Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member

DavidDvorkin

(19,186 posts)
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 08:24 PM Mar 2012

Supposedly, elephants trekked to a house to mourn a human

It's here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002470356

We're told that they were mourning the death of a man known as "the elephant whisperer".

The story is based on the claims of one person, the elephant whisperer's son. For that matter, there seems to be only one witness to the remarkable experiences of the elephant whisperer -- namely, the whisperer himself.

But that's enough for lots of oohing and aahing and goopy posts on DU.

Supposedly, elephants trekked to a house to mourn a human (Original Post) DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 OP
I don't know the details of this story... but I wish I'd never read your post... hlthe2b Mar 2012 #1
Because I expressed skepticism? DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #2
because you went out of your way to be ugly and derisive. hlthe2b Mar 2012 #8
I intended to be dismissive and scornful DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #10
Part of being a skeptic is being willing to point out when something is questionable, EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #3
That's exactly it DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #4
So...emotions trump truth? MineralMan Mar 2012 #13
Since when does rudeness & incivility equal truth? hlthe2b Mar 2012 #15
Since you're in this particular group. MineralMan Mar 2012 #16
No... "woo" gets rebutted with facts not by being nasty and demeaning to others. hlthe2b Mar 2012 #17
I'm appalled that so many people MineralMan Mar 2012 #18
If you don't have facts to support your case then this becomes nothing more than hlthe2b Mar 2012 #19
What you see on the Latest page is up to you. MineralMan Mar 2012 #20
It is YOU who is apparently complaining that 'non-group members reply to posts here... hlthe2b Mar 2012 #22
No, I'm not complaining at all. MineralMan Mar 2012 #25
Debunking is fine... Extreme ridiculing and mocking without substantive discussion is .... hlthe2b Mar 2012 #26
I think you should re-read the OP. MineralMan Mar 2012 #29
I went back to reread the OP, and i have to say that I don't see what... eqfan592 Mar 2012 #70
It is not necessary to rebut woo with facts DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #21
Which BOTH sides should do rspectfully and civilly... hlthe2b Mar 2012 #23
Should I be respectful of Mitch McConnell when he says DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #24
Since when is Mitch McConnell a DU member? hlthe2b Mar 2012 #27
It's not at all a straw man DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #28
Mocking and calling out other DU members with intense derision is the issue. hlthe2b Mar 2012 #30
Calling a post absurd is not what calling out a DU member means DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #31
Sorry that you can't be straight forward enough to acknowledge your own behavior. hlthe2b Mar 2012 #32
You're going around in circles and repeating insults DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #33
FWIW... uppityperson Mar 2012 #34
Thanks for posting that. I appreciate it. MineralMan Mar 2012 #35
Someone's going apeshit with the alert button. Ian David Mar 2012 #37
I suppose so. Never mind. MineralMan Mar 2012 #39
You are welcome. I have started doing this, if jury comes back "leave", let the poster know uppityperson Mar 2012 #46
I alerted on you. I lost. I was not wrong. You're being cruel to people for no discernable reason DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #47
Yes, I know you did. MineralMan Mar 2012 #48
You know that I did, because I told you I did. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #49
Thanks for your reply. MineralMan Mar 2012 #50
"earnest students"? Silent3 Mar 2012 #51
I think they're honest people expressing genuine feeling about a story they read DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #52
A very genuine, honest manifestation of engaging keyboards before engaging brains Silent3 Mar 2012 #53
I know what I define as cruel, and I saw it with MM and another poster DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #54
It's people ever-so-gently treading on this kind of fuzzy-headed thinking... Silent3 Mar 2012 #55
Then you're part of the problem and not part of the solution EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #56
defending reason and sanity is a far cry from riduculing someone for what they believe DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #57
What you don't seem to get... EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #58
and what you don't seem to get, is that I'm using MM's own terminology: ridicule DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #61
There's a rather marked difference between EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #66
Just can't let that go, can you? MineralMan Mar 2012 #59
Why would I let this go when you've invited me several times to peruse your FR posts? DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #60
No. I don't care if your post stays visible. I don't alert on attacks against myself. MineralMan Mar 2012 #62
This isn't off-topic at all DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #63
Look. No context. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to discuss this with you any MineralMan Mar 2012 #64
Then look at the FULL PAGES so you don't lose any CONTEXT DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #65
I was Juror #4. n/t Ian David Mar 2012 #36
Well, in the case of this thread, the woo came from a GD post, MineralMan Mar 2012 #40
BeliefNet, Natural News and Prison Planet poison the blogosphere. n/t Ian David Mar 2012 #41
Yup. That's my opinion, as well. MineralMan Mar 2012 #43
You did good. I read that thread with the same thoughts. immoderate Mar 2012 #5
Because everything is, like, connected to everything else. DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #6
Although elephants DO communicate over vast distances using infrasound. Ian David Mar 2012 #42
Dude, it's like all quantum and stuff. MadrasT Mar 2012 #45
Don't discard this just because it comes from beliefnet. I heard from a friend of a friend dimbear Mar 2012 #7
Hah! DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #9
LOL!! n/t Ian David Mar 2012 #38
If you look really closely, you'll see angels accompanying the MineralMan Mar 2012 #44
What grinds my gears... MadrasT Mar 2012 #11
It's that missing link called critical thinking. MineralMan Mar 2012 #14
What separates us from the believers Ron Obvious Mar 2012 #12
My (now deceased) cat was depressed for a month after my dog died. Odin2005 Mar 2012 #67
I've seen depression in the dogs and cats we've owned DavidDvorkin Mar 2012 #68
Very true, sounds like an exaggeration to me. Odin2005 Mar 2012 #71
I figured the story was harmless if incredible. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #69
Maybe itís not true, frogmarch Mar 2012 #72

