What they become are disciples.
When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.
- Thread starter Grat3fulh3ad
- Start date
- Status
Mezz Mezzrow
Member
I'm glad you found something to "believe" in. I try not to believe in anything if I can help it. It's the skeptic in me.
Cool... so you are genuinely not interested in reviewing all of the compiled evidence.
we've nothing to discuss since you are unwilling to acquire the background information which would enable productive discussion.
I'm tired of playing whack a mole with people who are nitpicking something they lack the background to understand.
When you grow up and want to have grown up style fact based discussions that don't require me to re-answer already answered questions.
How can you productively discuss something you are clearly unfamiliar with? (and your questions clearly demonstrate unfamiliarity.)
when I want lip from you, I'll pick it off of my zipper.
Why do you even bother posting, you never actually say anything?
filter this thread to see this haughty dismissive bullshit tactic repeated ad nauseum...
and im the prick?
of course most people's net persona is removed from their actual personality.
maybe head is not a smug little shit in real life?
I'm glad you found something to "believe" in. I try not to believe in anything if I can help it. It's the skeptic in me.
Yup... I have found things which are empirically verifiable, to believe in. I believe in the tangible. Seems kinda foolish to disbelieve. that which can be plainly seen by anyone willing to look.
Skepticism is good... if it motivates you to dig deeper...
When it only motivates you to use denialists tactics like cherrypicking, is has moved beyond skepticism.
nah...
I've gotten lot's of comments about your asshole behavior.
It's all there, anyone can go back and read it...
Those who have actually bothered are loling @you.
funny ive got a shitload of green and pm's about your prickishnes
and almost universally they say "this guy is ALWAYS an ass"
but the tactic is the same on both sides..you and grape..
i thought you were ignoring my beneath your superior intellect posts? lol
I don't know who you think you are, but basically...fuck you.
You have got some serious issues there, asshole.
Perfect example of the typical elitist mentality motherfuckers I was describing.
perfect example thanks hoosier
head are you the same fuckstick who said you didn't want anyone who supports prop 19 buying your seeds?
Mezz Mezzrow
Member
You are the one making all the claims. I haven't made any. I've only questioned your claims. I always try to understand things the best way I can with the best information I can find. That usually seems to lead me off the beaten path. Your info is all neatly packaged, but I don't know how much of it is true. Certainly how it is presented is riddled with fallacies. I hope I am not coming off as condescending as you come off to me.
sac beh
Member
Are you confusing your cynicism with skepticism? If someone has presented an argument to you and provided what they feel is sufficient background and references to understand the argument, wouldn't the skeptic's response be to faithfully study the argument and supporting references to then make a decision about the claims? The cynic dismisses the claim out of hand, because of prior assumptions about the claim or person, and thus rules any supporting evidence as suspicious or faulty without seeing it. The skeptic, of all types of investigators, welcomes all evidence and background information and diligently reviews them in order to make judgment about the claim in question.
I'm not saying you have to agree with this definition of skeptic, but for what its worth here is how The Skeptics Society defines itself:
"Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe."
This isn't dismissive. Mezz in fact stated himself that he doesn't want to review all the evidence presented but rather assume that it will be insufficient or faulty. This isn't reasonable, scientific, nor skeptical in method. H3ad is challenging Mezz's claim to be a skeptic since he's acting more like a cynic.
It would be another thing entirely if Mezz had read the claims and supporting evidence faithfully, then returned with arguments against the claim based on proving as faulty evidences key to the claim.
Again, what an odd type of skepticism. Endless questioning without submitting yourself to evidence presented and responding to it is not skepticism but cynicism. The skeptic asks questions in order to encourage more evidence to be presented for review. But you've already stated that you don't want to review all the evidence presented.
The skeptic would not dismiss evidence out of hand because it is "neatly packaged". You don't know how much of it is true? Oh, well good thing you're a skeptic and have the reasonable mental faculties to review it all and make a decision only after investigating the presented evidence for the claim.
