WTF has happened to 'skepticism'

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Baylor

In a short span of time I've seen four ISf member use the phrase, "you should be ashamed of yourself." This is a forum full grown (old) men talking to each other like insufferable women. Skeptics don't even try to have arguments, they go straight for the shaming tactics. And they are getting more and more pathetic.

There is so much wrong with this post it's hard to know where to begin.* How Baylor identifies a skeptic should first be established. Is it just because someone posts on ISF? Does this qualify the person for the title? I have seen many posts by many exhibiting something well short of skepticism.

So, having defined all posters here as skeptic, Baylor goes on to make the blanket claim - "Skeptics don't even try to have arguments, they go straight for the shaming tactics."

I suppose we should be kind. Advanced age can cloud judgment in some.


* That the writer should be ashamed of his/her self is a given.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Shaming is one of the methods that our species uses to enforce moral norms. This has been the case for at least hundreds of thousands of years and certainly isn't restricted to women.

While purely rational discussion limited to the implications of a particular argument, it's factual basis, etc. shouldn't include such as part of examining the truth or lack thereof of any particular position, this forum isn't limited only to such a limited form of examination.

While I tend to think that too much shaming goes on here for my own taste, the idea that the fact that it exists at all is evidence that there's a problem with the forum isn't valid.

But shaming is the first and often only line of attack for skeptics. Like the religious cult they are, they use to it form in-group/out-group demarcations. They use it to ostracize others not willing to conform to their group-think. Like any religion, they have cardinal virtues ("tolerance," "oikaphobia"); they have deadly sins ("racism," "homophobia"). This forum is filled old men using contemporary politics to show how "not racist" they are. This forum has become competition to see who's the most "not racist." The more outraged one is, the more "not racist" he is. These boomers don't seem to understand these social norms will be gone not long after they're dead. The zietgeist is moving and not in the direction they think it is.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Baylor

But shaming is the first and often only line of attack for skeptics.

No it isn't. Take a look at the Rockets cannot propel in the vacuum of space thread as an example. Lots of good science was presented, by some very patient actual rocket scientists.

Because you made a blanket statement, one counterexample is enough to disprove your point.

[Baylor]

Hate this petty **** but often ≠ every.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Baylor

But shaming is the first and often only line of attack for skeptics. Like the religious cult they are, they use to it form in-group/out-group demarcations. They use it to ostracize others not willing to conform to their group-think. Like any religion, they have cardinal virtues ("tolerance," "oikaphobia"); they have deadly sins ("racism," "homophobia"). This forum is filled old men using contemporary politics to show how "not racist" they are. This forum has become competition to see who's the most "not racist." The more outraged one is, the more "not racist" he is. These boomers don't seem to understand these social norms will be gone not long after they're dead. The zietgeist is moving and not in the direction they think it is.

So because you feel you have isolated certain traits of behaviour belonging to skeptics, you now take the step of defining skepticism as a religious cult! We have some referring to atheism as a religion*, but now skepticism!!! Where will it all end?


* An accusation dealt with most comprehensively by Bill Mayer some may recall.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

So because you feel you have isolated certain traits of behaviour belonging to skeptics, you now take the step of defining skepticism as a religious cult! We have some referring to atheism as a religion*, but now skepticism!!! Where will it all end?


* An accusation dealt with most comprehensively by Bill Mayer some may recall.

Pretty much. This forum, and skepticism in general, is Chapo Traphouse for old men.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Baylor

But shaming is the first and often only line of attack for skeptics. Like the religious cult they are, they use to it form in-group/out-group demarcations. They use it to ostracize others not willing to conform to their group-think. Like any religion, they have cardinal virtues ("tolerance," "oikaphobia"); they have deadly sins ("racism," "homophobia"). This forum is filled old men using contemporary politics to show how "not racist" they are. This forum has become competition to see who's the most "not racist." The more outraged one is, the more "not racist" he is. These boomers don't seem to understand these social norms will be gone not long after they're dead. The zietgeist is moving and not in the direction they think it is.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No it isn't. Take a look at the Rockets cannot propel in the vacuum of space thread as an example. Lots of good science was presented, by some very patient actual rocket scientists.

