging” helped. Other more subtle persuasions may help, but there comes a point where the contstant “pick pick pick pick” doesn’t. And I sure as hell know that a more distant friend or aquaintence won’t take a lot of “pick pick picking” favorably.
I just want to point out that there’s a world of difference between homeschooling your kids because the local public schools suck and doing it because the other little girls are allowed to wear pants.
Uh - I’m lost? Your point? Did you forget to put a smiley there?
The implications of your first two sentences are that the child is homeschooled because at school the other little girls where make-up and pants. That’s a logical assumption, because if the two were unrelated they wouldn’t be linked like that.
So maybe minty green meant
Homeschooling because public schools suck=rational
Homeschooling because other girls wear pants=crackpot.
FTR, I think homeschooling is a great way to go. Some people assume that they aren’t getting taught the “social” lessons, but most homeschooled kids are quite active with their peers. But I guess that’s another thread.
No smiley intended or required. You originally said:
To me, that clearly implied she home-schooled her child because of her questionable religious beliefs. Jab1 apparently picked up on this implication as well, since he more or less pointed out that the people who questioned her decision were apparently concerned that she was doing her best to immunize her children from any belief system other than her own irrational one.
Your friend’s home-schooling is rational and above reproach if motivated by bad schools. Home-schooling is irrational and worthy of criticism if motivated by trouser- and lipstick-phobia.
Uh, what Pepperlandgirl said. How 'bout I let you write all my replies from now on? 
Well, I thought I had made myself clear on this point. I clarified in a more recent post that the mom took her kid out of a “hellish” school. “Hellish”=“suck”.
While I would find the idea of a mom taking her kid out of a school merely because the other kids wore pants and makeup to be crackpot, I think I’d have to also take into account whether the kid was doing better or worse with homeschooling. If the kid missed school, and was not thriving with homeschooling, that would be a big concern. But if the kid preferred homeschooling, why bother pestering the mom about it? I mean, there might be some concern about the mom trying to segregate the kid further. But then again, that’s kinda what the Amish do, isn’t it? So what do we all propose to do about the Amish? Deem them “irrational” and pester them to death until they give in and adhere to our idea of “rational”?
Yes, it is. I think homeschooling can be a really great deal, if the parents are on the ball, and the kid gets access to their peers. That’s the thing that ticked me off about the other people who were pestering this one mom about her kid. We all met the kid, she’s doing great. She appears to have less problems than some of the homeschooling critics’ kids. But they still insisted on nagging and bitching about the homeschooling. The phrase “physician, heal thyself” comes to mind with some of these people. Why do they have so much energy to decide what other people are doing is somehow not right, when their own lives could use some further self-reflection?
It really isn’t all that different. It’s about treating people differently on the basis of categories to which they happen to belong.
In the first case, you advocate being wary of all members of a group (strange men) because they might be rapists.
In the second case, jab1 advocated being wary of all members of a group (“crackpots”) because of what they believe.
You cannot eat your cake and have it too, I’m afraid. It is either legitimate to feel threatened by people because of the group to which they belong or it is not. In fact, I’d be inclined to say that jab1 is on more solid footing here. In your case, you don’t know anything about the people in question except that they have penises; in his, he knows at least that they hold some strange beliefs, just not what their intentions are.
Who said anything about “differently”? The other thread in question was about not taking chances with strangers staying overnight. Or taking rides from strangers. Strangers should be treated “differently” when it comes the issue of them staying overnight. Strangers should be treated “differently” when you encounter them walking down a dark lonely street in a semi-bad area. But there is no huge necessity to treat someone “differently” when encountering them in a grocery store, for instance. They are not asking to sleep overnight at your house, after all. Sure, you are aware they are “strangers”, they aren’t the same as an old friend or aquaintence. But I never suggested on the other thread that you should walk around like everyone you meet is about to leap on you, in every situation. I was quite specific - in vulnerable situations only. Being in a busy grocery store isn’t all that “vulnerable”, at least in my book.
:rolleyes: I advocate being wary of strange men when they want to stay overnight at my house, or when I am alone in an isolated parking lot. When in a “vulnerable position”, being “wary” is a wise thing to do. You know, you could have discussed this on the other thread, you know. I explain it all quite clearly there.
Jab has my full support to be wary of “crackpots”, when they want to invite themselves over to his house to stay the night.
How about when they want to withhold medical treatment from their children because they believe God is going to miraculously heal them? Is it OK to be wary of them then?
