ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 21st April 2018, 07:31 AM   #161
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,470
You are not being respectful when you claim you want to learn and forward the discussion, but then do everything in your power not to learn or forward the discussion.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 08:54 AM   #162
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Tell me again, how you think that I am not being respectful.
Where to begin?

First, you simply ignore everyone who doesn't already agree with you, disagrees only slightly, or who doesn't defend you against your critics. Effective debate means you will be confronted with valid facts and lines of reasoning that dispute yours. You will be expected to address them instead of making lame excuses for why you don't have to. You will be expected to admit it when you're wrong, and to respect the effects of that admission. You're not an expert in debate. If you're participating in a debate, you don't get to suddenly step outside that role when cornered and pretend to be the professor or the referee or some other non-litigant. You're wantonly evasive, and that disrespects the other people who have agreed to spend time debating you and who deserve credit for correct refutations.

Second, you claim to want one thing but you clearly want another. You say you want "effective public debate," but you really just want attention and approval for yourself. You eschew everything that would make it productive and just go in circles -- often with fanatic devotion to that procedure. It's not even clear you understand what debate actually is. You seem to think it's where you state your conclusions and everyone "just agrees," and if they don't then you just start over.. You haven't yet figured out that a debate is something you can lose, both progressively and all at once. You disrespect your critics by luring them into an exercise that has an ulterior motive for you. It took Talk Stats only five pages to see you as a crackpot looking to justify a predetermined belief.

Third, you copy debates from an open public forum and publish them in a separate blog where only you control them, and you edit them to make it seem like you won. If I have to explain to you why that's disrespectful, then we're all wasting our time with you.

Fourth, you seem to believe your critics are imbeciles. You act as if they can't tell when they're right and can't tell when you're wrong. You act as if the fairly obvious tricks you try instead of actual debate are working and that no one can tell. You act as if they need you to hold their hands and guide them carefully like children safely to the other side of the street where your conclusions stand in their full glory. More than once -- without any evidence -- you tell your critics that they're stuck in limited modes of thinking and that you, blessed with a uniquely "holistic" mind, can see so much more than they. You disrespect your critics by expecting them to buy into your delusions of grandeur as a condition of debating you.

Fifth, you try to control the debate to your advantage, either by overt foisting of ground rules or by subtle manipulations that try to curry sympathy or build false trust. You have a whole cast of characters you employ to veer debate away from points you can't meet effectively and toward a socially engineered outcome that has nothing to do with debate. You disrespect your critics by inviting them to a debate, but then giving them a one-man theatrical show instead.

Sixth, you lie outright about what your critics have and haven't said. Again, if i have to explain why that's disrespectful then we're wasting our time.

Seventh -- you blame your critics for problems you cause.

The problems you see in the debates you are having are not problems with public debate in general. They are problems with your behavior. Even now you're trying to shift blame for that away from yourself, possibly onto your critics but definitely onto what you think is an inanimate, impersonal subject -- debate itself. You need to correct your antisocial and anti-intellectual behavior, and then you can have effective, respectful debates with intelligent people.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 09:21 AM   #163
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Looks like I could spend the rest of this thread trying to defend my past behavior.
- I had best not...
No, you had best not. Your behavior has been inexcusable. An apology is in order, though, to the many critics you've abused.

Quote:
- Again, it seems to me that
1. Current public debate is pretty much useless.
2. But, the world desperately needs effective public debate.
3. And, many of the problems with public debate are obvious and might well be fixable.
4. Especially with the availability of the Internet.
5. Yet, no-one is trying to fix it.
6. This website could devote a section to trying to fix it.

- Anyone agree?
In part I do. The problem is that what you're practicing as debate isn't debate. It's a theatrical exercise by which people with a predetermined belief pretend that it has stood up to rational inquiry. That is not debate, but it is useless. And contrary to your statements, lots of people here have tried to correct the problem (i.e., your approach) and transform the discussion into an actual debate. But you won't have anything to do with it. In the end you always say, "I still think I'm right; can't you all just agree?" You haven't grasped the possibility that you're the problem (i.e., the approach taken by you and others) you propose to identify in the nature of modern public discourse.

There's no use your continuing to pretend you're interested in productive rational debate over the "spiritual" topics you bring up among skeptics. It's not as if you keep your real motives very secret. As you did before, you're once again just trying to come up with subtle ways of shifting the blame for your own failures and shortcomings. Once again it's not Jabba who lost all his debates at ISF/JREF because he had no facts, no evidence, poor lines of reasoning, and delusions of grandeur. Oh no, the blame must lie elsewhere, such as in everyone else's inability to carry on a productive debate. Yeah, that must be it.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st April 2018 at 10:08 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 09:31 AM   #164
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Currently, if we humans are emotionally committed to one side of an argument, we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side. That's the way we are.
You admitted outright to being emotionally committed to your conclusions. You told us, literally, that you would be emotionally devastated if your spiritual beliefs couldn't be verified by mathematics. And yes, you demonstrated exactly the devotion to your belief and exactly the indifference to criticism that you describe.

