Concerning The Ongoing Debate Over Skeptic /scofftic/denialist Participation On The Bff And Proving Bigfoot's Existence

[Faenor]

Is there anywhere else that the word skeptic is more thoroughly looked at and defined outside of an esoteric philosophy grad students debate. To the rest of the world a bigfoot skeptic is someone simply doesn't believe in bigfoot or think bigfoot exists. On the bff its rarified air. The said bigfoot skeptic must jump through certain hoops to be considered a true "skeptic" as described from its greek origins. They cant reject bigfoot outright and must always keep an open mind concerning the subject as well as all bigfoot evidence.

The point from david nc is a perfect example on a way to achieve serious conversation around here if you dont fit his definition of a skeptic your a troll.

[hiflier]

Hello Faenor,

Extreme yes. With a little thought a different but just as apt analogy could have been found that wouldn't have nearly the depth, longevity (to this day) and degree of history and suffering that you chose. I truly think you used it as an analogy out of haste rather than for any other reason but it conjured up something that is far more devastating than a scofftic or denialist label. You made your point. But it could have also been made equally well with something more in proportion to those two terms?

Yes the terms are pejorative and as a result of you pointing it out I myself will refrain from there use from here on out. But I still think the analogy of the two terms to something that connotes a 400 year history of abuses toward a race of Humans was a bit over the top.

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[Bonehead74]

Is there anywhere else that the word skeptic is more thoroughly looked at and defined outside of an esoteric philosophy grad students debate. To the rest of the world a bigfoot skeptic is someone simply doesn't believe in bigfoot or think bigfoot exists. On the bff its rarified air. The said bigfoot skeptic must jump through certain hoops to be considered a true "skeptic" as described from its greek origins. They cant reject bigfoot outright and must always keep an open mind concerning the subject as well as all bigfoot evidence.

The point from david nc is a perfect example on a way to achieve serious conversation around here if you dont fit his definition of a skeptic your a troll.

Mostly the problem exists because term "skeptic" has been appropriated and misused/perverted by a certain group of self-named "free thinkers".

[hiflier]

Hello Squatchy McSquatch,

Why you ol' Son of a Gun, are you still coming here looking for proof or was that post just a strafe?

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[Faenor]

Hello Faenor,

 

 

And I think it is an accurate appellation. If one repeatedly denies the existence of a thing by voicing one's skepticism through scoffing in a systematic fashion, one becomes a denialist and scofftic by definition.

There was another popular term used to describe people who worked as slaves. It was an accurate apellation since the latin root of the word meant black. It began as a neutral term.

 

Crummy analogy.

Its extreme but its apt. The terms scofftic and denialist are used as pejoratives. Do you feel the folks who use these terms are being respectful and that its the best method to display an opinion about anothers beliefs or thoughts. Do you think the people labeled scofftic or denialist came to this forum saying "im a denialist scofftic thats the best way to describe my attitudes towards the subject of bigfoot".

There used as negatives around here same as "believer" or "blargger" or whatever at the skeptics forum.

I honestly only use it as a descriptor.

How often have you publicly decried the near constant use of pejoratives to describe Bigfoot proponents? I'm sure you can provide numerous links to posts where you come to the defense of those folks, yes?

I just did i said the international skeptics forums guys always use negative descriptions of bigfoot proponents. Ive said in previous posts they are caustic and negative over there. I read the forum a bit but I'm not a member. As far as the near constant pejoratives of bigfoot proponents that i should publicly decry everywhere else I'm unaware. In my life amongst my peer, family, and work groups there is nary a mention of bigfoot. Nor do i hear a great deal of noise on tv or other media about bigfoot but i dont watch a lot of tv. Ive been rewatching the x files though i think mulder is a proponent and he's cast in a favorable light.

[hiflier]

Hello Bonehead74,

I'm still struggling a bit delineating the difference between a skeptic and a Bigfoot skeptic. For the life of me still don't see a difference. Or in how either one conotes being an opponent to existence. I think the term Bigfoot skeptic was born out of a back-pedaling maneuver by one of our staunchest proponents in an effort to save face during one of our famous exchanges.

Hello Faenor,

 

......but i dont watch a lot of tv. Ive been rewatching the x files though i think mulder is a proponent and he's cast in a favorable light.

You have IMMEDIATELY gone UP about ten notches in my book if it means anything TV sucks. Haven't watched it in 4 years myself. And when I was watching it the X-Files was good TV!

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

In my life amongst my peer, family, and work groups there is nary a mention of bigfoot.

 

The reason for this is that this issue is a very private issue to have an a encounter. No one wants to speak about what they saw . If you saw one and you knew people that would make fun of the issue would speak about it? Would you tell your peers , your companions at work of what you saw?

 

Now you Faenor and Hiflier would be the perfect candidates for encounters knowing that there are no outside influence. 