I myself haven't studied the issue enough to make a decision, so I'm certainly open to seeing all evidence for the various claims. But some people are more interested in disrupting the discussion (trolling) and justifying it with their misplaced sense of skepticism.
Mezz Mezzrow
Member
I do welcome evidence. I do not welcome fallacious claims. It's up to the person making the claim to back it up. Sending the questioner on a wild goose chase is not backing up the claim is it? It's not a disruption or trolling to ask why something is believed to be absolutely true. I tend to think nothing is absolutely true. That, to me is the essence of skepticism - to maintain some degree of doubt whenever possible. Greatfulhead just insists everything on the site is absolutely true and refers me to it as a standard response. That's about as far from skeptical as can be.
sac beh
Member
I understand what you're trying to say here. But the skeptic wouldn't dismiss a claim because the presenter believes it to be absolutely true. His beliefs about a website are irrelevant to whether sufficient evidence is there to support the claim. You won't disprove H3ad's belief by merely calling him a non-skeptic anymore than H3ad can prove his claim without sufficient evidence. And reading through the thread, it sounded like he told you where on the site to find more advanced information and references to back up the argument, but at that point you said you don't want to ready anymore.
The skeptic is the most open-minded of all, confident that the evidence will either prove or not prove something. Sure, the skeptic uses doubt to challenge assumptions, but also reason to judge evidences sufficient or not, the first step being to actually look at the evidences.
Mezz Mezzrow
Member
I haven't dismissed anything though have I? I'm saying it's unscientific to claim that the site has "verifiable facts" that can't be "denied." What does that mean? To my skeptical mind things are generally only verifiable to a point. There is always a better way to understand it. That's the scientific approach. Let information stand on its' own and don't focus on coming to conclusions so much. The conclusion might be incorrect.
I actually said I may read it. I read from a lot of sources though and it's just another one to me. I don't have this quasi religious mania about it or anything!
I actually said I may read it. I read from a lot of sources though and it's just another one to me. I don't have this quasi religious mania about it or anything!
Cojito
Active member
interesting. so in the earlier example of South African pres, Thabo Mbeki, the guy "who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS." you would argue that it's wrong for scientists to conclude that HIV causes AIDS. just as it was for Thabo Mbeki to claim that HIV did not cause AIDS.
and you'd claim that doctors who believe that HIV causes AIDS are guilty of some kind of "quasi religious mania."
there are a number of problems here
A) the subject - the problem is so "big" that it can easily upset people who are not completely balanced and relative, because there is no direct fix or promise of results.
B) the audience - most growers who came from the counter-culture have been speed fed so much "truth" that they have been disenchanted, disenfranchised and lost in the chaos of information overload. The simple thread that keeps them sane is the relations ship with the plant that brings them relief
C) the delivery - they have been subject to so much raw truth that truth alone has no meaning. Truth with cause, effect and benefit is what is needed
like hey guys look. I have uncovered some facts. I can back them up, the benefit to understanding them is that the congruence of living in harmony is merely an echo of that relationship the garden learns to have with a healthy garden the benefit of which is a relative to you as your care is to your garden
if everyone knew the real undiluted truth as seen FROM EVERYONES EYES
WE WOULD ALL be more compassionate TO EACHOTHER
A) the subject - the problem is so "big" that it can easily upset people who are not completely balanced and relative, because there is no direct fix or promise of results.
B) the audience - most growers who came from the counter-culture have been speed fed so much "truth" that they have been disenchanted, disenfranchised and lost in the chaos of information overload. The simple thread that keeps them sane is the relations ship with the plant that brings them relief
C) the delivery - they have been subject to so much raw truth that truth alone has no meaning. Truth with cause, effect and benefit is what is needed
like hey guys look. I have uncovered some facts. I can back them up, the benefit to understanding them is that the congruence of living in harmony is merely an echo of that relationship the garden learns to have with a healthy garden the benefit of which is a relative to you as your care is to your garden
if everyone knew the real undiluted truth as seen FROM EVERYONES EYES
WE WOULD ALL be more compassionate TO EACHOTHER
- Status