The problem comes when you assume that your critics are similarly emotionally hobbled. You want to write off skepticism as just as emotionally crippling a belief system as the one you're laboring under. Throughout your debates you insist that your critics can't possibly understand the length and depth of your argument because of various limitations you imagine they must suffer under, not the least of which is emotion. But universally your critics display a better understanding of your arguments than you do, and a better understanding of their factual and rational refutation. They give you factual, rational, and mathematical answers that have nothing to do with laboring under emotion.

You cannot be effective in debate if you're simply going to project your own shortcomings onto your critics and insist that they must not matter because everyone is equally situated.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st April 2018 at 10:12 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 09:52 AM   #165
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I only have so much time that I can "legitimately" use for our discussions. I try to limit that to about 3 hrs per day. I use it all.
I have far less time to devote to ISF, often no more than an hour a day. I manage to be considerably more productive with my limited time than you do. I write substantial posts. I read everyone else's posts. I don't spend my time merely kicking the discussion down the road without addressing its content. I don't waste time with "Can you explain?" "Can you repeat that?" "I think you agree, am I right?" or with polling all your interlocutors for an explicit answer. When you're here, you're still not really here. You run straight for the least objectionable posts and address only those, if anything at all.

Quote:
I think that I am naturally slower than most of you guys.
You may be, which makes your delusions of grandeur even more comical. But the problem is that it becomes very easy to see your acumen come and go depending on whether you get a rhetorical advantage by looking sharp or befuddled that day. When you're cornered, you play at being old, slow, and befuddled. But when you think you have a "gotcha!" moment, you suddenly become very sharp, very willing to scour the thread for pertinent posts, and very willing to post more than once or twice a day. It's not very hard to see the pattern.

So basically here you are again trying to curry sympathy instead of owning your behavior and its consequences.

Quote:
Opponents tend to have more than one anti-claim per post.
And there's no reason they shouldn't, especially when they're responding to your wall-of-text restatements of your argument that seem to pop up every two or three months. Your critics refute it point by point, which is a responsible thing to do.

We've already examined at length your method for stalling a discussion indefinitely. You try to foist the rule that while you can raise as many issues as you want at a time, or change them at will, your critics are somehow limited to discussing only one point with you at a time, the one you've chosen, in the way you've chosen, and at thee length or depth you've chosen. We've show how this results in non-productive debate in addition to being patently unfair. We've proposed ways to correct that, and you ran away from them. You have a well-polished scheme for staging Debate Theater, and you resist all attempts to transform that into productive debate.

Quote:
I've suggested to the forum that I'll try to answer anyone who tries to avoid insults.
Quote:
...the few supporters I've had have been quickly ushered off with insults.
And we've also proved you can't distinguish between an insult and a refutation. You constantly accused me of being rude or of insulting you. You once put together an anthology post of times when you thought I'd insulted you. You were roundly and rightly laughed at, because nothing in them rose above the level of simply vigorously disputing you. Then later when you tried to resurrect that same accusation and I leveled the same challenge at you to substantiate these alleged insults, you ignored the request. It seems you learned from your first attempts to poison the well and were happy to hope to let the accusation just sit there.

You resort to trying to moderate the debate when the circumstances show you can't hold up your end. Desperate, insubstantial accusations of how badly you're supposedly being treated are just one example of that, giving you a pretense to ignore people whom you can't answer. And yoIu seem to think your critics can't tell you're doing this. It's still a wonder how, despite all these supposed insults and all the allegedly shabby treatment, you still keep voluntarily coming back for more. It's almost like playing the victim is just a theme in your play.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 10:37 AM   #166
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,883
Top trolling from Jabba
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 01:25 PM   #167
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,887
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Tell me again, how you think that I am not being respectful.
QED
Insert the cartoon character saying "Now we're starting all over again"

JayUtah kicked the ball starting the next +50K posts...
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 02:17 PM   #168
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,567
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Tell me again, how you think that I am not being respectful.

I literally just did in the very post you quoted.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
What I want is for you to show the very basic level of respect that you claim is missing from debate. I want you to research issues before claiming to speak with authority. I want you to check out Kialo.Com to see how you like their method of debate.

If you don't want these things, I want to know what about them you disagree with. Then, explain how your ideas about debate are upheld by refusing these requests.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 06:25 AM   #169
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
What I want is for you to show the very basic level of respect that you claim is missing from debate. I want you to research issues before claiming to speak with authority. I want you to check out Kialo.Com to see how you like their method of debate.