Because you made a blanket statement, one counterexample is enough to disprove your point.

To elaborate on your point, the first responses were indeed scientific - pointing out the flaws in the argument.

That is indeed enough to disprove your blanket statement

Originally Posted by Baylor

Hate this petty **** but often ≠ every.

"First and often only" is not the same as "Often the first and only"

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by dudalb

A long time ago someone referred to the Politics section of this forum as "where rational thought goes to die".
That is truer now more then ever.

I used to think that but now I'm thinking it's always been this bad.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Baylor

Pretty much. This forum, and skepticism in general, is Chapo Traphouse for old men.

You don't belong here then?

Interesting that you target skepticism in general as if it were a group of people.

Might I suggest that an analogy would be to attack astronomy in general, because some are distracted by astrology.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Baylor

Pretty much. This forum, and skepticism in general, is Chapo Traphouse for old men.

You are as reactionary as any boomer. Zoomer much?

[Steve001]

Originally Posted by Baylor

In a short span of time I've seen four ISf member use the phrase, "you should be ashamed of yourself." This is a forum full grown (old) men talking to each other like insufferable women. Skeptics don't even try to have arguments, they go straight for the shaming tactics. And they are getting more and more pathetic.

Are only women insufferable?

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Well Tally Ho back then!

Phew! So you're not going to flay me alive for looking down on common folk.

Of course not. That's what butlers are for. My own butler's helicopter pilot's butler's told me as much. Frankly, I don't pay a huge amount of attention to the staff. Can't stop: my children - Anastasia, darling, after whom did we name them? Which family? - are due to return to the family pile this month. Nanny shall have to make suitable arrangements.

[Beerina]

What happened to skepticism? It's running a huge banner ad between every two replies.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Beerina

What happened to skepticism? It's running a huge banner ad between every two replies.

And the kind of ads you get here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12761996

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Beerina

What happened to skepticism? It's running a huge banner ad between every two replies.

You mean here?

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I used to think that but now I'm thinking it's always been this bad.

Nailed it! It's amazing how many dubious, dissonant and self-destructive (masochistic) "opinions" on politics <cough> people with a lot of free time on their hands actually have.

[Graham2001]

Well there is a commentary on Jason Colavito's blog about a Professor of English who claims this about 'debunkers' (e.g. skeptics):

Quote:

Debunk is a story of modernity in one word – but is it a true story? Here’s the way this fable goes. Modernity is when we finally muster the reason and the will to get rid of all the self-interested deceptions that aristocrats and priests had fobbed off on us in the past. Now, the true, healthy condition of human society manifests itself naturally, a state of affairs characterised by democracy, secular values, human rights, a capitalist economy and empowerment for everyone (eventually; soon). All human beings and all human societies are or ought to be headed toward this enviable situation. Some – and these are often non-Western people, people of faiths other than Christianity, people of colour – have regrettably gotten themselves faced in the wrong direction. They are still ‘barbaric’ or ‘medieval’ or even ‘primitive’. Maybe they are even getting more so. Turns out the debunking will have to continue. We’ll have to keep de-worming on an individual, an institutional, or a geopolitical scale until everyone is all right.

Full article...


http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/pr...ef-vicariously

[dann]

Originally Posted by Graham2001

Well there is a commentary on Jason Colavito's blog about a Professor of English who claims this about 'debunkers' (e.g. skeptics):

Full article...

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/pr...ef-vicariously

You don't make it clear that the quotation appears in the article as a quotation from the "Professor of English", i.e. Emily Ogden.
She is wrong, of course, but she does nail the attitude of some skeptics or debunkers whom she paraphrases like this:

Quote:

Some – and these are often non-Western people, people of faiths other than Christianity, people of colour – have regrettably gotten themselves faced in the wrong direction.

