Originally posted by redtic
That seems to be a label skeptics get a lot - wonder why that is... it's hard to be a smug prick when you're dealing with vast amounts of
Problem with "Skeptics" (note the capitol S, which implies a Social Group), is I used to waste extreme amounts of time going against the best of the
Randi forums disciple minions, is they debunk certain flawed elements of -whatever- and then declare SHAM. With 911 stuff it was about keeping ALL the
attention of the crap from the original Loose Change. But then get to all the mind blowing geopolitical stuff and it was 'la la la cant hear you'.
The logical fallacy list these self-titled 'logicians' stapled to their forehead on down to their sleeve, the opposite becomes the Commandments they
Lack of evidence isnt evidence: TRUE! But clarifying key pieces of evidence, in particular to that case point, physics related evidence, doesn't
discount all the stuff outside the realm of 'science' (proper).
They're athiests, not agnostics. An athiest will show various uglies from "The Bible", and then declare with absolute certainty that "no god"
(which screams theres nothing of the sort) exists. In this case lack of evidence IS PROOF. Then they'll cut down fences with chainsaws in attempts to
convince me that me being an agnostic that makes me an Athiest, not in the realm of realistic logic (proper) outside of both Athiest & Christian
sorts. I'm not sure, because I cant be (and neither can they). I dont need faith in not being sure about things of such ultraubersupermegajumbo
consequences riddled with likewise uncertainties, but each other group needs faith in their solidified worldview.
To each his own, until you attempt to impose me into your Social Group to increase your affirmity and standing.
And there it is with the Randi crowd that I know, initial 9/11 mumbo jumbo had some flaws, especially in the sciencey areas where they keep their
whole knowledge set bottleneckingly dissonanced. Further, there are endless things that are completely debatable, most things if anything, which in
many cases I'm very well aware, there's no clear answer (in logic proper). But not with the Randi crowd (that I know): An opinion of any various
framework (even despite conflicting reports/fact) is actual fact, afterall they did actually debunk some stuff along the way. Radni guy: you might
note I was often times one of the most crushing 9/11 'debunker' on this site.
The important thing with the Skeptic (capital S) Social Group, is they aren't even skeptics (proper). They're only skeptical of views which oppose
the norm. That's a direct contradiction to the word skeptical, meaning they've hijacked that word as part of their propaganda effort (as far as I'm
concerned on that last part). Perhaps not all those in said Social Group, but that the reality groupwise (every stereotype I've ever heard has a
great deal of truth to it). That stereotype bit cuts both ways, and I'm not popular in the 9/11 crowd or with AJ's crew for these same reasons,
despite being a major contributor to that particular & others effort over the years.
That bit about propaganda: what else is this award 'thing', but propaganda??????
And since I brought up 9/11, dear Randi crowd: What is truth when I can use the 911 Commission Report (which I've actually read, and annotated) to
that the entire premise of everything geopolitical has been going on since before 9/11 is a vulgar kick into the forehead in terms of our
every notion of what "we're" doing and what this nation is about? The perpetuators of said wickedly ruthless fantasies, are the ones that the Randi
crowd ultimately defends geopolitically, which at best is merely to be naysayers to those (the actual skeptics) that challenge the given-truths to
such matters. For Randi minions to staunchly declare, across the board, that every single argument a "Truther" could every mention is false, is like
saying Republicans OR Democrats are 100% wrong, or 100% right. To each his own, as far as opinions go, but theres is only one truth
possible aspect of reality.