If you don't want these things, I want to know what about them you disagree with. Then, explain how your ideas about debate are upheld by refusing these requests.
LL,
- In regard to reincarnation and other "spiritual" issues, I've been researching them for 60 years. I just don't remember all that research very well... I did have one course in Eastern philosophy/religion, I majored in Psychology, with a special interest in Parapsychology. I minored in Philosophy. I corresponded with J.B. Rhine of Duke University. I conducted an experiment in ESP, where I hooked up subjects to a GSR machine, and played emotional recordings to one of the subjects. I was planning an experiment with sister cats, in which I would hook one to GSR and dunk the other one in a tub of water at the other end of the building -- I ran out of time. I hypnotized subjects and took them back to "previous" lifetimes. Off the top of my head, I asked one of those subjects under hypnosis to "read my mind." I was thinking about the Washington Monument and told him I was thinking about a place. He told me that there were two words, that the first was Wilmington (Del -- we were at the U of Del), but then said, "No. It's Washington!" He went on to say that the second word began with an M and ended with a T.
- Once, when stopped at a red light, the light turned green, and I couldn't get my foot to step on the gas pedal! While I was staring at my foot, a tractor trailer barreled across the intersection -- I couldn't see it coming and had no conscious awareness of any noise as it approached the intersection.
- I was in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive. One morning we were warned about the coming offense and told to expect an attack that night. During the day I was busy worrying about that, but suddenly realized that I wasn't "really" worried. I seemed to know that we wouldn't be attacked that night, and relaxed the rest of the day. We did eventually get attacked, but I think it was about a month later.
- I would guess that most of us have had similar experiences -- but, that they might well be simple coincidence.

- Can you quote me where I was "speaking with authority"?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 22nd April 2018 at 06:26 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 07:04 AM   #170
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...I was planning an experiment with sister cats, in which I would hook one to GSR and dunk the other one in a tub of water at the other end of the building....
WTF is wrong with you?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 07:10 AM   #171
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,567
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- In regard to reincarnation and other "spiritual" issues, I've been researching them for 60 years. I just don't remember all that research very well...

Well, this is pure nonsense.

Jabba, if you think that "effective" debate is satisfied by research you don't remember all that well, then your concept of "effective" debate is meaningless.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 08:14 AM   #172
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,710
But this isn't arguing, this is just contradiction!
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 09:02 AM   #173
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,040
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...I hypnotized subjects and took them back to "previous" lifetimes.
The University of Delaware allowed undergraduates to perform hypnosis on test subjects?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 09:46 AM   #174
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Befuddled Old Man didn't work, so here's Folksy Grandfather to tell a long rambling story that doesn't go anywhere or address the question. Do you happen to have an onion tied to your belt, Jabba?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
In regard to reincarnation and other "spiritual" issues, I've been researching them for 60 years. I just don't remember all that research very well.
Then in addition to sucking at debate, you also suck at research. You make this same claim in a number of contexts. You can't remember or show proficiency with the basic concepts, but somehow you still want to be thought of as an expert. I'm betting most if not all of your story below is fabricated, but I'll just point out a couple things.

Quote:
I hypnotized subjects and took them back to "previous" lifetimes.
Then you suck as a hypnotist too. That particular use of hypnosis was debunked quite a while ago. Someone who has been researching these topics for "60 years" would be expected to know at least that, and to stop reciting discredited findings. Then you go on to describe how you break the protocol of your hypnosis experiment and ask irrelevant questions. You're also apparently a poor scientist. We know you get your science not from actual academic sources but instead from woo books that try to tie science and mysticism together. You think this prepares you for debate with actual scientists.

This is one of several reasons we suspect you're fabricating your story. It doesn't add up. And none of it has the slightest to do with "effective debate." You were given a list of specific ways in which you deliberately and disrespectfully torpedo any attempt to have a productive debate of your claims here and elsewhere. All that despite your supposed interest in making debate productive and your supposed expertise in doing it. You've been asked to reconcile your theory of effective debate with your quite-different practice of fairly ham-fisted evasion and manipulation. Will that occur any time in our future, or are you just going to keep kicking the can down the road for another five years?

Quote:
I would guess that most of us have had similar experiences...
Of course we do. We just know better not to bring them up at irrelevant times during a debate in hopes of distracting our critics from the point they're pressing.

Quote:
Can you quote me where I was "speaking with authority"?
When you claimed to be a "certified statistician" and to "know these concepts better than most, if not all, you guys." That was right after several people with real statistics knowledge handed you your head because you were unable to describe the simplest concepts in statistics. You doubled down on your claim of expertise, and then only some time later tried to beg for mercy and blame your critics for not spoon-feeding the answers to the self-proclaimed expert. Would you agree that such arrogance is detrimental to effective debate? Would you agree that such attempts at manipulation are detrimental to effective debate?

That was just a few days ago. You honestly don't remember this?

But of course this is one of your deflection tactics. All these criticisms against your approach were brought up many, many times when they happened. You ignored it in context, but now that we're removed from the actual examples you use that as an excuse to burden your critics with a new obligation to remind you of them or document them. When they appropriately refuse, you try to write off the criticism as unsubstantiated. And thus the "debate" spins unproductively for another day. Your inattention does not create an ongoing burden for your critics to keep things fresh until such time as you decide they're suddenly relevant.

