Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

In the last couple of years I've tried being more diplomatic and simply objective during such arguments. It does nothing more to change people's minds, but it does make them a little less adversarial sometimes.

That reminds me of those tests they make dowsers go through.
You know, something like having 6 rows of 6 containers, only one in each row contains water ( chosen at random ) and the other contain sand.

Then they get dowsers to use their awesome powers to find the water and they always fail.

And it never changes their minds. Ever. They could fail a million tests and still think they have magic powers.

That's the kind of nutbar we're dealing with here, I wonder if being polite is really going to make a dent in that. Holy shit.

Everybody should be a little more skeptical.

I believe that we (skeptics) are dicks because we are all some what of Narcasistic Sociopaths. All though we may not be on the level of the pope or evengelical preachers, we all seem to possess this thought that we are always right when we're talking about something we think we know about and that any one who might dissagree is less inteligent for doing so. I know that narcasism has gotten me into trouble. Not to long ago i was at the point were everybody seemed dumb, and i always felt like the person who should be listned to. Then i realized that there are many different qualitys to intelligence. Just because someone believes in phycics, wait scratch that. Any body who believes in phycics needs to shove a crystal ball up their ass (i still keep prejeduces, im only human)... Just because someone believes in religion, ghosts, karma, or what ever your pet peeve might be. It doesnt necessarilly mean they're stupid, just that they are more willing to secede to an idea they can not have explained, and is that really a bad thing? I wish i could believe the bible or better yet the khuran, i would love 72 ladies competing for my junk when i stop breathing. So now i like to think of myself as being logically correct, but not necesarilly right. Who are we to judge others for their personal beliefs? If they are not shoving their ideals down your neck, then we would be just as wrong as that dick sneeze on the 700 network to do the same. Even if our interests are to do what we consider "the right thing to do" its not okay to impose yourself upon others. If you think about it, its kind of like mental rape.And that gentlemen, is why i think us skeptics feel the need to be a dick.

At 9/6/10 02:31 PM, poxpower wrote: They could fail a million tests and still think they have magic powers.

That's the kind of nutbar we're dealing with here, I wonder if being polite is really going to make a dent in that. Holy shit.

Well, while those may be the ones we actually speak with, are they really the ones we're speaking to? Are those the ones whose mind you're actually trying to change? Or are you using the discussion to reveal their irrationality to those who might be more moderate, perhaps on the fence about the issue and possibly prone to falling for the appeals to emotion that are the attractive part of their claims?

Because when I debate a hardline theist or other non-skeptic, it is not really them to whom I am speaking, rather to the more moderate audience that listens with actual curiosity at the factuality of either side's claims. If you use the immovable as leverage with which to move those who can be moved, instead of beating your head against the wall of willful ignorance, then I think you'll find yourself far more successful.

And if you act like a dick, you're likely going to push those people away from your side, regardless of the facts at hand.

At 9/7/10 04:23 AM, Ravariel wrote: And if you act like a dick, you're likely going to push those people away from your side, regardless of the facts at hand.

My theory is that if you're so stupid that you can't tell the difference between an insult and an argument, you were too stupid to be convinced by logic in the first place anyway :D

Basically if you think that "2+2 = 4" is correct but "2+ fucking 2 = 4, you retard" is false, you're a moron anyway.

Gravity is Pudding.

Prove my claim wrong.

If you are a skeptic you are indeed a dick. Any argument ever raised against something by a skeptic is a googolplex of pseudonyms for "I'm a skeptic, vicariously I don't believe, vicariously I am a very unhappy person, vicariously everyone must now share my pain, vicariously I'm a dick."

That is EXACTLY what they are saying! An now you're gonna find another googolplex of pseudonyms for that exact same phrase as an argument against mine. Have at thee!

Um, I'm not sure you know what the word "vicariously" means. And maybe I'm missing something, but noone I've seen here has said anything of the sort. However, such an argument would certainly fall into the dick spectrum. If you have specific examples of such an argument that you believe follows that line, why don't you copy it here and we can dissect it and figure out how it could have been done better.

Good job Rav, on your giant effort to not be a dick in a situation that definitely warranted it : D
Have a shiny star sticker.

At 9/7/10 04:23 AM, Ravariel wrote: , perhaps on the fence about the issue and possibly prone to falling for the appeals to emotion that are the attractive part of their claims?

Hmm, it goes both ways though. Talking to another by calling hima moron and a stupid fuck because he believes bullshit stupid asinine stuff, kind of appeals to emotion/ridicule to swoon people's emotion.