I criticize this attitude whenever I come across it: Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

We get this on Quora all the time... “Should I go with my heart or my head”... “Should I trust my gut or reason”...
That sort of thing.

And my answer is pretty much what Arthwollipot says here.

For me my emotion sometimes jumps out of it's box because the argument being put forth is not rational or based on critical thinking.

That whole "Street Epistemology" thing is really cool, but often hard to achieve, especially in the Wild West of an on-line chat forum.

As long as people are arguing (for) rationality to prevail in a discussion, for each side to be honest, then my emotions tend to stay put. Often though, and not so much on this forum, I find people lack the expertise to have a rational discussion.

Sam Harris, who I don't always agree with but respect immensely, has recently been talking a lot about nuance and how both the left and right don't often see the nuance's in an issue. It's all black or white. And that's a problem because rational honest debate is often what's required to solve many problems.

[Collin237]

The Shrike:
Aside from religious apologists and the occasional political speech, what Liberals actually use the phrase "religion of peace"? Isn't that just Conservative mockery?

The whole point of Liberal tolerance is that a religion isn't "of" any buzzword at all.

Holy books are works of literature. Part of critically evaluating literature is pointing out sections that don't belong with the larger text. People like Dawkins never consider that verses inciting violence are out of place. Instead, they treat the Koran as an inviolable unit, despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims don't.

Wolrab:
Rarely does anyone voluntarily see themselves as wrong. But rational people give due consideration to suggestions from others that they're wrong. In science, that's called peer review. Those who claim to have a morality based on science should open their moral claims to peer review as well.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Collin237

The Shrike:
Aside from religious apologists and the occasional political speech, what Liberals actually use the phrase "religion of peace"? Isn't that just Conservative mockery?

The whole point of Liberal tolerance is that a religion isn't "of" any buzzword at all.

Holy books are works of literature. Part of critically evaluating literature is pointing out sections that don't belong with the larger text. People like Dawkins never consider that verses inciting violence are out of place. Instead, they treat the Koran as an inviolable unit, despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims don't.

Wolrab:
Rarely does anyone voluntarily see themselves as wrong. But rational people give due consideration to suggestions from others that they're wrong. In science, that's called peer review. Those who claim to have a morality based on science should open their moral claims to peer review as well.

No they are not. They are divine, immutably true, revelations from God (or some other lower case entity).

Of course they should. And do.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Collin237

The Shrike:
Aside from religious apologists and the occasional political speech, what Liberals actually use the phrase "religion of peace"? Isn't that just Conservative mockery?

The whole point of Liberal tolerance is that a religion isn't "of" any buzzword at all.

Holy books are works of literature. Part of critically evaluating literature is pointing out sections that don't belong with the larger text. People like Dawkins never consider that verses inciting violence are out of place. Instead, they treat the Koran as an inviolable unit, despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims don't.

Wolrab:
Rarely does anyone voluntarily see themselves as wrong. But rational people give due consideration to suggestions from others that they're wrong. In science, that's called peer review. Those who claim to have a morality based on science should open their moral claims to peer review as well.

Vast majority? I think not, having read some interesting statistics taken in a number of Islamic countries. Just because the "vast majority" are not bomb wearing terrorists doesn't exempt them from siding with those that are. The stats I read suggests many are front and centre condoning the efforts of those that do.

As Shrike writes:

Quote:

Harris? I guess people hate him because they think he's Islamophobic? That is a problem for the Left because they are rightfully very concerned about hate crimes and other injustices perpetuated against Muslims (Harris is concerned about those things, too) and, as a consequence, a lot of liberals get angry when someone says anything other than "Islam is a religion of peace." But it's not a religion of peace, according to the Quran – it's every bit as violence-sanctioning as the Bible (arguably more-so because of specific passages that invoke followers to do the killing instead of Yahweh/Allah doing it). Harris credits the millions of peaceful Muslims of the world who don't seek the bloodshed for which their holy book calls. He seems to want to make clear, though, that so long as there are Islamic fundamentalists there will be violence against innocents.