Would you agree that effective debate requires that when a participant elects to postpone debate of a certain point whose evidence has been presented, he is the one who bears the burden to recall the evidence? Otherwise such a request for postponement would just be an evasion tactic that forces the other party to constantly have to repeat himself. Would you agree that if only one side of the debate is given the ability to set its agenda, this would be ineffective as he can simply arrange for the debate to miss his weakest points?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 11:07 AM   #175
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- In regard to reincarnation and other "spiritual" issues, I've been researching them for 60 years. I just don't remember all that research very well... I did have one course in Eastern philosophy/religion, I majored in Psychology, with a special interest in Parapsychology. I minored in Philosophy. I corresponded with J.B. Rhine of Duke University. I conducted an experiment in ESP, where I hooked up subjects to a GSR machine, and played emotional recordings to one of the subjects. I was planning an experiment with sister cats, in which I would hook one to GSR and dunk the other one in a tub of water at the other end of the building -- I ran out of time. I hypnotized subjects and took them back to "previous" lifetimes. Off the top of my head, I asked one of those subjects under hypnosis to "read my mind." I was thinking about the Washington Monument and told him I was thinking about a place. He told me that there were two words, that the first was Wilmington (Del -- we were at the U of Del), but then said, "No. It's Washington!" He went on to say that the second word began with an M and ended with a T.
- Once, when stopped at a red light, the light turned green, and I couldn't get my foot to step on the gas pedal! While I was staring at my foot, a tractor trailer barreled across the intersection -- I couldn't see it coming and had no conscious awareness of any noise as it approached the intersection.
- I was in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive. One morning we were warned about the coming offense and told to expect an attack that night. During the day I was busy worrying about that, but suddenly realized that I wasn't "really" worried. I seemed to know that we wouldn't be attacked that night, and relaxed the rest of the day. We did eventually get attacked, but I think it was about a month later.
- I would guess that most of us have had similar experiences -- but, that they might well be simple coincidence.

- Can you quote me where I was "speaking with authority"?
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Well, this is pure nonsense.

Jabba, if you think that "effective" debate is satisfied by research you don't remember all that well, then your concept of "effective" debate is meaningless.
LL,
- That is a point of disagreement.
- During those years, I read all sorts of books on such subjects -- I was very interested. You must have run into a lot of us "kooks"...
- And while I accept that the current knowledge supportive of the spiritual is weak, it is not non-existent, and while I allow for a prior probability of .01. I suspect it's greater than that -- and then, it could be much less without meaningfully affecting the Bayes conclusion.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 12:07 PM   #176
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,223
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And while I accept that the current knowledge supportive of the spiritual is weak, it is not non-existent, and while I allow for a prior probability of .01. I suspect it's greater than that -- and then, it could be much less without meaningfully affecting the Bayes conclusion.
There's another thread for your lack of evidence. This thread is for discussing your rudeness and determination to not have a discussion in that thread.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:23 PM   #177
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
During those years, I read all sorts of books on such subjects -- I was very interested.
I'm sure you did and I'm sure you were. However, this is where we discuss your thoughts on effective debate, and lately your disinterest or inability in implementing it.

Interest in a subject without critical analysis does not prepare you for debate. And far from approaching your own position critically, you've admitted you are emotionally invested in it. That practically guarantees you haven't approached it critically, and practically guarantees you will lose a debate over it.

Quote:
You must have run into a lot of us "kooks"...
Your words, not mine.

Let's get one thing out of the way. You're not being persecuted for your beliefs. No one cares if you believe in reincarnation or astral projection or some ratty piece of linen. You can profess those beliefs all you want with relative impunity. What you're being held accountable to is your subsequent claim that these beliefs can be objectively proven, and in some cases have been. That changes the game to one of critical analysis. You've expressed a belief that skeptics and atheists are dishonest with themselves and others. Your various attempts to prove mystical propositions are aimed at showing what skeptics "really" believe, or ought to, in order to show that their treatment of you is unjustified.

We're focused not on what you believe or why, but whether you really do have the rational, objective proof for these claims that you say you do. You don't.

And yes, over the years I've met and engaged with dozens upon dozens of what I call fringe claimants -- people who hold unconventional beliefs that they say nevertheless can be proven. And I've listened to dozens upon dozens of them lay out their cases, which almost invariably devolve to the same sort of word games, equivocation, question-begging, circular reasoning, and false dilemmas as you've shown us. There is no objective merit to their arguments, and critics largely see the errors straight away. It's not hard to spot poor reasoning. If the effectiveness of debate is measured in how quickly it pares away error and uncovers the likely truth, then wallowing in those some errors or begging for them to be excused or overlooked is not effective.

In some cases the pretense of debate doesn't stop there. It sometimes goes on to use social engineering, psychological pressure, and other manipulative means to guide the debate down a predetermined path irrespective of the actual points. In many debates over fringe claims there is the debate and then there is a whole theater of tricks, tactics, and double entendres to subvert the intellectual process. You fill your debates with these, Jabba. Almost none of the discussion with you is about your points; it's mostly about trying to get you to do basic things like pay attention and stop insulting people. In five years your critics have become well attuned to your usual meta-debate shenanigans.