hlthe2b

(99,856 posts)
1. I don't know the details of this story... but I wish I'd never read your post...
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 09:41 PM
Mar 2012

Because regardless of whether there is or could be any truth in it or not, the extent that you have gone to ridicule, mock and call out your fellow DUers is just cringe-worthy.

EvolveOrConvolve

(6,452 posts)
3. Part of being a skeptic is being willing to point out when something is questionable,
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 10:23 PM
Mar 2012

no matter how good it may make us feel. It's like the pictures of Jesus that magically show up on toast. Some may consider it miraculous and a "feel good" story, but that doesn't stop us from pointing out how ridiculous it is.

It's a nice story, but I'd be willing to venture that it's not magic at work.

DavidDvorkin

(19,186 posts)
4. That's exactly it
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:02 PM
Mar 2012

The story is appealing, but skepticism is certainly warranted. Instead, I saw an enthusiastic leap to believe, along with mystical explanations of how it had all happened.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
16. Since you're in this particular group.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:19 PM
Mar 2012

In this group, woo gets ridiculed, as it should. Ridiculous things are examined and, if they are ridiculous, they are ridiculed here.

Elephants do not exhibit the behavior ascribed to them in that fantasy story. It was so ridiculous that I did not even open the thread. Here, in this group, such things get the ridicule they deserve.

hlthe2b

(99,856 posts)
17. No... "woo" gets rebutted with facts not by being nasty and demeaning to others.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:21 PM
Mar 2012

I'm appalled that you apparently think this is ok.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
18. I'm appalled that so many people
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:27 PM
Mar 2012

blindly believed such an obviously incorrect story that had no support for the facts. The OP was not nasty and demeaning. It was expressing the same surprise at the gush of emotions about an uncorroborated story that has no basis in fact. Gullibility is not worthy of praise, I'm afraid, in this group on DU. You will find similar ridicule of many silly things here. If that appalls you, then SS&P may not be the group for you. There are many others.

hlthe2b

(99,856 posts)
19. If you don't have facts to support your case then this becomes nothing more than
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:52 PM
Mar 2012

the equivalent of the "mean girl" high school clique where they come together with no other purpose than to mock, ridicule, and deride others. If you want to support that premise, that tactic and that kind of corrosive atmosphere, then so be it. I thought much more highly of you, frankly, MM.