I think Shrike hits the nail squarely on the head. I would add that given the tenet of Islam, it's difficult to see the followers straying far, from what we would call fundamentalism.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Graham2001

Well there is a commentary on Jason Colavito's blog about a Professor of English who claims this about 'debunkers' (e.g. skeptics):





Full article...


http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/pr...ef-vicariously

I fail to see what's non-skeptical or, really, unreasonable in any other way, in believing that not all countries are created equal.

When in some places, basic human rights aren't, women are forbidden to drive or really do most stuff that men can, genital mutilation is the norm, etc, it seems to me like one needs some special mental gymnastics to pretend that everything is equal and it's unreasonable of us to want them to change. In fact, that it's somehow non-skeptical if you actually notice all the evidence to the above.

And really, here would be my test as to whether the ones professing such beliefs are actually sincere: well, then you live for a year like the ones getting the short end of the stick there, and then tell me how it's all equal. Like, you know, live for a year without driving, without the right to take most jobs, including teaching, without the right to be in public without a ninja mask even if you're fleeing a burning building, etc.

I mean, if you truly think that those human rights are just some pretext we use to look down on other people, and we shouldn't act as if they're, you know, actually important, then you try living without them and see how you like it. I mean, if they're not important for other people, they're not important for you either, right?

I'm sorry, but that's not a question of being skeptical or not. It's a question of being the kind of self-centered twit who thinks only his rights and problems matter. What happens 10,000 miles away, nah, we shouldn't worry about THOSE.

[Collin237]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Of course they should. And do.

What about this claim?

Originally Posted by Aber

Regular posters on this site enjoy newcomers infrequent posters who try to poke the bear.

Apparently you think cyber-bullying is moral. As well as all the hateful transphobic slurs I was protesting. It seems the OP was correct.

[Collin237]

HansMustermann:

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Who's denying that countries without human rights are horrible places to be? And what does that have to do with the article you linked to?

P.S. What do we do about far-away places? As far as I can tell, the only way to help them is to accept refugees, and hope that the good ideas we hold are stronger than the bad ideas they're fleeing. And for that to work, we certainly do have to cultivate our own country's better natures.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Collin237

The Shrike:
Aside from religious apologists and the occasional political speech, what Liberals actually use the phrase "religion of peace"? Isn't that just Conservative mockery?

Most Muslims I have met use the term 'religion of peace' quite frequently.
As a matter of fact, I have been told several times that 'Islam' means 'peace', by Muslims. They have all been quite surprised when I've corrected them. (It doesn't mean 'peace').

Originally Posted by Collin237

Holy books are works of literature. Part of critically evaluating literature is pointing out sections that don't belong with the larger text. People like Dawkins never consider that verses inciting violence are out of place. Instead, they treat the Koran as an inviolable unit, despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims don't.

Having spent several years living in Muslim countries, my understanding is that Muslims absolutely do treat the Quran as an inviolable unit. The Hadiths, not so much, but the Quran for sure.
On what are you basing this statement?

Originally Posted by Collin237

Wolrab:
Rarely does anyone voluntarily see themselves as wrong. But rational people give due consideration to suggestions from others that they're wrong. In science, that's called peer review. Those who claim to have a morality based on science should open their moral claims to peer review as well.

Peer-reviewed morality? Seriously?

How would that work, then?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Peer-reviewed morality? Seriously? : jaw-dropp

How would that work, then?

Well, according to Collin, it starts with someone claiming that their morality is based on science, and then involves subjecting that claimed scientific basis to peer review.

Presumably it would be a voluntary thing on the part of the claimant, like most other peer review: They write a paper explaining how their morality is derived from scientific inquiry, and attempt to get it published in the relevant peer-reviewed journals.

The part about the review process doesn't strike me as odd. What I question is the starting premise. Is there anyone who actually claims that their morality is derived from scientific inquiry?

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Collin237

HansMustermann:

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Who's denying that countries without human rights are horrible places to be? And what does that have to do with the article you linked to?

