Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm watching the latest Jamest fumbled attack on materialism at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... 44189.html. There'll be some choice cito vs jamest/mr.samsa action in that!

I love how the broken rules are piling up against me and yet the mods do nothing.

[JimC]

I'm watching the latest Jamest fumbled attack on materialism at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... 44189.html. There'll be some choice cito vs jamest/mr.samsa action in that!

I love how the broken rules are piling up against me and yet the mods do nothing.

Hubris!

[Mr.Samsa]

Hubris!

You watch your language, young man.

[pErvinalia]

I'm watching the latest Jamest fumbled attack on materialism at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... 44189.html. There'll be some choice cito vs jamest/mr.samsa action in that!

I love how the broken rules are piling up against me and yet the mods do nothing.

I just can't wait to read more cito non-sequiturs and bizarre metaphors. And I love that jamest is now cranky with everyone these days. And you'll point out why cito's posts are nonsense and his fanboys will run to his aid. But the real fun will start when Scot Dutchy and KennyC arrive to put their "stamp" on the thread.

[Mr.Samsa]

I just can't wait to read more cito non-sequiturs and bizarre metaphors. And I love that jamest is now cranky with everyone these days. And you'll point out why cito's posts are nonsense and his fanboys will run to his aid. But the real fun will start when Scot Dutchy and KennyC arrive to put their "stamp" on the thread.

Most of the time I think Cito posts absurd incoherent posts despite him trying to make a relevant contribution to the thread, but I swear in our latest interactions he's just blatantly trolling me by refusing to say anything meaningful. Did you see where he tried to defend his claim of "statements made without evidence can be dismissed" by saying that it doesn't need evidence or reasoning to support it because it's simply a statement about what humans are capable of doing? To anyone looking at me I must have looked like a madman responding to him because I was practically crying from laughter whilst desperately trying to type out my comment.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, most of his post are idiotic. I describe what he does as "vain monologuing" (even though that last word isn't actually a word).

I've just discovered a few new pages in one of the "scientism" threads. It's fun watching Rumraket miss your point by a mile and all the 'likes' he is getting. Funny stuff. All you need to do to show him up is pick something that science hasn't explained yet. Ask him to accept that is a supernatural god supervening on the natural. If he thinks it's ridiculous to accept that, then his whole line of argumentation is ridiculous.

edit: ah yes, I've continued reading and see you've basically done that.

[pErvinalia]

Mr.Samsa wrote:The point of contention is whether science can determine whether the cause was supernatural or not. Suppose tomorrow an amputee did regrow a limb - would you suddenly believe in god?


rumraket wrote: Under properly controlled conditions, yes! Of course, that's the point of models. I would tentatively accept the superior god-model that accounts for the data. Why shouldn't I? You seem to be saying I should ignore the result I get in my test just because it's a god-model I'm testing.

Fuck, that's funny.

[Mr.Samsa]

Mr.Samsa wrote:The point of contention is whether science can determine whether the cause was supernatural or not. Suppose tomorrow an amputee did regrow a limb - would you suddenly believe in god?


rumraket wrote: Under properly controlled conditions, yes! Of course, that's the point of models. I would tentatively accept the superior god-model that accounts for the data. Why shouldn't I? You seem to be saying I should ignore the result I get in my test just because it's a god-model I'm testing.

Fuck, that's funny.

He seems to think that if something that isn't consistent with current scientific knowledge were to happen tomorrow then he would suddenly start believing in god and scientists would write up the result as being an act of god. It is one of the most fucked up conversations I've ever had but unfortunately such conversations are becoming far too common. I was considering asking if the recent scientific research looking at using stem cells to grow human ears and noses on the fatty tissue of people would be considered a miraculous regrowing of human body parts - of course, he'd claim that since it comes about through a naturalistic method it can't have a supernatural cause!

But as Scott notes, I'm obviously just a contrarian. My belief that scientists wouldn't conclude that god did it because they don't currently have an explanation or that The Guardian is a feminist publication where all the journalists are feminists is just me trying to speak against the popular opinion.

Of course, if the popular opinion is held by morons then you wouldn't want to hold a position that's consistent with theirs...

[Paula1]

Do you have any idea of what a tit you're making of yourself Samsa?

No one, apart from rEv, and he has his own sore arse, actually gives a fuck.

You, by all accounts, used to be quite a sound bloke. You're now acting like a petulant child who's absolutely crap at accepting he's being an arse. It's only the internet, get the fuck over yourself.

