Santa is everyone’s parents. It’s not just the mommy in the song who was kissing Santa, heh. Randy old bastard.
This amused me far more than it ought! 
Fixed your link.
All of which is precisely the reason I qualified the word unicorn with mythical, ie a beast with all the magical properties that myth and legend have ascribed to it. I had thought that would be enough to deter charging rhinos. I was clearly mistaken.
But of course. The way to deter a charging rhino is to take away his credit card.
It just sounds to me like someone trying overly hard to game the argument rather than actually argue in good faith.
It’s like that guy in high school who argued he could run 60 mph. How? He’d run in place in the back of a pickup truck that was driving at 60 mph.* Yeah, I know about relative motion and vector math and all that, but to me that’s still just being an ass, and making me want to deck him. It’s not funny, it’s annoying. So you can be that guy, or you can stay on the topic in question, mythological and fictional beings and why it is wrong to point out that they are fiction when the topic of the thread presumes they are real and that there is a factual answer in how to deal with them.
*He didn’t actually do this, just argued that it was equivalent.
Certainly the mythological Unicorn is mythological, since you include that term as part of the definition. By that measure, the mythological Geo. Washington is also mythological. However, it isn’t very useful to limit the term thereby.
Except in a thread discussing irrational topics, where the unicorn is offered up as a comparison point to ghosts, Santa Claus, and Smurfs[sup]TM[/sup], in which case it totally makes sense to skip discussion of any one-horned goats or some speculative proposal that a rhinoceros was somehow mistakenly described and confused for a horse-like being.
But no, my point is that there are few totally irrational topics, most of them have some basis in real life- (Santa is based upon a real man for example). And that’s important, that fact that most beliefs have some basis in truth.
So, that’s the point- almost no belief is totally irrational.
No, useful really only when you’re talking about someone who believes in the unicorn of mythology with all the irrational baggage that implies. Which, of course, I was. The definition was limited expressly to avoid replies not germane to my point. Replies, in fact, such as your own.
Ah well, whatever. Perhaps I should have been clearer.
But my reply was germane. Remember, just because you don’t like a reply doesn’t mean that it’s not valid nor that I didn’t understand you.
The fact is, almost all myths have some truth in them- and almost all truths have some myth. Dismissing a myth which is 80% made up and 20% truth as 100% irrational is wrong- just like accepting a “fact” which is 90% truth and 10% myth as “rational”.
George Washington existed, so it is totally rational to believe he existed. One doesn’t have to believe that he threw a silver dollar across the Potomac or whatever in order to believe in George Washington, and believing in the myths about him is irrational.
Unicorns are in common speech the mythological critters that look like a horse but have a magic horn, and can only be approached by virgins. Bringing up one-horned goats that were an accident of environment, or possible word origin obfuscation trying to describe a rhinoceros, is irrelevant to belief in a horse with a magic horn.
And again, the topic was whether it was required for us to treat fantasy as factual in General Questions, rather than point out that it is fantasy. It’s one thing for Skald the Rhymer to start a thread in Cafe Society asking how you would take over Middle Earth and defeat Sauron, and require the presumption that Middle Earth is real. It’s quite another to ask in GQ the best means for care and feeding of your pet unicorn, with the presumption that unicorns are real.
Or, say “How to deal with vampires”, per Cecil’s column? Sorry, this “FACTS ONLY!” crap in GD and GQ is boring.
“How many angels can dance on the head of a pin” is no more inappropriate for GD than, say, a discussion about Schrodinger’s Cat.
Sorry, but yes it is. There is no way to discuss anything factually if you aren’t starting off with with facts.
Where the former doesn’t belong is GQ, with an injunction to play nice with the irrational beliefs of others; although I’ve always wondered,factually, if Doner Kebab prices really would fall had Hitler had won wwII, and GQ, with caveats not to make fun, seems the perfect place to ask.
The issue is not “facts” but that certain posters, you among them, wish to set limits on matters that may be discussed, based on your personal world views.
We can discuss the number of angels dancing on the point of a pin by simply establishing that as the point of discussion and then setting the boundaries of the discussion to the world views of the people who would have argued it, originally. The “facts” of angels dancing or ghosts needing exorcism are to be found in the reality that it is a fact that people believed those things. Given those beliefs, we can discuss how those beliefs would play out to a logical conclusion in a given scenario–just as Cecil has done.
That some posters lack the imagination to consider the world in any way that is outside their own world view is simply not a sufficient reason for us to bar those discussions. It might make some posters happy to prevent all discussions of theology, based on the belief that all religion is based on “non facts,” (just as it would make others happy to prevent discussions of evolution because they believe that science, contradicting their world view, is in error). However, to prohibit those discussions means that we would promote ignorance by forbidding the exposition of the beliefs. Any belief may be in error, of course, but it remains a fact that such beliefs are held.
I didn’t try to prevent or prohibit anything at all. You did.
These statements sound uncomfortably like some I’ve heard in forums dealing with alternative medicine, where it’s claimed that the mere expression of skeptical views is intended to suppress alt med (which leads to demands that the skeptics be booted off, for those who enjoy irony).
Maybe Tom is thinking primarily of religion and the supernatural. My interest in this matter is mainly in debunking pseudomedical woo.
If a poster asks in GQ “How does homeopathy work?”, am I to suppose that the only proper answer includes a discussion of succussion (hot-cha!) and perhaps an observation that physics does not explain such a phenomenon? Must we dance around the obvious (homeopathy is a nonsensical 19th century system of medicine in which cures are alleged to occur thanks to magical properties of water containing no active ingredient)? What if the question is “How does homepathy cure cancer?” (there are people who believe this)? I’d estimate that 99.99% of board members are smart enough not to fall for such silliness, but it strikes me that those wanting to tilt at the windmill of vast stupidity on the Internet should not be inhibited by a mantra of We Must Teach The Controversy.
Not true.
The typical way in which this sort of thing happens is that the question is posted and those who disagree with the premise rush in to claim that the question is errant nonsense (with a hearty dose of implied “the Original Poster is a fool”) and any attempt by any other poster to address the question is also ridiculed. This action limits discussion and sets up the false dichotomy beloved by those who wish to promote their own agendas regarding “bad” scientists and “false” skeptics and leads to the silencing of those posters who might have something useful to contribute.
I did not even prohibit the topic that you want to pretend I did–I merely told those who had an irresistable itch to scream shouts of “FALSE!” to open separate threads to do so.
It would be perfectly acceptable to lay out the claims by homeopaths along with their claims for how it works and then note the ways in which their “science” is lacking in both theoretical and experimental support.
The same would be true regarding the ghost question that triggered this thread. Identifying the claims of purported ghost busters, then noting that such claims had never been verified in any reasonable way would have been fine. Charging into the thread and shouting “THERE ARE NO GHOSTS!” would be counterproductive as it actually promotes ignorance.
Not true, tom.
Going along with ignorance as you would insist upon is far more ignorance promoting than any rude “shout” that ghosts are unreal.
Would you insist on Dio acknowledging Christ’s divinity, or admit that the sun revolves around the earth so as to avoid driving away people that otherwise might learn less ignorant ways? How will any ever learn if you arbitrarily decide that it’s no longer OK to point out that some ideas are objectively in-credible?
Go ahead and tell me now, that that wasn’t your intent, or what you did.
I won’t believe you, but you can tell me anyway.
I don’t care, just so long as you don’t make a habit of trying to apply your peculiar GD style special rules to GQ.