FWIW, this post appeared on the latest page, which is where saw it and followed it. If you want only those like-minded to seek you out, then you need to request that your posts not appear on the general latest page. And, no, I have every right to respond to any thread posted there. But, I will do the very best I can to avoid uch tactics as some in this thread have employed.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
20. What you see on the Latest page is up to you.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:02 PM
Mar 2012

Last edited Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

You can customize it to suit your preferences.

I'm not a host of this forum.

Further, the name of the forum or group shows up in the Latest Page listings. The name of this group is Skepticism, Science, and Pseudoscience. That should be a clear clue as to its nature. When I see a thread on the Latest Page that comes from the LGBT group, I know that it will have something to do with LGBT issues. Same with Gun Control & RKBA. It's good to know where you're heading when you click a DU link.

This group's primary purpose is debunking non-scientific material. That's what people do here, and humor and ridicule of ideas that have no scientific basis is part of that. Click any group's About this Group tab to see what that group is about. In the LGBT group, discussions center around issues of interest to LGBT DUers. Not all groups appeal to or are aimed at all DUers.

hlthe2b

(99,856 posts)
22. It is YOU who is apparently complaining that 'non-group members reply to posts here...
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:39 PM
Mar 2012

The default is for the posts here to show up for everyone. Thus, you can't complain nor accuse others of "seeking" you out when they reply to a thread. If you want this to be a closed group for the purpose of mocking others, then perhaps you should request it be hidden from the "latest" by default.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
25. No, I'm not complaining at all.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:02 PM
Mar 2012

Anyone can post in this group, as they can anywhere on DU. When you post in a group, you will get responses based on that group's interests. Nobody wants this to be a closed group, and I didn't think anyone came looking for me at all. Actually, I saw your post here, which induced me to reply. Your post was a reply to the OP of this thread.

Nobody sought me out at all. I was looking at threads in this group, which is something I do daily. When I find something of interest, I post replies in the thread, just as you did, when you read this particular thread. In your reply, you made certain accusations regarding the OP. I responded to those accusations by telling you the nature of this group and its focus.

The nature of this group is to debunk woo and unscientific ideas that have no basis in fact. In this case it was a questionable story about some elephants that supposedly flocked to a place where a person who worked with elephants had died. The source of that story was beliefnet. That website often gets attention here, because it often posts uncorroborated stories that are based on questionable information. In very many ways, beliefnet is a prime vendor of woo, from astrology to other things that have no scientific basis. It's Woo Central.

That's the nature of this group. It is what the group is for. Now that you know that, you can choose to visit threads here you see on the Latest Page or skip them.

Posters here mock ideas that are nonfactual and unsupported.

hlthe2b

(99,856 posts)
26. Debunking is fine... Extreme ridiculing and mocking without substantive discussion is ....
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:12 PM
Mar 2012

hardly persuasive. High school girls do this to make themselves feel superior. What on earth is the objective for doing it here?

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
29. I think you should re-read the OP.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:21 PM
Mar 2012

There was no "extreme ridiculing and mocking" there. The objective of this group is to discuss woo and pseudoscience. As I said, it may not be of interest to you. But, you are exaggerating what was said in the OP quite a bit.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
70. I went back to reread the OP, and i have to say that I don't see what...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:16 AM
Mar 2012

...the big deal is. The OP was nowhere near "extreme ridiculing and mocking." Not even in the same ballpark for that matter.

DavidDvorkin

(19,186 posts)
21. It is not necessary to rebut woo with facts
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:33 PM
Mar 2012

It is necessary for those pushing woo to offer some facts.

hlthe2b

(99,856 posts)
23. Which BOTH sides should do rspectfully and civilly...
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:40 PM
Mar 2012

I just find it sad that at least based on your post and those defending it--the group seems to exist merely to mock and ridicule rather than discuss. What on earth is the point of that?

DavidDvorkin

(19,186 posts)
24. Should I be respectful of Mitch McConnell when he says
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:56 PM
Mar 2012

that the Bible proves that there is no global warming?

Of people who insist that there is no such thing as evolution and the earth is 6,000 years old?

Of people who say that women and non-whites are inherently inferior?

