Skeptics

[Guest]

As you know, I didn't say that vaccines didn't work and that big pharma failed in that regard.

 

But you just did for some reason.

 

Why is that? Trying to create a straw man to avoid something?

 

You stated that the medical community is making money off cancer and is thus suppressing Vitamin B-17. Now then why aren't they suppressing vaccines so they can make money off polio, small-pox, ect? How does your evil medical institution conspiracy explain that?

[See-Te-Cah NC]

What in the holy heck does any of that have to do with Vitamin B-17?

 

I'm worried about you. Don't get near an open flame, please... I beg of you.

[Guest]

I think this thread highlights why we may need to segregate the forums abit. I think this circular argument is doing more harm than good.

While I sympathize with skeptics demand for proof, this is a forum to discuss bigfoot, and you cannot have a meaningful discussion if someone's position is that the topic is pure fiction and there is no sense in discussing it.

Surely even the skeptics must see this yes? I think as adults it's about time we sat down and discussed this.

Had to + this.  Part of the problem is that some people feel the need to respond to every post and then the thread becomes

uh huh

nuh uh

uh huh

nuh uh

Break the loop by not feeding the trolls.  So many interesting topics become nothing but pages and pages of this..

[norseman]

So how do we fix that?

[Guest LarryP]

You stated that the medical community is making money off cancer and is thus suppressing Vitamin B-17. 

 

 

 

You are correct. The "medical community" makes Billions off of Cancer, and the FDA banned Laetrile (Vitamin B-17) in the early 70's.

 

It is a well known and established fact that people who eat foods that are rich in Vitamin B-17 never get Cancer. 

 

Do you think that's a coincidence?

[dmaker]

I don't know how to fix it really. As I said, most of the problem for me is certain personalities that can't just say " fine, that's your opinion, I don't agree, but you're welcome to it.".  No, instead you get some patronizing, condescending response that insults your intelligence, your reading comprehension and refuses to listen to any conclusion but their own. Constantly being told you are a student by one who has nothing to teach you is infuriating and will cause me to engage each and every time.  Or times that I feel compelled to correct a post that is nothing more than false information.  How do you fix those things? People are going to post things that are mistaken and compel others to correct them and certain other posters continue to patronize and condescend on a daily basis. I don't really see where anything will change. 

[the parkie]

I think the person who starts a thread should be able to, if they wish, post something along the lines of the below in the opening post -

"The discussion in this thread is based on the hypothetical assumption that Sasquatch exist. Please do not take the thread off topic by asserting arguments based on the view that Sasquatch do not exist, or by explicitly stating that Sasquatch do not exist".

If a person does not want to stick to the hypothetical argument then all they have to do is start their own identical thread but not quote the above disclaimer, then no such rule will apply in that thread. Moderators would also be willing to enforce this rule.

Essentially we need two different "types" of thread.

What do people think?

Something needs to change as thread after thread is just turning into the same "yes it does, no it doesn't" argument between the same few people, then descending into rule breaking.

Edited November 29, 2013 by the parkie

[dmaker]

Yeah, but in a place like this isn't your stated assumption pretty much the unspoken assumption for ALL threads?

[Guest DWA]

I don't know how to fix it really. As I said, most of the problem for me is certain personalities that can't just say " fine, that's your opinion, I don't agree, but you're welcome to it.."

 

There are two really good ways to fix this:

 

1.  The mods start vigorously enforcing the clause in the Forum rules that I cited upstairs.  I think it's pretty explicit that thread derailments over the basic subject matter of the Forums aren't supposed to happen; and as I've said, on one occasion a mod jumped in to stop it when it started.  (Wish I could remember the thread; but it's understandable that I don't.)  That should happen more often.

 

2.  The Ignore feature is really cool.

 

Just saw this conversation started by Norseman and felt it worth coming back to second.

[dmaker]

^^ Or you could, you know, stop being so condescending all the time.....just a thought.

[the parkie]

Yes, but with my suggestion only half the threads will descend into pointless back and forth arguments. Those that wish to participate in pointless back and forth arguments can do so, leaving those that don't want to free to participate in meaningful debate.

[Guest DWA]

^^ Or you could, you know, stop being so condescending all the time.....just a thought.

Wondering why you don't think this can be fixed?  Not being able to stay above the mud oneself can lead to that belief.