You have a fairly unique defense, though. You've styled yourself as some sort of debate guru. You clearly know very little about how to debate correctly or effectively, but you've found a way to soothe the dissonance of having your head handed to you every time you debate. You just suggest that everyone else is ineffective and you're the effective one because you have granted yourself that role. It's hard to get more Dunning-Kruger than that. It's also offensive and irritating to the people who debate with you, because they can see the hypocrisy and arrogance pretty clearly.

Ultimately fringe claimants get around to saying they're just so much more intuitive, sensitive, or naturally intelligent than their critics, and that this trumps anything else. Ongoing belief in unconventional "fringe" theories is styled as a feature of the deep thinker. Then the Debate Theater presentation is finally revealed as little more than an ego-stroking or ego-soothing exercise. If you're serious about effective debate, then you need to avoid the theatrics and you need to realize you're going to be caught every time you try them.

Quote:
And while I accept that the current knowledge supportive of the spiritual is weak, it is not non-existent, and while I allow for a prior probability of .01. I suspect it's greater than that...
That's your other thread, Jabba. The one where you made up a whole bunch of numbers, waved your hand and said "Abra Statistics!" and pretended it proved something. You don't get to switch threads in hopes of getting a less critical audience.

This thread is about your failure to execute rational debate. Toward that end we have, at your request, identified the practices you use in debate and illustrated how they seem more directed toward impeding progress. We have asked you to reconcile your theory of rational debate with the practices you asked us to identify. Is it possible for you to actually address the topic instead of spawning all manner of irrelevant tangents?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 05:05 AM   #178
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
The University of Delaware allowed undergraduates to perform hypnosis on test subjects?
js,
- No. I did that in my dorm room and other places.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 06:11 AM   #179
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
No. I did that in my dorm room and other places.
So not "research," as you previously claimed. Just playtime. And how does this make you an expert on effective written debate?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 07:30 AM   #180
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
So not "research," as you previously claimed. Just playtime. And how does this make you an expert on effective written debate?
- When I claimed a lot of "research." I was referring to "literary research." The hypnosis was actually empirical research -- just poorly controlled.
- This (all the reading and the hypnosis) doesn't make me an expert on effective written debate; it makes me something of a minor expert on "spiritual" issues.
- Re written debate, I've been studying it (at least indirectly) for about 50 years.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 07:59 AM   #181
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,332
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- When I claimed a lot of "research." I was referring to "literary research." The hypnosis was actually empirical research -- just poorly controlled.
Changing what you mean by a term halfway through your claim? What part of effective debate is that? Also, poorly controlled research isn't research. Assuming it happened at all.

Quote:
- This (all the reading and the hypnosis) doesn't make me an expert on effective written debate; it makes me something of a minor expert on "spiritual" issues.
The tragic thing here is that all this reading has not made you an expert on spiritual issues. You cannot remember anything to the point. You cannot cite anything to the point. When pressed to support your claims, you grudgingly cite sources that flatly contradict you, or which do not actually contain anything of value.

It is baffling to me that anyone who has read so much on the subject should remain so blatantly and incurably ignorant of the subject. For this reason I think that perhaps you haven't read as much as you say.

Quote:
- Re written debate, I've been studying it (at least indirectly) for about 50 years.
Clearly, your method of "indirect study" is not doing you any favors. Maybe you should focus on developing a system of effective education. In 50 years of study, a person could earn a graduate degree ten times over. Even if you were ten times slower than the typical student (or ten times less motivated), you should still be at the level of a Ph.D. in your chosen topic, after fifty years of study. Instead, you've forgotten most of it, lost all your references, and have nothing to show in the way of theses, research results, etc. In fact, I bet you are more ignorant of the topic now than you were fifty years ago.

If you had actually completed a course of study sometime in the past fifty years, you would have had to defend your thesis to an academic committee. And there you would have participated in a very effective form of public debate. Perhaps you should have invested more time in direct study.

Doesn't it bother you to boast of fifty years of study, and simultaneously admit you have nothing to show for it?

Last edited by theprestige; 23rd April 2018 at 08:01 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 08:34 AM   #182
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- When I claimed a lot of "research..."
But then you went on to describe your academic studies, leading your readers wrongly to conclude your "research" was a faculty-supervised program of study and should therefore be given some weight. You meander seamlessly from topic to topic, using words to mean things other than their usual meanings, apparently hoping your readers will draw the wrong conclusions. Is that sort of deception part of effective debate? Also, this smacks of your claim to be a "certified statistician," which we discovered you are not. You seem to have a habit of overstating your qualifications and expecting credit you don't deserve. What part of "effective debate" includes overstating one's foundation for judgment?

You seem to want to be seen as some sort of academic. But the reports of your academic career are checkered with failure to complete the various programs of study. That failure is fatal to academic aspirations. What separates formalized programs of study from self-directed reading is that the former includes an adjudication to verify that the sought level of expertise has been attained. Without that there is no way to judge the effectiveness of your study.

