Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
How am I being "selective"? I listed two labels attached to believers and two to skeptics. It is not an exhaustive list but neither is it biased.
I have explained in two rather lengthy posts already.
There is a difference in labels to show demarcations in belief, attitude and so forth. There is nothing wrong with that. The danger comes in
using such labels to dismiss people. It should be evident I am talking about the latter. And I will admit when I have used labels to dismiss people, I
No, you have no problem using labels both to dismiss people and demarcate belief, you do it regularly. I just quoted you doing it repeatedly. You only
have a problem with it when the context is defining pseudo-skepticism as you are keen to prevent this attitude from being clearly defined and
The topic of pseudoskeptics has been argued to death in other threads; no need to rehash them at length.
We never really get a chance to discuss it rationally before you and a few others derail the debate and sound the false alarm that "Skeptics are
being attacked!". You won't allow
a reasonable debate on this issue to stand. Even now you are keen not to "rehash" it.
But in short, whatever high-minded intentions you may claim, that is not how the label is employed. The label is used to dismiss people; it shifts the
debate from evidence and points to make it about the person himself. It is the exact danger I am talking about.
No more so than any other label - all of which you habitually use
. Your problem is uniquely with this
label. And you always attempt this
subtle bait and switch. Myself and others create threads discussing 'pseudo-skepticism
' which is a label for an attitude and an approach to
the evidence. These threads are not aimed at individuals or in labeling individuals and don't name individuals. But you pretend
about labeling individuals so that you can shut down the debate. You make a convenient false accusation. And I don't buy your supposed concern of
this for a second because you are such a prolific user of labels such as 'true believer' yourself.
Question is, why are you so desperate to label people as pseudo-skeptics instead of listening to their points and arguing those?
Bingo! There's the switch. Did you spot it? It's a lie to say that I'm interested in "labeling people
as pseudo-skeptics". I'm not and
I've consistently shown that. I'm interested in defining an attitude
: "labels to show demarcations in belief, attitude and so forth", your
words, of which you yourself said "There is nothing wrong with that
". Yet, in practice you hypocritically and selectively deny the need to
define the attitude of 'pseudo-skepticism' by falsely claiming that all who attempt to do so are really secretly trying to "label people
and you warn of the grave dangers of defining pseudo-skepticism, just in case some people may end up being referred to as "pseudo-skeptics" - and
all the while you hypocritically dole out dismissive labels like 'true believer'.
Why are you trying to protect pseudo-skepticism - a label which "shows demarcation in belief and attitude" - from all open rational discussion?
[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]