And if you think it’s OK for them to have the “right” (shudder) to make that decision for their child, how about if they’re simply an asshole? Does the first case differ significantly from the second just because the first involves “personal beliefs”?
I understand that you are sensitive on this subject because of your vegetarianism–and if you’ll recall, I was right there on that thread with you. But some beliefs are dangerous, and it doesn’t take an Einstein to recognize that fact.
Which is why I asked the question.
I never said I was. You have put words in my mouth yet again. Please stop.
Are you afraid I’ll talk you out of being a vegetarian? I didn’t know I had that much power.
I think I have a responsibility. Is there something wrong with wanting to help others?
And it’s difficult to forgive him for making that choice, isn’t it? If my dad had not smoked, he’d probably still be alive, for it was his only unhealthy habit, and he was only 52 when he died in 1985.
You’re right. But one success is worth a thousand failures.
Good grief. I understand that this is a long thread, and I know I have found myself “skimming” sometimes. But I did make the specific comment that when a parent inflicts their “crackpot” beliefs on their kid, it’s a whole different kettle of fish, because it affects another human being. It’s here, right on this thread. Really.
You know, when I keep repeating “as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else”, I do include “not hurting their children” too. Sheeesh.
Yes, and you will notice that I conceded this point, to Abe, who I thought pointed out many things quite eloquently. I also have repeated, several times (from the git-go) that when it’s a matter of “life or death”, it’s a whole different kettle of fish.
And yes, the vegetarianism issue is a main reason why I’m here.
I think almost all of us can agree that certain “extreme” examples of “crackpotism” are dangerous, what I want to know is, where is the line to be drawn? How crackpot is “crackpot enough” to be dangerous? When does someone become a mild enough to be “harmless crackpot”, and not dangerous? I think people like jab might consider vegetarianism to be “crackpot enough”. Maybe I shouldn’t put words into his mouth, but I thought he made himself abundantly clear on the vegetarian thread. He thought vegetarians were “suspect”. Other people (like Abe) don’t think vegetarians are “dangerous”, as long as they aren’t trying to convert Abe’s kids. There is this grey area, and I’m curious where everyone stands on it.
There are probably a million different variations of “crackpot” out there. So, discussing a few extreme examples, and then thinking that covers the entire “crackpot contingent” isn’t sufficient, in my mind. (After all, I am a vegetarian who takes garlic pills for my colds. I daresay that there are certain people out there who consider me “crackpot enough” to be “dangerous”). And, I’d like to mention here - not only do I take garlic pills for my colds, I also take this totally weird citrus extract stuff (I mail order it) for my colds. It works like a charm, but is definitely crackpot - a decidedly “alternative” cure for colds. Does anyone want to put me in the “dangerous” category now, in light of this new information I’ve given on my “crackpotism”? I mean, how far do we take this?
Oh. Forgive me. It’s unusual for people to ask such weird questions about whether people have a “right” to be irrational, and yet just be rhetorical. I mean, I assumed most of us already knew that people are “allowed” to be irrational. At least in the USA they are.
Perhaps you have forgotten what you have written in that other thread. You feel vegetarians are “suspect”. You say in this thread that you feel “threatened” by certain crackpots. I might ask you - are you afraid that these “crackpots” have the power to talk you into believing something “irrational”?
You have a “responsibility” to try to “reason” with everyone that doesn’t adhere to what you think is “rational”? Doesn’t that sound a bit arrogant to you? Besides, that’s not really the question. The question is, who makes you the final word on what is “irrational”, and just because you think something is “irrational”, is it hurting the other person? I mean, I am assuming (from what you wrote on the other thread) that you feel vegetarians are “irrational” - so I guess you feel you are only doing the “responsible” thing by trying to “reason” with them? Do you ever take into account that there are people who are not suffering or hurting anyone in any way because of their so-called “irrational” beliefs? (pldennison and I are doing just fine in our vegetarianism, thank you very much.) Do you ever take into account that some people are minding their own business, and don’t consider you to be in any qualified position to tell them what is “rational”?
I hear ya, I understand. I still miss my dad, my mom still sheds a few tears, missing him. I still feel frustration about how stubborn he was. I can’t begrudge you your feelings. But, it still was your dad’s decision, just like it was my dad’s decision. Damn.
I’m sure that’s what telemarketers and door-to-door preachers think. And we all know how loved and appreciated they are…
I’m hesitant to wade into this thread at this point, but yosemitebabe, your question about when is a belief “‘crackpot’ enough” is exactly the point to many skeptics.