Except that you are now here (and have gone elsewhere) to be quizzed on your various claims by people whom you accept as bona fide experts, and you fail their questioning spectacularly. Rather than accept that this failure means your self-directed study has also failed to equip you with operative undersatnding, you are here in this thread trying to conjure up another imaginary credential (the Effective Debate guru) to soothe yourself in your customary way by begging others' belief in it. You're trying to blame your failure on your critics and their allegedly "ineffective" debate methods. You insinuate that if the debate were fair and conducted according to your standards, you would have won. Except that we know empirically that's not true. You were given free reign to conduct debate according to your ground rules, and you failed there too. So no, we don't accept you as an expert in debate and we don't accept that the reason you keep losing debates is because you expertly judge them to be improper.

Quote:
I was referring to "literary research." The hypnosis was actually empirical research -- just poorly controlled.
Uncontrolled and therefore playtime, not research. You have a habit of using words to mean things they don't mean. What part of "effective debate" consists of rampant equivocation?

Quote:
This (all the reading and the hypnosis) doesn't make me an expert on effective written debate; it makes me something of a minor expert on "spiritual" issues.
Yet you seem not to realize that hypnotic regression was debunked decades ago. Therefore a very minor expert, if any at all. You're right to claim your "literary research" is poorly recalled, and we're right then to write it off as essentially useless.

But if you want to talk about spiritual issues, you have a thread over in Religion and Philosophy waiting for your attention on those subjects. This thread is about your views on effective debate. Lately it has also come to question your inability actually to engage in effective debate, which casts some doubt on your ability to recognize when debate is being effective and therefore your inability to judge debates you lose as having been ineffectively conducted. As part of that discussion you were asked to reconcile your disrespectful behavior during debates with your insinuations to be able to properly referee and moderate a debate. You asked for, and were given, specific examples of that disrespect, which you have then ignored. Since that -- and not your college pastimes or irrelevant reading -- is what this thread is about, please address the information you asked for.

Can debate be effective if one person is allowed to ignore material as soon as it becomes uncomfortable for him? Or is maybe the purpose of effective debate to ferret out poor lines of reasoning or uncomfortable facts for the purpose of showing that the proposition is not likely to be true?

Quote:
Re written debate, I've been studying it (at least indirectly) for about 50 years.
And I feel again that you're using words to mean something else We've seen your reading list. If reading New Age pop psychology and random mysticism is not what you say makes you the expert on debate, then what does? Describe your "study," paying special attention to the parts you think make you a better expert on the subject than any others here who are attempting to discuss it with you.

Last edited by JayUtah; 23rd April 2018 at 08:56 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 08:47 AM   #183
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,238
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
WTF is wrong with you?
Aw jeeze, you guys are hopeless. Jabba gave you the Befuddled Old Man, and you didn't like him. Now he's giving you the Befuddled YOUNG Man, and you don't like him either!
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 09:10 AM   #184
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Aw jeeze, you guys are hopeless. Jabba gave you the Befuddled Old Man, and you didn't like him. Now he's giving you the Befuddled YOUNG Man, and you don't like him either!
Can I help it if he's a terrible actor no matter what role he casts himself as?

"What could I do to improve my debating practice?"
"Well for starters you could practice what you preach and quit being so disrespectful to the people you're debating."
"In what ways have I been disrespectful?"
"Here's a list."
"Hm, let me tell you about when I was in college and when I was fooling around with hypnosis..."
"That's fine, but what about the disrespect we were talking about. Surely you must have something to say about it."
"I'm very well read, but I just don't remember any of it."
"Er, and that makes you an expert on what makes debate effective?"
"No. I've just been studying it for fifty years."

And we're back to talking about why Jabba is a terrible at debate and what makes him think he's any good at judging whether others are any good at it, and whether it makes sense to even talk about whether Jabba keeps losing debates because everyone else is, in his "holo-hypno-literary" opinion, doing it wrong. We're obviously never going to get any closure on his behavior points, even though he asked for them.

When I direct actors, which I occasionally do, it's about building a depth of character from which the performance spontaneously flows. Jabba's just switching wigs and improvising badly, creating all sorts of plot holes.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 11:28 AM   #185
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,199
(opens bathroom door)
(lowers seat)
(conducts "literary research")
(flushes)
(washes hands)
(exits research library)
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 12:04 PM   #186
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
What I want is for you to show the very basic level of respect that you claim is missing from debate. I want you to research issues before claiming to speak with authority. I want you to check out Kialo.Com to see how you like their method of debate.

If you don't want these things, I want to know what about them you disagree with. Then, explain how your ideas about debate are upheld by refusing these requests.
LL,
- I'm checking out Kialo.com. I'll get back to you.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 12:12 PM   #187
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Can I help it if he's a terrible actor no matter what role he casts himself as?