Of anyone, no matter what nonsense they push?

hlthe2b

(99,856 posts)
27. Since when is Mitch McConnell a DU member?
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:14 PM
Mar 2012
You know quite well that that is a straw man and not at all consistent with the point of argument, which is your mocking ridicule--absent any substantive discussion of other DUers

DavidDvorkin

(19,186 posts)
28. It's not at all a straw man
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:18 PM
Mar 2012

I don't engage in straw man arguments or other rhetorical trickery. I've very serious, and I resent your accusation.

Why does being a DU member make a difference? Are you saying that if Person A, not a DU member, says something utterly laughable, then it's permissible to deride that statement, but if Person B, a DU member, says the very same thing, then derision is not permissible?

Why the distinction? The statement itself is still absurd and worthy of derision.

hlthe2b

(99,856 posts)
30. Mocking and calling out other DU members with intense derision is the issue.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:37 PM
Mar 2012

I don't believe you are so obtuse as to not know that THAT is the point.

DavidDvorkin

(19,186 posts)
31. Calling a post absurd is not what calling out a DU member means
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:40 PM
Mar 2012

You seem to have invented a new rule.

My OP didn't refer to a specific post, let along a specific DU member, but even if it had, I don't believe that would have contravened the DU "calling out" rule.

However, under your new rule, doesn't your attack on my OP -- let alone your subsequent accusations aimed directly at me -- constitute a violation of the "calling out" rule?

hlthe2b

(99,856 posts)
32. Sorry that you can't be straight forward enough to acknowledge your own behavior.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:42 PM
Mar 2012

Which, despite jurors often allowing it on DU3, is a call out of those duers with whom you disagree and is the last bastion of those who can not make a cogent argument.


And yes, your bringing in some totally unrelated issue relative to Mitch McConnell is a classic strawman argument. Though you protest, that is exactly what you are doing.

DavidDvorkin

(19,186 posts)
33. You're going around in circles and repeating insults
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:49 PM
Mar 2012

Clearly you have no position on which to base your complaint, and so you resort to attacks.

Your are not discussing this in good faith, and so it's pointless to read your posts or respond to them.

uppityperson

(115,656 posts)
34. FWIW...
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 11:41 AM
Mar 2012

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:30 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Since you're in this particular group.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Skepticism and ridicule are two very different things. I am a skeptic; I am an agnostic. I don't know what I think about this elephant story, but I know that I won't ridicule and make fun of the many excellent DUers who liked the thread. This series of posts by MM is not a defense of rationality; it's an attack on those DUers he considers to be wrong, thus the "woo gets ridiculed, as it should". I truly don't believe that this group's purpose should be to make fun of other DU groups...this happened in GD, but the target is "woo", i.e., the ASAH group. I appeal to the jury to remove this post in order to send a signal that making fun of other DUers isn't ok.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:37 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No direct attack. This is a discussion board. Discussions can be heated at times.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Alerter is correct. Snide ridicule should not be tolerated here, and the alerted upon post is nothing but. It's also creepy and stalkerish. First the feminists group, now the astro/spirituality group? Unacceptable.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: MM is just calling it as he sees it. Woo is woo. This is not a personal attack of the sort that warrants removal.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
35. Thanks for posting that. I appreciate it.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 11:57 AM
Mar 2012

DUers don't know when someone alerts on them if the jury leaves the post.

The post being discussed in this thread was in GD, not in any safe haven group. Every forum and group is available to all DUers. This group is for skeptics and often makes fun of pseudoscientific things, wherever they appear. In this case, it was in GD.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
39. I suppose so. Never mind.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:12 PM
Mar 2012

Anyone can alert on anything. Juries make good decisions most of the time. I'm sure I get alerted on all the time. I have some opinions that are unpopular with some DUers. So far, though, no hidden posts.

uppityperson

(115,656 posts)
46. You are welcome. I have started doing this, if jury comes back "leave", let the poster know
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 03:05 PM
Mar 2012

it was alerted on.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
47. I alerted on you. I lost. I was not wrong. You're being cruel to people for no discernable reason
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:57 PM
Mar 2012