I don’t like “crackpot”, I’d prefer “irrational”, so I’ll substitute that.
If a person has a harmless irrational belief (they think that friendly fairies dance under lilac bushes) a skeptic would probably be considered kind of mean if they tried to talk the beleiver out of it. But it remains an irrational belief. If someone has a less harmless beleif, (that the friendly fairies grant healing properties to the lilac leaves, which should be brewed into tea consumed twice daily to ease arthritis and prevent the common cold) then, well, it’s still hard to say whether someone is obligated to try to dissuade the person of that belief. If that belief becomes genuinely harmful (the fairies will get angry if I take chemotherapy, so I must only drink the tea to cure my cancer) it’s obvious that, if you care about the person, you must make some attempt to dissuade them–but most skeptics would agree that the person still has the right to choose to drink lilac tea and forgo treatment.
And really, that’s all skeptics are after; the opportunity to confront irrational beliefs. If it’s okay to try to talk the person out of drinking lilac tea instead following the advice of a medical professional, is it wrong to try to suggest to them that the easing of their arthritis pain by their lilac tea is just the placebo effect? What’s the worst that can happen? The person gets annoyed at the skeptic and continues to drink the tea. Similarly, if the skeptic asks for proof of the fairies, what’s the harm in that? It’ll irritate the person, and either they’ll give up their irrational belief in fairies or they won’t.
If I may be so bold as to comment, yosemitebabeyou seem to have a real aversion to people being “obnoxious”. Fine, most everyone believes that people should be polite–but you seem to chafe at obnoxiousness the same way that skeptics chafe at crackpot beliefs. And I see a lot of parallels here. You defy skeptics to explain who made them the judge of what’s “crackpot.” Well, who gave you the right to decide what’s “obnoxious”? How do you decide when a person is sharing information in a productive way, and when they are nagging? How do you decide when an irrational belief is dangerous and thus warrants intervention, or what beliefs are harmless so that the skeptic has no business criticising them?
What harm does an obnoxious person do? They are a passing irritant. Those who indulge in irrational beliefs can choose to listen to them or ignore them. Nobody’s talking about forcing anyone to do anything, except allow the skeptics to present their information or to question the claimant’s evidence. Skeptics value the truth. They value it enough that they think they should speak it, even when it’s obnoxious. It’s hard to draw the line as to when irrational belief becomes dangerous. That makes it an insidious problem. Eliminating all irrational belief would be the goal. How could anyone oppose that?
One can worry that legitimate belief will be stapped out due to excessive zeal, and that is a danger, but I have a great deal of faith in the scientific method, which has done a fine job seperating the wheat from the chaff in the past.
Yosemitebabe,
I can’t speak for other people in this thread, but I don’t consider you a “crackpot” and think that you might be misunderstanding what I’m trying to say. Having a minority belief doesn’t make you wrong, and that’s not what I’m fighting against.
What I am fighting against, however, and what I think can be dangerous, is irrationality. Lets face it, we live in a culture that doesn't really value reason that highly. Consistantly, polls show that large numbers of people believe in angels, or that space aliens have visited earth, or that the world is 6000 years old. Too often, political candidates try to get votes by appealing to people's prejudices, fears, or hopes, and people, instead of sitting down and reviewing both sides' platforms, vote for the candidate who "seems presidential", or votes because of their political party? Look at how many urban legends make the rounds...you just have to open up your e-mail to see that.
This is what’s fundimentally dangerous…the irrationality and anti-scientific feeling of too much of society, and this is what I think needs to be changed. Please remember that this isn’t an attack on anyone who believes in things like UFO’s or 6000 year old earths. In many cases they’re perfectly decent, intelligent people. At any rate, your vegetarianism doesn’t even fit on my scale. It’s a moral decision, not a scientific one.
I appreciate your politness. I have been stuck at the hospital dealing with doctors every day this week and have only had the most sporadic of time to read the responses and respond in kind.
I do disagree on your points. I do believe some people have power. Not everyone is doing a cold reading. There are genuine psychics out there in my experience.
Yes, you are being polite, which I appreciate. Sadly, a few who wish to ruin the atmosphere and thus the discussion.
I am sorry if you feel my asking the name of a “genuine psychic” that you believe is real is rude. I do believe I said “please”, though.
OK, as Czarcasm already asked: what proof do you have that there is a genuine psychic?
Tell us why you’re convinced.
Do you know why this psychic hasn’t picked up the $1,000,000 dollars for a quick demonstration of their powers?
(And I must say this seems a jolly polite thread to me!)