An example in religion versus atheism debates: comparing religion to believing in Gandalf the magical wizard.

i'm not a skeptic but i can understand other people and why they wouldn't believe in it what i don't understand is when there's athiests and other types of people such as people into different political party's, that start to point fingers when there's nothing wrong with believing in different things, politics shouldn't be about judging or proving people wrong.

it should be about helping and making the world a better place instead of watching the news and having to watch people nag back and forth at each other.

At 9/14/10 07:15 PM, MisterWonderful wrote: politics shouldn't be about judging or proving people wrong.

Politics should be NOTHING but proving people wrong.

How are you ever going to know if your laws are good if no one challenges them? How are you ever going to overthrow morons if you don't challenge them? How can you repeal bad laws if you never ask if it makes sense in the first place?

Faith is just the first stepping stone to ruling a society based on your gut feelings and traditions, which humans are TERRIBLE at.

At 9/14/10 08:37 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/14/10 07:15 PM, MisterWonderful wrote: politics shouldn't be about judging or proving people wrong.

Politics should be NOTHING but proving people wrong.

How are you ever going to know if your laws are good if no one challenges them? How are you ever going to overthrow morons if you don't challenge them? How can you repeal bad laws if you never ask if it makes sense in the first place?

Faith is just the first stepping stone to ruling a society based on your gut feelings and traditions, which humans are TERRIBLE at.

i guess that makes sense but it seems like some people try too hard and it just ends up hurting peoples feelings, like a few people have said some mean stuff about my political views and said i don't know much about it when at least I'm trying.
but people will always make bad laws legal such as letting people take drugs at younger ages such as legalizing marijuana in California i really hate to bring it up since it just causes people do get really angry over it because they don't see how harmful it is to their bodies and just keep on doing it.

And a lot of people don't like communism when it does make a lot of sense to me.
i don't think you should so much as overthrow the morons but just help them understand other things and be more open minded about other peoples opinions, it does get pretty annoying how close minded some of the talk shows about politics are.

At 9/14/10 01:57 PM, Ravariel wrote: Um, I'm not sure you know what the word "vicariously" means.

Nah you got that the wrong way 'round it is YOU who doesn't know what the word vicariously means! Get a dictionary. Read a dictionary. Literacy is a wonderful thing for all sentient beings in The Universe. Literacy can even save The Universe.

And maybe I'm missing something, but noone I've seen here has said anything of the sort.

On multiple occasions here on newgrounds skeptics have flamed myself and others dry. Last time I checked, flaming is not allowed. Unfortunately these boards do not have a report option.

If you have specific examples of such an argument that you believe follows that line, why don't you copy it here and we can dissect it and figure out how it could have been done better.

I do. Many times I have been called retarded and crazy because I believe in Aliens and UFOs here on newgrounds and many places in real life. They believe I wear a tinfoil hat. I DO NOT! On multiple occasions skeptics as they declare themselves to be have the audacity to group conspiracy theorists and The Rest of Us (myself) who have a flair for Unexplained Mysteries of The Universe. What's the difference? I'll tell you: Conspiracy Theorists are completely and utterly insane and just want to be famous and get their face on TV/Cable/Satellite/The Internet. The Rest of Us are perfectly sane and do not seek fame in that manner. As for me I am an Artist that is what I do for a living and I hope to work for Dark Horse Comics indeed that will make me famous but I'm in it for the purpose of telling the story because it's my true calling.

Further incursions have been with various pieces of information and I do have a lot of it but I don't know everything. These same people are skeptical and from what I can tell they believe themselves to know everything therefore if this is something they don't know automatically it's untrue. Such an assertion is arrogant as goes my signature wise words indeed. They have continuously flamed myself and others dry.

I have seen multiple incursions on Discovery Networks and History Channels with the arguments provided by the skeptics some from Skeptical Inquirer that are indeed Dicks. On multiple occasions they find a gogolplex of pseudonyms for the following statements:

"There is no evidence whatsoever."
"That's outrageous!"
"Anyone who believes such shall be crucified!"

To the extent of The Real DaVinci Code: They continuously do such especially 2 and 3 and fill anywhere from 45 seconds to 45 minutes of those pseudonyms. In addition they can't site precedent or page number, merely say what the symbol doesn't signify and not what it does signify. Pending further they don't have one iota of actual evidence to the contrary all this is just flaming of the individual and/or Community whereas there's mountains of evidence in support of. To which I say: You people are not a qualified source at all! As The Great Bob Marley said "You can fool some people sometime but you can't fool all the people all the time." Further you can't fool me.