Spirituality is not hierarchically above or below logic and rationality--they're on different trees. One is suitable for launching spacecraft and safely landing them again. The other is suitable for pondering the biggest questions life has asked of us (while also being a dangerous gathering place for crackpots and confidence men). As I mentioned in my alert, I don't know what I think about the elephant story, but I know that you and at least one other person have been exceedingly cruel to some really good people who just liked a nice story for a change. And you've carved out this space so that you can make fun of these people. Yes, my alert was voted down, and by a large majority. I still have right on my side, and you're still acting in a reprehensible manner.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
48. Yes, I know you did.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 06:58 PM
Mar 2012

Actually I have nothing to do with this group in any official sense. I'm not a host. I'm just another DUer. I post in it maybe a couple of times a week, usually as a reply to someone else's post. So, I didn't "carve out this space." Your opinion is what your opinion is. You're welcome to alert on any of my posts you wish. I imagine you'll get similar results each time.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
49. You know that I did, because I told you I did.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 07:08 PM
Mar 2012

I know that I'm welcome to alert on your posts, and I don't need any leave from you to do so. The fact remains you were cruel, making fun of people, having fun at their expense, being the kid in the back of the class making fun of the earnest students--yeah, I get it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but a quick Google search shows that it would take a lot more than this for you to be ashamed of yourself. By the terms of this forum, I too, am a skeptic, but I hope I never revel in mean-spiritedness just because I don't believe this thing or that.

Silent3

(14,457 posts)
51. "earnest students"?
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:30 PM
Mar 2012

You think the people who credulously oooh and ahhh over a story like this, without pausing to reflect on how unlikely the story is or to wonder what proof there might be, correspond to the "earnest students" in a class room?

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
52. I think they're honest people expressing genuine feeling about a story they read
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:39 PM
Mar 2012

I don't do cruel, sorry.

Silent3

(14,457 posts)
53. A very genuine, honest manifestation of engaging keyboards before engaging brains
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:44 PM
Mar 2012

If you think pointing that out is "cruel" you must think people have awfully thin skins.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
54. I know what I define as cruel, and I saw it with MM and another poster
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:51 PM
Mar 2012

It's not up for discussion. It's not progressive. It's not what caring people do. And if you want to engage, we'll by god engage, just let me know. But the point about cruelty is not something I need to be talked into or dissuaded from; it was clear for anyone with a conscience to see.

Silent3

(14,457 posts)
55. It's people ever-so-gently treading on this kind of fuzzy-headed thinking...
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:24 PM
Mar 2012

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

...that helps perpetuate it. If you blather nonsense, and all you ever get in response is other people chiming in and amplifying that nonsense in a big gushing lovefest, and anyone who questions the nonsense is quickly shouted down as a big meanie... then what do you expect but more fuzzy-headed nonsense?

People respond much less to reasoning than they do to emotional cues and identity politics and tribal signifiers. If the most reasonable people eschew emotion just to show how reasonable they are, they lose. We need more people in this world gasping out loud, "Really? Are you nuts!?", not fewer.

EvolveOrConvolve

(6,452 posts)
56. Then you're part of the problem and not part of the solution
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:11 PM
Mar 2012

There is a dearth of critical thinking in the U.S. that is allowed to perpetuate because there aren't enough people saying "stop, that's nonsense" when they see nonsense. Instead, nonsense is congratulated and lauded as if ignorance is a trait to be admired. Or, we're admonished to keep our thoughts to ourselves when attempting to point out nonsense so that we don't hurt someone's feelings.

It may be cruel for an adult to finally admit to their child that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but it's a necessary cruelty. It's part of the maturation process to abandon the sort of magical thinking that leads to the nonsense pointed out in the OP. Unfortunately, magical thinking affects both conservative and liberal - it's a disease that knows no political boundary - so calling into question another DUer's progressive credentials because they defend reason and sanity is silly and a little offensive.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
57. defending reason and sanity is a far cry from riduculing someone for what they believe
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 03:55 PM
Mar 2012

And yes, I do mean it when I say that cruelty isn't a progressive trait. There's also such a thing as tact. This sort of cruelty is the domain of the fuckfaces at Free Republic, which shouldn't be too surprising, given that the hero you're defending has 26,000 disgusting posts at FR under his belt.