[pErvinalia]

Supporting Samsa (or not) has nothing to do with my downfall at ratskep. I'm still interested in the place lately, because this place has died in the arse. But there's a vocal bunch of sycophants, including yourself it appears, that seem to dominate any contentious discussion on that site. It's patently sad that "rationalists" fall for this hero worship shit. No offence, Paula, but I haven't seen you produce one rational counter argument to any of these contentious topics. If you want to wind up a Scot Dutchy or a KennyC, then continue on your merry way. It would be a shame, though. You can be social and like people without having to support them no matter what the contrary evidence. It's basically a conga line of suckholes over there at the moment (to steal a phrase from a particularly colourful ex party leader here in Oz).

[rainbow]

[Paula1]

Can you clarify this bit for me rEv

No offence, Paula, but I haven't seen you produce one rational counter argument to any of these contentious topics. If you want to wind up a Scot Dutchy or a KennyC, then continue on your merry way.

Which contentious topics?

And what has Scot Dutchy and KennyC got to do with anything? I have had almost no interaction with KennyC, and it's been pretty mixed

[pErvinalia]

What contentious topics? The ones Samsa gets in eternal arguments with other people in.

The reference to Scot Dutchy and KennyC is related to sniping from the sidelines. You appear more and more to belong to that category. I'm not sure what attracts such people to rationalist sites. There's plenty of other sites on the net where one can do that without the embarrassment of doing it on a site full of intellectuals.

Honestly, you appear to love ratskep for the social side. Up until recently this forum had a much better social side, and was a place where you could take cheap potshots from the sideline as more a humorous device. Perhaps you saw something that the rest of us didn't (that this site was going to decline), but i'd still think there's better ways for you to enjoy the social aspect of ratskep without sticking your head naively into threads which you probably can't coherently comment on.

[Paula1]

What contentious topics? The ones Samsa gets in eternal arguments with other people in.

The only arguments I've had with Samsa are when he, and others, start spouting shite about feminism and what it's like to be a 'woman'. You can disregard my opinions in this regard in the very same way as Samsa does, it doesn't mean my opinions aren't valid though. Have you read some of the shit from the feminism threads and the A+ thread? I consistently said 'Don't speak for me, just because I have a vagina I don't necessarily share your view'. What is irrational or sniping about that? Samsa doesn't like people disagreeing with him, fuck, I even stuck up for him when the twats on A+ were treating him like shit, but even that was wrong. He treated me with nothing but contempt from our first real interaction. I have no idea why. He'd tell you it was because I was wrong.

The reference to Scot Dutchy and KennyC is related to sniping from the sidelines. You appear more and more to belong to that category. I'm not sure what attracts such people to rationalist sites. There's plenty of other sites on the net where one can do that without the embarrassment of doing it on a site full of intellectuals.

As I said, I have had very little interaction with KennyC so I think you're confusing me with someone else. As for Scot, I mostly do leave him to it, considering almost every post he makes is slagging someone off for their gender, nationality, country of residence/birth, whatever. I do sometimes tell him to wind his neck in, he's a miserable old shit. My responses to him are generally NOT just vacuous slaggings, they always give my reasoning.

Honestly, you appear to love ratskep for the social side. Up until recently this forum had a much better social side, and was a place where you could take cheap potshots from the sideline as more a humorous device. Perhaps you saw something that the rest of us didn't (that this site was going to decline), but i'd still think there's better ways for you to enjoy the social aspect of ratskep without sticking your head naively into threads which you probably can't coherently comment on.

I never really settled in here, I've given it a try a few times but it's just not for me, although there are some people here I love dearly. I do pop in from time to time to see what's going on.

I have a relationship with lots of people there, you used to be one of them. I have learned so much from some members there, from a person that left school with two o'levels I have now studied topics and read books on things I'd never have thought of before. I very much enjoy the social side of RatSkep, but unless you've read all 13,500 of my posts throughout the forum you won't mind if I think your opinion that I'm an airhead is a tad unfair.

[Strontium Dog]

I'm watching the latest Jamest fumbled attack on materialism at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... 44189.html. There'll be some choice cito vs jamest/mr.samsa action in that!

I love how the broken rules are piling up against me and yet the mods do nothing.

I report every rule break I see, 99% of them go unactioned.

Incidentally, for the most part, the stuff I report is stuff I've previously been warned for: incitement to break the FUA; misrepresenting another member; off-topic posting; quote-mining. So I know it should be acted upon - if there was the slightest pretension to consistency, of course.

aspire1670 got an advisory - an advisory - for creating a sockpuppet account to troll me.

Of course, his sock was called aspire1671; he cunningly evaded their sophisticated anti-sockpuppet measures by altering a single digit in his username. I guess you should have thought of that one, Samsa.

They've given up all pretence to rationalism over there; the final straw was when they permabanned that self-declared paedophile just for being a self-declared paedophile.