"What could I do to improve my debating practice?"
"Well for starters you could practice what you preach and quit being so disrespectful to the people you're debating."
"In what ways have I been disrespectful?"
"Here's a list."
"Hm, let me tell you about when I was in college and when I was fooling around with hypnosis..."
"That's fine, but what about the disrespect we were talking about. Surely you must have something to say about it."
"I'm very well read, but I just don't remember any of it."
"Er, and that makes you an expert on what makes debate effective?"
"No. I've just been studying it for fifty years."

And we're back to talking about why Jabba is a terrible at debate and what makes him think he's any good at judging whether others are any good at it, and whether it makes sense to even talk about whether Jabba keeps losing debates because everyone else is, in his "holo-hypno-literary" opinion, doing it wrong. We're obviously never going to get any closure on his behavior points, even though he asked for them.

When I direct actors, which I occasionally do, it's about building a depth of character from which the performance spontaneously flows. Jabba's just switching wigs and improvising badly, creating all sorts of plot holes.
Jay,
- Point me to your list, and I'll try to address the complaints one at a time.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 12:24 PM   #188
calebprime
moleman
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,158
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
But this isn't arguing, this is just contradiction!
Contradiction is a form of arguing.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 12:34 PM   #189
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,332
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,
- Point me to your list, and I'll try to address the complaints one at a time.
Remember asking how you're being disrespectful? This is it, right here.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 12:57 PM   #190
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,
- Point me to your list, and I'll try to address the complaints one at a time.
Quit the obvious trolling, Jabba.

You asked for the list. I gave you the list the very same day. You came back to the forum to read this thread about two hours after I posted all my posts that day, so no pretending you didn't see it. Oh, and no wallowing in one issue at a time. You know the drill. For each of the seven items in my list, please provide one or two sentences -- all in a single post -- telling us how you plan to argue against them. Only after you convince us you're not a troll, and after you convince us there is merit in engaging you point by point, do you get to try to play your customary shell game.

Last edited by JayUtah; 23rd April 2018 at 12:59 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 01:09 PM   #191
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Remember asking how you're being disrespectful? This is it, right here.
Yes. Very much yes. He asked "How am I being disrespectful?" I gave him a list to start with, just a few posts after his. The forum shows he came back about two hours after I had finished posting for the day and read the thread. Obviously item 1 on my list was "You ignore everyone." But then later I described his habit of ignoring things until the forum has gone down the road a page or two, and then suddenly asking someone to remind him or direct him to where the subject was first covered. It's a stunt, a deliberate tactic.

How do we know this? Because when Talk Stats threatened to lock his thread if he continued to play those games, he suddenly got very productive and managed to recall a whole bunch of stuff he'd allegedly "forgotten" without needing others to help him with his homework.

Debate Theatre, masking as "effective" debate.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 01:46 PM   #192
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,580
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- When I claimed a lot of "research." I was referring to "literary research." The hypnosis was actually empirical research -- just poorly controlled.
- This (all the reading and the hypnosis) doesn't make me an expert on effective written debate; it makes me something of a minor expert on "spiritual" issues.
- Re written debate, I've been studying it (at least indirectly) for about 50 years.
Jabbas Baron Von Munchausen persona has bee caught out, it appears.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 02:56 PM   #193
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Where to begin?

First, you simply ignore everyone who doesn't already agree with you, disagrees only slightly, or who doesn't defend you against your critics. Effective debate means you will be confronted with valid facts and lines of reasoning that dispute yours. You will be expected to address them instead of making lame excuses for why you don't have to. You will be expected to admit it when you're wrong, and to respect the effects of that admission. You're not an expert in debate. If you're participating in a debate, you don't get to suddenly step outside that role when cornered and pretend to be the professor or the referee or some other non-litigant. You're wantonly evasive, and that disrespects the other people who have agreed to spend time debating you and who deserve credit for correct refutations.

Second, you claim to want one thing but you clearly want another. You say you want "effective public debate," but you really just want attention and approval for yourself. You eschew everything that would make it productive and just go in circles -- often with fanatic devotion to that procedure. It's not even clear you understand what debate actually is. You seem to think it's where you state your conclusions and everyone "just agrees," and if they don't then you just start over.. You haven't yet figured out that a debate is something you can lose, both progressively and all at once. You disrespect your critics by luring them into an exercise that has an ulterior motive for you. It took Talk Stats only five pages to see you as a crackpot looking to justify a predetermined belief.

Third, you copy debates from an open public forum and publish them in a separate blog where only you control them, and you edit them to make it seem like you won. If I have to explain to you why that's disrespectful, then we're all wasting our time with you.

Fourth, you seem to believe your critics are imbeciles. You act as if they can't tell when they're right and can't tell when you're wrong. You act as if the fairly obvious tricks you try instead of actual debate are working and that no one can tell. You act as if they need you to hold their hands and guide them carefully like children safely to the other side of the street where your conclusions stand in their full glory. More than once -- without any evidence -- you tell your critics that they're stuck in limited modes of thinking and that you, blessed with a uniquely "holistic" mind, can see so much more than they. You disrespect your critics by expecting them to buy into your delusions of grandeur as a condition of debating you.