EvolveOrConvolve

(6,452 posts)
58. What you don't seem to get...
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 06:33 PM
Mar 2012

...is that pointing out nonsense is not the same as ridicule. True believers are always offended when someone points out the nonsensical nature of their beliefs, but the that's a problem of the offendee rather than the offender.

And, when did honesty become cruelty? If an idea is stupid, we're going to point that out. I may moderate my tone depending on the forum I'm addressing, but I'm not going to stay quiet simply because someone's feelings may be hurt. David Dvorkin posted this in the skeptics group, where beliefs are ridiculed on a regular basis, without filter, so if you consider the ridicule of someone's beliefs to be "cruel", then this might not be the best group for you to spend a significant amount of time.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
61. and what you don't seem to get, is that I'm using MM's own terminology: ridicule
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:19 PM
Mar 2012

Really, take it to the lab, give it a litmus test, and see what science says about my choice of words. I predict that if you Ctrl-F in this thread and type the word ridicule, you'll see it on a lower post # than any that I've used, and it will correspond with one of his posts. Give it a try.

In paragraph 2, you reversed yourself and said that ridicule is a standard feature of this group, after stating in the first paragraph that this wasn't ridicule. I don't really know how to answer this--it's illogical (which, of course, is ironic).

EvolveOrConvolve

(6,452 posts)
66. There's a rather marked difference between
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 08:20 PM
Mar 2012

ridiculing a belief and ridiculing the believer. I differentiate between the two because they are separate actions. That seems to be a distinction you have a hard time drawing.

Again, if that ridicule unsettles you so much, this is probably not the place for you.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
59. Just can't let that go, can you?
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 06:47 PM
Mar 2012

That's not a secret, you know. Anyone who wants can learn about my time on Free Republic, which ended almost 6 years ago when I got banned. I posted an explanation of what I was doing there right here on DU. It was a waste of my time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=231858

I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up, but, when you do, I'll just post this link.

Also, I didn't ridicule any person on DU. I ridiculed general gullibility and a lack of critical thinking. I named nobody, and didn't have anybody in mind, except maybe for whoever wrote that story on BeliefNet.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
60. Why would I let this go when you've invited me several times to peruse your FR posts?
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:16 PM
Mar 2012

I've read your posts on Free Republic. You said some really vile, terrible things. You've stated that homosexuals shouldn't be in positions of trust around children. I think that was really despicable of you. You mentioned that St. Paul has a "multi ethnicity" problem. That's extremely racist. You made fun of Muslims. In short, you acted exactly like Freepers act--in a reprehensible, racist, and bigoted manner.

This is a group that values logic and rationality above all, yes? You say you were a plant on Free Republic, trying to win hearts and minds for years. You had 26K posts there. You have something like 43K here...I recall because you mentioned this. So let's take what we know and see what we can come up with, in a logical construction: You've falsely represented who you are and what you're about. But you'll agree that it's only logical for people who aren't you, people who aren't inside your head (to wit: everyone else) to conclude that you're either misrepresenting yourself here, or there, or both. From the outside, it's impossible to tell one way or another. You've said you misrepresented to Free Republic who you are and what you're about...and it shows. As I said, you made some really hateful and base posts in your several-year tenure at that site. What do we have to go on, then? Your word? Is there some rational reason that your word should be accepted, since you've admitted falsehoods about who you are and what you're about? Should the 43K vs 26K posts make a difference, tip the scales? If so, what's your rationale for making this case? Or should we go with content of posts? If you do that, well, you look just like a freeper who hates gay people, Muslims, and the always-scary "multi-ethnics", at least on that side.

Let's be clear--I'm not making accusations, but I am happy to find that we're discussing this in the Skepticism forum, under the parent header of science. As such, I've just created a construct that has no obvious answer. Given the information available, it's impossible to tell who you were running the game on: them, or us. Is that not completely rational? And if so, why are you expressing frustration to me? I thought you'd be really happy that I was using something akin to scientific inquiry to parse your posts there, and your history here? I think you're letting your emotions get in the way of seeing that this indeterminate conclusion is the only one that can be reached.

Thank you.