To the extent of Aliens and UFOs:

-On Alien Abductions they bring in multiple eyewitnesses who say they've been abducted and present their testimony. I do believe they are telling the truth. How Do you know? If you're smart enough you can tell the signs to look for are: Increase in heart rate, profuse blinking, and incocistentcies in the story they tell. The Eyewitnesses show none of the above. They always bring in the skeptic to show the other side. It's always a Psychiatrist or Psychologist they claim to be and according to them Hypnosis can fabricate memories into a patient that were never there in the first place. And they go on to prove themselves to have a small, narrow, and closed mind and I refuse the testimony of anyone who has anything but a big, broad, and opened mind. And if they ever actually read about these Alien Abduction cases they would know the perpetrator is a violently disturbed psychotic individual and if indeed it's the fabrication of a "Psychiatrist/Psychologist" it is they who should be in the chair not the other way around.

-On generic Aliens and UFOs they bring in an "expert" who is a skeptic who once again make the same 3 arguments. Once again I declare in actuality there's mountains of evidence in support of whereas they have not one iota of actual evidence to the contrary merely flaming of the individual and/or The Community.

-On Ancient Aliens they have multiple experts on history, archeology, and symbols who are also Ufologists that talk about the availability electricity and the means to power machines in the bronze age. On multiple occasions there have been multiple archeology sites finding multiple "Bagdad Batteries" that's what they call them. In order to create them you take a clay pot fill it with an acidic fruit juice like orange juice rig up a clay top to the pot with a rod in the middle wrap pieces of copper on the top and bottom of the rod and place the cap on top of the pot. Indeed the experts were able to get a strong electrical charge. The skeptic came in a writer for Skeptical Inquirer Magazine and Declared: Well so what? They power bronze age machines? If there were any they would've found them by now. To which I declare: Oh, I see! Just because haven't found them YET automatically they never existed in the first place at all ever! By your logic King Tut, his tomb, his treasure didn't exist at all ever until 1923 when Carter made the discovery! Really! You're a Dick!

Best way to get people to follow what you believe is to let them decide for themselves if they want to believe it or not, and without any like "believe this or forever stay asleep from the truth". Best way is to be more like "this is the information that I have, choose for yourself if it is true or not."

also, ALWAYS.....ALWAYS have your sources, where you got your information. Always check to make sure what you got is also true. If people ask where you got this information, you should show them yourself.
One of the reasons people ask for a source isn't just to find the information themselves but to see if you actually researched what you are saying or if you are just pulling things out of your ass.

Most skeptics are seen as dicks because they come off as being a dick. They often will shove information into people's faces and expect them to believe it, and if they dont they get mad at them.

Simply put the information out there, dont try to change people's minds. Let them change it for themselves. If you come off as trying to change their minds, most people will get defensive and reject what you have to say instantly. If you come off as just handing out the information, some people might look at it and think that maybe it could be true. Many people will probably reject it because 1. Too many people who try to do this kind of thing act like dicks so they associate anyone handing out this information as being a dick. and 2. Many people will stick to what they believe and not try to change it.

Dont try to change minds, just hand out the information.

At 9/1/10 03:50 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: How do people feel about Penn & Teller bullshit, by the way?
There has been some retorts, like this one on global warming.

There was also the episode on secondhand smoke, which I think they themselves came out and admit they were wrong. I think they're mostly good, because they have done some great stuff like conspiracy theories and PETA.

haven't read the entire thread yet, a lot to get through - but reading so far I've noticed a great omission in the skeptical atheist point of view, and that is the abuse of reductionism in there arguments.
Reductionism is an intellectual device to keep a scientific idea simple so as not to bog down facts with mind numbing details, so initial yet important ideas can be taught and understood (with the understanding that there is more in the details). Skeptics use reductionism in a manner counter to the ideal of reductionism, taking everything at face value and as the ultimate truth ignoring other details of science because it conflicts with their own ideals and possibly has a seeming connection to mysticism and the occult - ignoring the possibility that the reason a new scientific discovery sounds mystical might be that nature also effects human evolution on a psychological sociological manner. some skeptics even goes as far to ignore proven or even well stated scientific facts just to win an argument.
that to me is not skeptical or faithless - but devout and often dogmatic.
I would think (not being an atheist myself) that the atheist position would take a serious psychological evolutionary point of view. instead of dismissing it as bull $h!7 because it offends them, and in doing so acknowledge that worship and deity being in the mind can be of anything, including the scientific or reductionist proses of discovery, which if followed blindly is as bad as any fundamentalist religion, as with Richard Dawkins and James Randi.