P.S. What do we do about far-away places? As far as I can tell, the only way to help them is to accept refugees, and hope that the good ideas we hold are stronger than the bad ideas they're fleeing. And for that to work, we certainly do have to cultivate our own country's better natures.

It has to do with the article it actually links to and comments about ( https://aeon.co/amp/essays/is-debunk...than-the-truth ) which has such things to say:

Quote:

Debunk is a story of modernity in one word – but is it a true story? Here’s the way this fable goes. Modernity is when we finally muster the reason and the will to get rid of all the self-interested deceptions that aristocrats and priests had fobbed off on us in the past. Now, the true, healthy condition of human society manifests itself naturally, a state of affairs characterised by democracy, secular values, human rights, a capitalist economy and empowerment for everyone (eventually; soon). All human beings and all human societies are or ought to be headed toward this enviable situation. Some – and these are often non-Western people, people of faiths other than Christianity, people of colour – have regrettably gotten themselves faced in the wrong direction. They are still ‘barbaric’ or ‘medieval’ or even ‘primitive’. Maybe they are even getting more so. Turns out the debunking will have to continue. We’ll have to keep de-worming on an individual, an institutional, or a geopolitical scale until everyone is all right.

It's flat out calling the idea that "the true, healthy condition of human society manifests itself naturally, a state of affairs characterised by democracy, secular values, human rights, a capitalist economy and empowerment for everyone (eventually; soon)" a "fable" or in another paragraph a "fantasy". As well as the rest of the paragraph. Everything after the first two sentences I quoted aren't the ideas she espouses, but the "fable" she mocks. In fact, supposedly debunks.

She downright mocks the idea of defending modernism -- i.e., all those rights, checks and balances that we fought hard for for the last 2500 years straight; you know, the getting rid of "all the self-interested deceptions that aristocrats and priests had fobbed off on us in the past" -- as the desirable state of affairs. Or calling other states of affairs, such as, yes, what happens in the ISIL region we've been getting refugees from, such names as "barbaric" or "medieval". More importantly, for her there's no "bunk" to take out of those ideas or forms of organizing a society. (Seein' as her article is named "debunking debunked.")

THAT is what I'm talking about.

So, yes, my proposal for her and the rest of the anti-western and anti-modernist twits in the academia is to just go live there, if they really think it's no worse and there's nothing to debunk about those. See if she can even get a teaching position as a woman in those countries, for a start. Or if she likes it when, as happened to those schoolgirls in Saudi Arabia, the religious police beats her back into a burning school because she forgot her face scarf in the hurry to get out of a fire.

THEN she can tell me that there's no bunk in those ideas over there.

[Collin237]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Well, according to Collin, it starts with someone claiming that their morality is based on science, and then involves subjecting that claimed scientific basis to peer review.

Presumably it would be a voluntary thing on the part of the claimant, like most other peer review: They write a paper explaining how their morality is derived from scientific inquiry, and attempt to get it published in the relevant peer-reviewed journals.

The part about the review process doesn't strike me as odd. What I question is the starting premise. Is there anyone who actually claims that their morality is derived from scientific inquiry?

That is a complete fabrication. I never said any such thing.

[Collin237]

HansMustermann:

Wow! Any connection to the so-called neoreactionaries?

https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/

[Collin237]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

On what are you basing this statement?

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-...nted-literally

https://legacy.quran.com/3/7

It looks as if they're trying to have it both ways. But there does seem to be an opening for picking things apart.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

They have all been quite surprised when I've corrected them. (It doesn't mean 'peace').

They didn't know that "islam" means "submit" in Arabic? Could they speak Arabic?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Collin237

That is a complete fabrication. I never said any such thing.

Bummer. I thought it made sense and was a reasonably good idea. And also consistent with your statement, "[t]hose who claim to have a morality based on science should open their moral claims to peer review as well."

But okay, fine. I'm wrong.

How do you say that peer review of morality would work?

[Collin237]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

No they are not. They are divine, immutably true, revelations from God (or some other lower case entity).