Fifth, you try to control the debate to your advantage, either by overt foisting of ground rules or by subtle manipulations that try to curry sympathy or build false trust. You have a whole cast of characters you employ to veer debate away from points you can't meet effectively and toward a socially engineered outcome that has nothing to do with debate. You disrespect your critics by inviting them to a debate, but then giving them a one-man theatrical show instead.

Sixth, you lie outright about what your critics have and haven't said. Again, if i have to explain why that's disrespectful then we're wasting our time.

Seventh -- you blame your critics for problems you cause.

The problems you see in the debates you are having are not problems with public debate in general. They are problems with your behavior. Even now you're trying to shift blame for that away from yourself, possibly onto your critics but definitely onto what you think is an inanimate, impersonal subject -- debate itself. You need to correct your antisocial and anti-intellectual behavior, and then you can have effective, respectful debates with intelligent people.
Jay,
- you say,
First, you simply ignore everyone who doesn't already agree with you, disagrees only slightly, or who doesn't defend you against your critics.
- Wouldn't that be everyone?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 03:38 PM   #194
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,332
Pretty much everyone, yes. Even when you're putting up a facade of engagement, it mostly involves ignoring or purposely misunderstanding your chosen interlocutor.

Ignoring everyone is the central feature of your "effective" debate.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 03:40 PM   #195
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,758
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,
- you say,
First, you simply ignore everyone who doesn't already agree with you, disagrees only slightly, or who doesn't defend you against your critics.
- Wouldn't that be everyone?
Pretty much everyone, yes. The only people you engage according to an even barely passable level of productiveness are people who you think agree with you -- and you glom onto them ridiculously, people who disagree only slightly with you, or people who go after your critics -- even if they also reject your claims. The rest you either ignore outright or engage with them only in your kick-the-can-down-the-road style.

Where are the rest of your answers? You've had plenty of time since Saturday to work on that list, but you quoted the entire thing and only responded to the first line. Remember the part where you admit to reading only the first line of posts? That would constitute ignoring nearly everyone. Please stop dragging this out; I'm not prepared to spend another five years trying to correct your bad behavior. This is one list we're actually going to finish.

Last edited by JayUtah; 23rd April 2018 at 03:59 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 05:09 PM   #196
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,718
Jabba,

Hi! I for one would be happy to practice effective debate with you. I wouldn't want to get into a repeat of the Shroud or Immortality threads of course, so I would want to take the affirmative position. I have a claim that I think would work really well. If you'd be interested in giving it a shot so you can show us all how it's done let me know. Without that I don't quite see where else you would go with this thread.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 11:22 PM   #197
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,883
Hey Jabba, care to remind us when someone here agreed to follow all of your rules for effective debate? How do you think you did?
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 04:41 AM   #198
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Jabba,

Hi! I for one would be happy to practice effective debate with you. I wouldn't want to get into a repeat of the Shroud or Immortality threads of course, so I would want to take the affirmative position. I have a claim that I think would work really well. If you'd be interested in giving it a shot so you can show us all how it's done let me know. Without that I don't quite see where else you would go with this thread.
SOdhner,
- Let's give it a try.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 05:22 AM   #199
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Pretty much everyone, yes. The only people you engage according to an even barely passable level of productiveness are people who you think agree with you -- and you glom onto them ridiculously, people who disagree only slightly with you, or people who go after your critics -- even if they also reject your claims. The rest you either ignore outright or engage with them only in your kick-the-can-down-the-road style.

Where are the rest of your answers? You've had plenty of time since Saturday to work on that list, but you quoted the entire thing and only responded to the first line. Remember the part where you admit to reading only the first line of posts? That would constitute ignoring nearly everyone. Please stop dragging this out; I'm not prepared to spend another five years trying to correct your bad behavior. This is one list we're actually going to finish.
- Good.
- But then, I still need to answer one objection at a time -- I simply can't press 300 lbs -- and, that's how my "effective debate" would theoretically work. Slow, but (somewhat) steadily. Let's see what happens.

- For the moment, the sub-issue we're addressing is my disrespectfulness.
- And, for the moment, you say something immediately above, to which, I would like to take exception -- before going back to the list...
- This certainly won't be a quick process, but my claim is that with a large mixed jury/audience, we should be able to put sub-issues behind us, little by little.

- There is no one in our group that I think agrees with me... The few people who have seemed to agree over the years have been quickly ridden out of town on a rail.
- I have responded a lot to certain members for at least three reasons -- they tend to give short objections, they tend to be minimally insulting and they are willing to send me back to specifics that I ask for.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 05:39 AM   #200
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Where to begin?

First, you simply ignore everyone who doesn't already agree with you, disagrees only slightly, or who doesn't defend you against your critics. Effective debate means you will be confronted with valid facts and lines of reasoning that dispute yours...
- IMO, effective debate means that both sides are able to fully present their own sides to a mixed jury. The validity of the "facts" and reasoning they present is to be continually evaluated and voted upon.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.