At 8/2/11 07:35 PM, Phantom-pen wrote: haven't read the entire thread yet, a lot to get through - but reading so far I've noticed a great omission in the skeptical atheist point of view, and that is the abuse of reductionism in there arguments.
Reductionism is an intellectual device to keep a scientific idea simple so as not to bog down facts with mind numbing details, so initial yet important ideas can be taught and understood (with the understanding that there is more in the details).

The irony here is that (I'm fairly certain) you wouldn't say you're abusing the notion that there is more in the details.

At 9/6/10 02:31 PM, poxpower wrote: That reminds me of those tests they make dowsers go through.
You know, something like having 6 rows of 6 containers, only one in each row contains water ( chosen at random ) and the other contain sand.

Then they get dowsers to use their awesome powers to find the water and they always fail.

And it never changes their minds. Ever. They could fail a million tests and still think they have magic powers.

That's the kind of nutbar we're dealing with here, I wonder if being polite is really going to make a dent in that. Holy shit.

Most people are indeed smart enough to distinguish a jar of sand from a jar of water simply by picking it up there's no magic just common sense really and to fail at such a task is idiocy.

the only dick is the one every man has(upon birth unless birth defect makes otherwise).

If being a skeptic makes you a dick then technically all of humanity would be dicks save for the mute or the guy who can't speak your language so he has no idea you just said something critical or little kids who don't understand big topics(though when it comes to video games and cupcakes, it gets going).

If the person I'm...debating it with does not agree to my ideas AND becomes extremely defensive and rough,i will simply ignore him and find someone who is calmer. I prefer having my comments retorted with something smart,not "I CUTZ UR BALZ OF AND FEED DEM TO MA DOGZ" because i was not talking about testicles,cutlery,food or canines.

supposedly shaggy isn't in with the "Jews with space-lasers did 9/11" (possibly a slight misrepresentation :p) crowd anymore. +1 for dickdom?

At 8/30/11 12:43 PM, SolInvictus wrote: supposedly shaggy isn't in with the "Jews with space-lasers did 9/11" (possibly a slight misrepresentation :p) crowd anymore. +1 for dickdom?

Not space-lasers...Death Star. Darth Vader is Jewish so we put two and two together. Vader made Death Star and upon instruction from Israel,fired it at the twin towers though they were altered in such a way to represent the puny earthling aircrafts. Hell,Israel isn't a country,its a giant spacecraft with the surface of a desert as a disguise. :D

I think it's more than +1.

At 8/2/11 03:57 PM, Iron-Claw wrote: To the extent of Aliens and UFOs:

-On Alien Abductions they bring in multiple eyewitnesses who say they've been abducted and present their testimony. I do believe they are telling the truth. How Do you know? If you're smart enough you can tell the signs to look for are: Increase in heart rate, profuse blinking, and incocistentcies in the story they tell. The Eyewitnesses show none of the above.

Are you aware of Recovered Memeory syndrome where someone has been suggested something by a hypnotists and believes it actually happened when there is no evidence to suggest it ever happened. Like Cathy OBrian claiming Gerald Ford had a hand in her sexual abuse

-On generic Aliens and UFOs they bring in an "expert" who is a skeptic who once again make the same 3 arguments. Once again I declare in actuality there's mountains of evidence in support of whereas they have not one iota of actual evidence to the contrary merely flaming of the individual and/or The Community.

Easy if said people want a skeptic to believe then all they need to do is grab a piece of technology off the shelf when the aliens are not looking. Amazing it hasn't happened yet with the amount of abductions we have heard about so far.

-On Ancient Aliens they have multiple experts on history, archeology, and symbols who are also Ufologists that talk about the availability electricity and the means to power machines in the bronze age. On multiple occasions there have been multiple archeology sites finding multiple "Bagdad Batteries" that's what they call them.

The batteries establish they experimented with electricity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if you want me to accept that they made complex electrical items then you would need to produce an archaelogical said item.

At 9/7/10 01:38 AM, Yorik wrote: Everybody should be a little more skeptical.

Everybody should be WAY more skeptical.

At 8/31/11 10:07 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 9/7/10 01:38 AM, Yorik wrote: Everybody should be a little more skeptical.

Everybody should be WAY more skeptical.

I'm Skeptical about this opinion.

At 8/31/11 06:24 AM, MatthewF wrote:

At 8/2/11 03:57 PM, Iron-Claw wrote: To the extent of Aliens and UFOs:

-On Alien Abductions they bring in multiple eyewitnesses who say they've been abducted and present their testimony. I do believe they are telling the truth. How Do you know? If you're smart enough you can tell the signs to look for are: Increase in heart rate, profuse blinking, and incocistentcies in the story they tell. The Eyewitnesses show none of the above.