Oh, and it occurs to me that you may want to get this post deleted. If so, you may be successful. But I'll know that you wanted to minimize exposure to all your rational and science-minded friends here, and some of them will see this for what it is too.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
62. No. I don't care if your post stays visible. I don't alert on attacks against myself.
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:31 PM
Mar 2012

I think it's odd that you are posting off-topic attacks on me in this thread, but that is apparently what you wish to do. It's your post, so here it sits.

You are misstating what I posted on that other site several years ago. That is all I have to say about that.

But, I'll just let your post sit here.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
63. This isn't off-topic at all
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:47 PM
Mar 2012

It is a threadjack, I'll admit that. But this is the skepticism forum, and you're asking people to believe something based on a feeling. What does that sound like to you? Elephants, maybe? If you'd care to answer what I wrote before, I'd love to see your reply. I'd love to see a person who values logic as much as you do explain, logically, why your claims have merit.

As for "misstating"....hardly. Ya want links? I'm so happy you asked:

Homosexual people should not be around children in positions of authority:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1303549/posts
About pedophilia? I don't think homosexual men should be in positions of trust with boys. Or lesbians with girls. That's simple. However, not all pedophiles have exhibited their tendencies. Yes, some homosexuals prey on kids. No question. But there's another group that has no identifiable adult homosexual relationships. There's also a heckuva lot of heterosexual pedophilia out there, with men molesting young girls and women molesting young boys.

Here's you saying that St. Paul is a nice place to live, even with the drawback of being multi-ethnic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1278322/posts
There are still some good bargains in houses there, and it's close to everything. Recommended.
The only drawback is that it's a very multi-ethnic part of the area, but everyone I've met seem to be embracing the American dream and are working hard towards it. Kids play in the street and the crime rate is low.
I think you'll like it.

Please let me know how I misrepresented what you said on "that other" website.

Thank you.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
64. Look. No context. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to discuss this with you any
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:52 PM
Mar 2012

further here. Without context, there's nothing to talk about in your first example. And I live in a multi-ethnic neighborhood in St. Paul. I like it, and my neighbors very much. I own a home in that neighborhood. Again, you are posting individual posts without context from over 6 years ago.

Hi-jacking threads is very poor behavior, and I will not continue this with you any further.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
65. Then look at the FULL PAGES so you don't lose any CONTEXT
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 08:02 PM
Mar 2012

Everyone reading this is more than welcome to read fully for context. You're great at pointing fingers at others who you feel need your fingerpointing skills, but you don't seem at all comfortable when someone asks you to explain yourself. This is incongruent with your statments, since you've invited me and everyone else to look through your FR posts. In the H&M thread you started on this very topic, a thread that has over 200 responses, you got to a point where you told people you'd no longer answer any of their questions. There are several things you said that people have asked you about, and you've refused to answer. You're doing it again, and using the politician's excuse of context. That's why that little blue link is there. I excerpted, but the full page, and therefore full context, is available just by clicking and reading.

You can refuse to answer questions, but don't think that your lame "out of context" rejoinder is something that's even remotely plausible. Let it be known that when the rubber hits the road, you refuse to answer questions that you yourself invited others to ask. I'll let you get back to making fun of people who like heartwarming stories now, but don't dare ever try to tell me about logic, scientific inquiry, and truth again--and don't try to browbeat people in other forums for being irrational, illogical, or evasive. You've run from all of these principles right here in this thread, and you're utterly devoid of any legitimate authority to talk about such things, most especially when it comes to your habit of attempting to leverage yourself above others by belittling what they're talking about.

Ian David

(69,059 posts)
36. I was Juror #4. n/t
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:07 PM
Mar 2012

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's that missing link called critical thinking.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Woo, on this site, and for the benefit of any jurors who aren't aware, refers to the Astrology group--a group this poster has long ridiculed. Woo is a derogatory comment, as evidenced by this post, which ties "woo" to gullibility and failed critical thinking skills. This rationalist agnostic is asking that the unkind post be removed.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:51 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster is making a mocking retort. It is not over the top for a political discussion board.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Woo does not just refer to people in the DU astrology group. It refers to any belief in any sort of stupid shit by anyone.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This particular group is the right place for a cautionary discussion of critical thinking skills.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with the poster. It is a personal attack and insult.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
40. Well, in the case of this thread, the woo came from a GD post,
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:14 PM
Mar 2012

with a link to a story from BeliefNet, which is pretty much woo central on the Internet. It had nothing to do with any group on DU.