Obviously you're being sarcastic.

When you argue with a religious person, do you just automatically assume that's what they believe?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Bummer. I thought it made sense and was a reasonably good idea. And also consistent with your statement, "[t]hose who claim to have a morality based on science should open their moral claims to peer review as well."

But okay, fine. I'm wrong.

How do you say that peer review of morality would work?

It’s being used as a metaphor.

[Collin237]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Bummer. I thought it made sense and was a reasonably good idea. And also consistent with your statement, "[t]hose who claim to have a morality based on science should open their moral claims to peer review as well."

But okay, fine. I'm wrong.

How do you say that peer review of morality would work?

I'm saying people on a skeptic forum should be as free to criticize each other's moral tone as they are to question dubious assertions of fact. I'm not talking about establishing anything formal. I'm talking about getting rid of the formality of being a "bear" that the uninitiated are "poking".

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Collin237

I'm saying people on a skeptic forum should be as free to criticize each other's moral tone as they are to question dubious assertions of fact. I'm not talking about establishing anything formal. I'm talking about getting rid of the formality of being a "bear" that the uninitiated are "poking".

Oh. That's very different from doing a peer review of claims of morality based on science. I totally misunderstood what you were saying. I think your use of the phrases "based on science" and "open their moral claims to peer review" must have confused me. Sorry 'bout that!

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Collin237

The Shrike:
Aside from religious apologists and the occasional political speech, what Liberals actually use the phrase "religion of peace"? Isn't that just Conservative mockery? ...

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Most Muslims I have met use the term 'religion of peace' quite frequently.
As a matter of fact, I have been told several times that 'Islam' means 'peace', by Muslims. They have all been quite surprised when I've corrected them. (It doesn't mean 'peace'). ...

I'm not a Muslim, nor do I speak Arabic, but I was kind of, well, entirely sure, that Islam does mean peace, quite literally. Submission as well, as has been pointed out in this thread, but certainly peace as well.

While not cent per cent, I was pretty much sure of this. And sure enough, a quick random google check yields this (not selective, by the way; two random clicks on the first page, the first turned out to be behind a paywall, and this was the other one):-

https://alfarooqcentre.com/en/islam/...tion-of-islam/

Quote:

DEFINITION OF ISLAM

Islam is a word with multiple connotations. It is derived from an Arabic stem that carries the meanings of peace and submission (to Allah the Exalted and Almighty). ...

I'm not saying Islam is actually a peaceful religion, it quite obviously isn't. But that "religion of peace" thing, while the descriptor is totally incorrect given what it's like in practice, but the dictionary meaning at least does approximate "religion of peace".

(Like I said I don't know Arabic. I'm open to correction, absolutely, either from someone who does speak it, or otherwise can produce evidence this isn't true.)

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Collin237

HansMustermann:

Wow! Any connection to the so-called neoreactionaries?

https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/

Not sure how you get to that idea, so please do explain. This could be good.

It won't. But it could

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

I'm not saying Islam is actually a peaceful religion, it quite obviously isn't. But that "religion of peace" thing, while the descriptor is totally incorrect given what it's like in practice, but the dictionary meaning at least does approximate "religion of peace".

Yes, well, and Eastern Germany called itself "Deutsche Demokratische Republik", which, going by the dictionary meaning, means it was democratic

But generally, let's just say, if I call myself a bird, it doesn't mean I can actually fly

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Collin237

I'm saying people on a skeptic forum should be as free to criticize each other's moral tone as they are to question dubious assertions of fact. I'm not talking about establishing anything formal. I'm talking about getting rid of the formality of being a "bear" that the uninitiated are "poking".

Or you could just make a logical case, instead of telling yourself that others are 'just poking the bear' or are some kind of reactionary (as per your message #350) or whatever other fantasy of yours, if they don't immediately agree to whatever poorly explained idea you typed. What you're doing is just the bulverism fallacy. Support your case or don't. But fantasizing about what secret motive someone would have to disagree is not support, it's just ego-wank.