 

I think the person who starts a thread should be able to, if they wish, post something along the lines of the below in the opening post -

"The discussion in this thread is based on the hypothetical assumption that Sasquatch exist. Please do not take the thread off topic by asserting arguments based on the view that Sasquatch do not exist, or by explicitly stating that Sasquatch do not exist".

If a person does not want to stick to the hypothetical argument then all they have to do is start their own identical thread but not quote the above disclaimer, then no such rule will apply in that thread. Moderators would also be willing to enforce this rule.

Essentially we need two different "types" of thread.

What do people think?

Something needs to change as thread after thread is just turning into the same "yes it does, no it doesn't" argument between the same few people, then descending into rule breaking.

I'm not even sure the OP needs to do that.  The moderators can do it.  The rules explicitly allow them to.

Edited November 29, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I do see your point Parkie and I think it would work for the most part and in fact would require no extraordinary statement or enforcing of rules per se. If a thread is started, say, about do Bigfoots like apples, then I will avoid that thread since I have little to offer. However, even in a thread like that, a skeptical comment can lead to a brew up. Look at the recent one about quarries. All I did was ask if there was evidence of other large predatory mammals using quarries in a similar way as suggestions were indicating Bigfoots were using them. That lead to conflict. There are some here that react to any skeptical inquiry with quick and inflammatory responses. Even when the comment is not directly aimed at existence. No sooner does a skeptic ask a question or challenge a premise than DWA comes charging in blaring his "you havent read as many BFRO reports as I have" trumpet, therefore your opinion is worthless. And then all heck breaks loose.  So other than silencing all opposing opinions, there is still going to be potential for conflict. 

 

Like I said a few moments ago, almost every thread here starts with the premise that Bigfoot exists. If skeptics are not allowed to participate in a thread that assumes existence, then we pretty much cannot participate at all.

Wondering why you don't think this can be fixed?  Not being able to stay above the mud oneself can lead to that belief.

 

I'm not even sure the OP needs to do that.  The moderators can do it.  The rules explicitly allow them to.

Wondering why I think you can't stop condescending to anyone who disagrees with you?  The answer to that is simple. You have displayed little ability to stop doing that so far.

[Guest DWA]

Here is the passage I quoted above from the BFF rules, for convenience:

 

 

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

 

 

Note the stress on "preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon'.  Believing that the evidence points in the direction of a real animal, and that it should be followed using protocols we reserve for such things, is fully in consonance with the Forums' purpose.  "So, bipto, what is your proof you are not being hoaxed by squads of hillbillies better-trained than anyone in the US military?" is not.  Continuing to put that up, and presenting nothing requiring a serious person to take it seriously, i.e., evidence that you are right, would appear to me to be trolling.  (Bipto has considered pulling out of the Forums.  Need I say more?  Of course, a skeptic responded to that as a "threat.")

 

There are ways skeptics can address any thread.  Asking someone to detail how they can rule out various other options for what they experienced is one way.  Continuing to probe their psyche for the way in which you just know they are cray-zee is NOT a way.  When they have given their reason - even if it comes down to "I was there and  you weren't," contrary to popular belief a conversation-ender, right there - then you're done; their opinion is their opinion, and it's time for you to live and let live.  Continuing to insist on your point of view as superior to another person's on an experience you did not share with that person, and cannot offer an alternative explanation that satisfies that person, is, well, it's aberrant social behavior.  Feeling compelled to do it may require a re-evaluation of the suitability of one's social skills for internet forums.

[dmaker]

Part of the problem is that you think that you alone represent all serious people. Sorry, but you don't.  Other people here don't need you to speak for them.  And as much as you clearly want it to be, but a belief that the evidence leads to an undiscovered animal is not a pre-requisite to membership nor is it against the forum rules to disagree with that notion. 

 

Again it comes down to opinion. You say that skeptics offer nothing in the way of evidence to support their opinion. I say that it is not true. Again and again evidence of hoaxes and mistakes is offered. Clinical studies that show the fallibility of human perception and recall are provided. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge or accept them does not remove their existence as a reality and as part of the skeptical position. But you ignore that and continue to state that nothing in the way of evidence is offered and then proceed to label all who disagree with you as trolls.  

 

As long as you continue to do that, you and I are going to round and round and round. 

 

 

 

Here, from the very rule passage you qouted:

 

You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. 

 

I accept your opinion, I don't happen to agree with it, but I accept it. You owe the same courtesy to skeptics. But you do not offer the same consideration. That is the problem. You dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a troll. You are not following the very rules you posted.

Edited November 29, 2013 by dmaker