 

Trolling is just a different animal from what is being describe. Denialist is just some one who has no intention of even gaining understanding. Denialist will deny deny knowing that the truth is in front of them never even giving a chance . 

 

Will a believer or a proponent ever go over to a skeptic site or forum? Will they go on their forums and challenge them on their forum? You know I really do not think so cause it is not worth the effort to argue on some thing that will not be accepted. Especially by people who have witnessed this creature and its capabilities.. Debate the issue

[roguefooter]

To the rest of the world a bigfoot skeptic is someone simply doesn't believe in bigfoot or think bigfoot exists.

 

I've never thought of a skeptic to be a total non-believer. I've always thought of it as someone who has doubt in mind, but doesn't outright reject it. The possibility is left open- some people being more optimistic than others. Being skeptical is just being cautious and not taking things at face value- especially in a field where the history has been plagued with hoaxing and liars.

 

Then there's the scofftic or denialist- the downright rejection of any possibility. Some are more cynical about it than others.

 

Some people on the forum don't see the distinction between any of the above, or don't want to. It's a 'with us or against us' attitude. I don't know how many times I've been called a scofftic even though I've demonstrated for years that I'm open to existence.

[hiflier]

Hello roguefooter

 

That was extremely clear and well said. The lines between skeptic, Bigfoot skeptic, and opponent have for too long been blurred by folks carelessly using them interchangeably. And it overly favors some hardline proponents to do so. A generally vigilant reader who prefers precision in dialogue is all that is needed most times to keep the distinctions between the three terms well defined. It would go a long way in reducing the functional confusion built in by blatant (and sometimes intentional) incorrect usage. One more point to further define the three concepts which actually should be only TWO concepts: There should be NO perceived differences between a skeptic and a Bigfoot skeptic. It has to be the worst clouding of the atmosphere here of any other mis-use of terms. And it creates messes where none should exist.   

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

From what I can glean from all this is that there are 2 camps    

 

1:  People who want to respectfully discuss this topic as is stated in the rule book.

2: People that really have no interest in the topic of Sasquatch but say they do and squeeze around the rules to get some jollies I.E. Trolls.

 

One universal characteristic of bigfoot skepticism is a total lack of interest in any of the relevant subject matter (or - owing to incredulity - an absolute inability to apply it to this particular topic).  I mean, on top of the utter lack of curiosity about the world outside one's narrow field of focus.

 

Scientists examine evidence, and understand what the word means.  When thousands of people have seen something and found its tracks, and a film exists that cross-corroborates these two strains of evidence right up to the present day, then we don't just have evidence.  We have a clear body of evidence compelling unto proof, the kind of evidence that has never, any other time such a voluminous and consistent pattern has ever been discerned by anyone, failed to move more or less directly to societal confirmation.

 

When this fact - obvious as day to all who have shown the requisite interest - is utterly denied by people whose denial is allowed to persist and ferment through benign neglect, you have...the situation we are talking about here.

 

Is there anywhere else that the word skeptic is more thoroughly looked at and defined outside of an esoteric philosophy grad students debate.

 

There is nowhere else that the term is used to mean the precise opposite of what people who understand it understand it to mean. 

The point from david nc is a perfect example on a way to achieve serious conversation around here if you dont fit his definition of a skeptic your a troll.

The radical and amazing reason for that is...David NC is right.  He defines the term correctly, one of those fun things about English usage.

 

 

Mostly the problem exists because term "skeptic" has been appropriated and misused/perverted by a certain group of self-named "free thinkers".

Um...yes.  And if that is free thought, I'll keep mine, thanks.

[Guest DWA]

I've just caught up on this thread and it has been enlightening.  I often read on other sites that the reason some people do not bother to sign up here is because they feel there are too many rules, the mods stifle discussion, and some have even accused the staff of censorship. Then I read here that the moderating staff doesn't do enough, we need more rules, or as Chasing Rabbits said, the staff "don't do anything about it" (sorry you feel that way. I spend multiple hours a day working here).

 

For some of us it is really neither of those things.  We see a strain of 'thought' going on here that wouldn't be allowed on any other serious topic (and if we are saying this is not serious...um...what are we saying there, again, with all those rules?).  People getting righteously and understandably upset at that strain of 'thought' get punished for that...and it never goes away, which it would on any other serious topic.  Some of us are just getting to the possibility that this might not be considered a serious topic here.

 

I guess we will never be able to please all the people all the time. But I'm going to say it again.... we need more mods. (Thanks to the ONE person who has contacted us since I last  asked for messages from anyone interested in volunteering).