Are you aware of Recovered Memeory syndrome where someone has been suggested something by a hypnotists and believes it actually happened when there is no evidence to suggest it ever happened

I am indeed and if you actually read the following statement thereafter you would be able to understand that if indeed it was from a psychologist or psychiatrist it is they who should be in the chair not the other way around. And if you had actually read that statement or any subsequent testimony you too would understand that what they went through was violently disturbing perpetrated by violently disturbed individuals and a human being would not be fit to practice such an act itself nor be in the medical professionals and they couldn't themselves conjure it because for those of us who have actually read their testimony and/or watched their testimony they describe an encounter that pushes them to the brink of what the human condition is able to conjure themselves or for even the most ardent science fiction writer. You really should research this from the other end which you don't. Literacy is a wonderful thing in spite what The Republican Party may criticize you for.

-On generic Aliens and UFOs they bring in an "expert" who is a skeptic who once again make the same 3 arguments. Once again I declare in actuality there's mountains of evidence in support of whereas they have not one iota of actual evidence to the contrary merely flaming of the individual and/or The Community.

Easy if said people want a skeptic to believe then all they need to do is grab a piece of technology off the shelf when the aliens are not looking. Amazing it hasn't happened yet with the amount of abductions we have heard about so far.

And yet you yourself have not one tiny iota of actual evidence to the contrary you just sit there and declare "There's no evidence whatsoever" "It's outrageous" and "Everybody who believes such shall be crucified" all this can be attributed to is harassment and that doesn't qualify as a professional status just another bully as I have said before. On multiple occasions people have recovered implants from parts of their body that have an actual electrical charge and unlike any material made on earth. This has been an actual occurrence for the past 20 years and you mean to tell me you've never heard of this? By your logic it never happened at all because you've never heard of it. That doesn't make you anything but grossly uninformed.

-On Ancient Aliens they have multiple experts on history, archeology, and symbols who are also Ufologists that talk about the availability electricity and the means to power machines in the bronze age. On multiple occasions there have been multiple archeology sites finding multiple "Bagdad Batteries" that's what they call them.

The batteries establish they experimented with electricity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if you want me to accept that they made complex electrical items then you would need to produce an archaelogical said item.

Indeed. Here it is. Seriously do the research if you wish to qualify for the debate. Just you never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because you don't know something to be true doesn't make it untrue it just makes you grossly uninformed.

I've definitely noticed a lot of this. Not just here but on other forums, Youtube, real life discussions etc.

I come at people hard, assuming from the start that I'm not just marginally but unreachably superior.

I've suffered from some targeted harassment from moderators here because of it. On websites like Gamedev, where I think moderators are much more clever, the consequences are even worse. Those guys know how to steer conversations and make it look as though you're wrong when you're right or cause the conversation to redirect at an angle that oversteps what you said altogether.

Granted, reducing the power of moderators would solve a lot of my problems, but I think it would create new ones. They end up being a necessary evil. The bottom line is I get a lot better results when I come into a thread lovey dovey style.

The sad truth is that what is logical or rational isn't what works best with people. I can't just come in and say "you're wrong because X and Y' or point out that most opinions do not deserve respect and that most of what they consider to be moral or ethical in argument is vestigial, emotion-drive, and completely irrational.

Knowing how to sugarcoat everything you say so people take it in a rational manner is a great skill to have. I can pour on the charm and fake it occasionally but for the most part I can't be bothered.

I would not say Skeptics are 'dicks' but rather bringers of insight and truth...so to speak.

When you attempt to convey your wisdom onto others, you have to take up a 'neutral' or impassive stance on the issue. Simply put, when skeptics or even critics try to correct ignorant people, they have to come off strong, aggressive, and sometimes cruel to make their point.

Not to mention the saying 'Ignorance is bliss' applies quite well in these situations, when you correct someone on an issue they thought they had down happily, it shakes them up and brings uncertainty.

I am not saying 'be more sympathetic'. Heck, the truth is harsh, and when you have overwhelming proof it has more of an effect on ignorant people.

Just keep in mind that when you help people over their ignorance, brace up cause you are going to come off as impassive and aggressive, and you are changing their thoughts on a particular subject, which makes them uncertain of themselves.

At 8/19/10 07:09 PM, poxpower wrote: If I was actually an important figure in the skeptical movement I'd make a better effort but I'm just some dude on the internet and I just see a bunch of dweebs who come in, make accounts, post a bunch of stupid rants and leave without ever debating anything.

Don't feel bad, we all do that, unfortunately. At least you admit it.