Woo is woo, and SS&P is where it gets debunked.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
43. Yup. That's my opinion, as well.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:27 PM
Mar 2012

They're much loved, though, by some, based on the number of OPs that link to them. Prison Planet not so much, but Natural News was the bane of the Health group on DU2. Fortunately, we're not seeing so much from there on DU3 these days. BeliefNet, seems to pop up mostly in a couple of groups, but sometimes shows up in GD. GD is where I dislike it. I don't really care about the groups that think it's worthwhile.

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
5. You did good. I read that thread with the same thoughts.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:50 PM
Mar 2012
Two elephant herds, trekked miles, because they sensed this guy had died? Wooo-oooo-ooooo!

--imm

Ian David

(69,059 posts)
42. Although elephants DO communicate over vast distances using infrasound.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:22 PM
Mar 2012

Although I can't imagine how that could help.

dimbear

(6,271 posts)
7. Don't discard this just because it comes from beliefnet. I heard from a friend of a friend
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:00 AM
Mar 2012

that the elephants all sang "Ebony and Ivory." It was extremely touching.

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
44. If you look really closely, you'll see angels accompanying the
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:29 PM
Mar 2012

elephants in the photos. Or, maybe it's just flies. Hard to tell.

MadrasT

(7,237 posts)
11. What grinds my gears...
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 10:23 AM
Mar 2012

...is how people jump all over a story like this and "oooh" and "aaaah" and get all gushy without one shred of curiosity about "is this any real evidence this is true?"

MineralMan

(145,871 posts)
14. It's that missing link called critical thinking.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:06 PM
Mar 2012

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Acceptance of whatever nonsense shows up on a computer screen without question is its manifestation (I love that word).

Woo "manifests" through gullibility and failed critical thinking skills.

 

Ron Obvious

(6,261 posts)
12. What separates us from the believers
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:19 AM
Mar 2012

This is what separates us from the believers, a willingness to cast a cold, sceptical eye over an implausible feel-good story rather than accepting it because we would like it to be true.

"The truth shall set you free"? Not on your life if the believers have any say over it.

"Love like a mother, observe like a bailiff", though I can't remember who said that.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
67. My (now deceased) cat was depressed for a month after my dog died.
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 10:48 PM
Mar 2012

I don't know if that could be called mourning, but my poor cat obviously missed him.

DavidDvorkin

(19,186 posts)
68. I've seen depression in the dogs and cats we've owned
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 11:50 PM
Mar 2012

when one died. Animal friendships often cross species.

It's the excessive nature of the "elephant whisperer" story, combined with the lack of evidence for it, that makes me so skeptical.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
69. I figured the story was harmless if incredible.
Thu Mar 29, 2012, 09:33 PM
Mar 2012

If people want to believe it, fine.

I've heard some strange stories, doubted them and then learned they were true. I've also heard some strange stories, doubted them and learned I was right.

This story is a bit too good to be true, but then what do I know.

frogmarch

(12,118 posts)
72. Maybe itís not true,
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 02:37 PM
Mar 2012

but I know that non-human animals – at least some of them – do grieve over the loss of their friends, whether human or non-human. When one of our pets dies, the surviving pet despairs.

The morning after our beloved poodle, our only pet at the time, died of old age and we’d buried him in our woods in a coffin we made for him, his many (14) feral cat friends gathered in a circle around his grave and sat there silently for about 15 minutes. (No, they didn’t dig or anything. They all just sat there in a circle, silent and motionless, like little statues.) Then they all left together, and we never saw them again. I like thinking they were paying their last respects to their dear friend, but so what if they weren’t and their gathering together by the grave was just a weird cat behavioral thing going on? Thinking they were saying goodbye to their doggy friend is a nice thought, but were they? No one will ever know, either way.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»Supposedly, elephants tre...