 

I would only mod here were I able to tell a large swath of posters:  next post I see that I don't think comports with what we are here to talk about, you are banned.  You  have had plenty of notice.  Otherwise, no thankee.  I can't "moderate" a place where immoderate (to say nothing of flat factually major wrong and disrespectful to boot) positions are allowed to go essentially unchallenged (and if one thinks about it, the only way to challenge the particular mindset we are talking about is:  you can't stay here if you can't play here).   A number of us believe trolling is allowed here.  Can't moderate that.

[beerhunter]

Instead of calling a person a scofftic or denialist, for absolutely refuting BF all together give then the title of BLOOGER - that way you have your Blarggers & Bloogers.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

One universal characteristic of bigfoot skepticism is a total lack of interest in any of the relevant subject matter (or - owing to incredulity - an absolute inability to apply it to this particular topic).  I mean, on top of the utter lack of curiosity about the world outside one's narrow field of focus.

Bigfoot skepticism IS by definition SKEPTICISM. To use the term as meaning an opponent somehow is a huge reason confusion and needless debates begin. Didn't you read my post? Just because you incessantly use the qualifier "Bigfoot" with the term "skeptic" it doesn't automatically change skeptic into opponent. Use the word opponent to MEAN opponent. Besides less typing

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[MIB]

sorry hiflier, but "no."

 

As long as the scoftics and denialists continue to present themselves as skeptics, the qualifier is needed to separate the two.  I've told you before and I'll tell you again, if you want skeptic to just mean skeptic, you're going to have to go after ALL the people who misuse it, equally, and not just single out DWA for your wrath.    Until you do that you're as guilty of perpetuating the problem as he is or they are.   It is pretty obvious from the outside that you're not approaching this in a balanced way.

 

MIB

Edited August 29, 2015 by MIB

[Guest DWA]

Am I upsetting someone?   

 

Here's a skeptic, gang:  someone who questions assumptions and who bases conclusions on nothing but evidence.  You have to show a skeptic.

 

But you don't have to show a skeptic proof.  All you have to show a skeptic is:  this.  *What do you think* is causing this?

 

If the answer is not backed by *evidence* that holds up under scrutiny:  you are not talking to a skeptic.

 

See?  Easy peasy.

I AM ONE OF THE MOST SKEPTICAL PEOPLE YOU WILL FIND.  (A hint for some of you that you are using the word wrong.)

 

What could be *more* skeptical than questioning a blanket blinkered societal assumption...backed by nothing?  With a compelling body of evidence no one has come close to beginning to address...except the ones who think it's an unlisted animal?

 

Right.

 

That unquestioned assumption - repeatedly proffered and backed by nothing and tolerated - has us where we are.

We do suffer from an unhealthy overdose of relativism here usually, as DWA says.

 

When we do descend too far into that we are left with no choice but to treat an opinion that no evidence exists the same as the opinion that all of the reported footprints, photos, witness accounts and all the rest mean, well, something.

 

One of these is of greater weight...no, on second thought, one has weight, the other is only avoidance... and no amount of relativist indulgence will change that. Ever. 

 

While going to extraordinary lengths to make sure these are treated the same, you pull the teeth out of something otherwise very useful if you want to get to the bottom of a mystery like this.  My failing, as is DWA's failing, as is the failing of many of us here, is we refuse to allow that to be the basis of the conversation. We reject the entire premise for that, as we all should. Make no mistake, somebody relentlessly advocating there is nothing to see here  will not, as some of you seem to believe, ennoble your discourse with the purity of  unbridled rationality. It will only ensure you do nothing productive.

 

In no other area of endeavor are you permitted to participate in a discussion of the evidence by merely repeating there is none. In what other serious (and this is...we have to agree on THAT at least) conversation would this kind of nonsense be permitted? If the Forum is not willing to allow itself at least this smidge of self-respect for the topic, it does need to die, sooner the better.

 

This is the only outcome possible when you allow others to dictate the terms of the  conversation when you have defined it as something else entirely.   

 

 

It might be worth asking: What hope do we have of the world treating this question with any degree of seriousness when we ourselves don't? By that, I mean: If we think the question is so pregnant, what is the purpose of hosting a venue for those who would say we are only delusional? If you hope to see this field legitimized, you have to begin to act as if it is legitimate. A good step towards that is to show those who have nothing but contempt and disrespect for the topic the door. By that I do not mean to just purge the membership roll...I mean only to adopt a policy of bluntly challenging those who would naysay any evidence until they are either banned or just leave.

As I said, no place else do you see this allowed in any conversation on any serious topic. It is as if the Royal Shakespeare Company were performing Hamlet while the audience boos and throws rotten fruit, and the theater manager does nothing to intervene for fear of limiting the "expression of opinions". At some point (long since reached here) the damage has to be acknowledged. Your tolerance has et your purpose.

 

Just for some stuff worth reading.  Again.  With a little emphasis.

Edited August 29, 2015 by DWA