Drew Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Even Bittermonk's statement counters that: The ridges radiate outward from the point of the pour. I don't see how that counters 'parallel to the outside of the foot' Here is a round cast, with ridges radiating outward from the point of the pour.
bipedalist Posted October 1, 2010 BFF Patron Posted October 1, 2010 l .........There was a time, where 'Skeptic' was used more like the polar opposite of "Naive". Yes, there was, where did that "time" go?
georgerm Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Back to the thread: My thoughts are skeptics fall into various categories. Let's classify skeptics who believes BF does not exist as a major skeptic. They believe all evidence is flawed or hoaxed since BF does not exist. They can spot hoaxes a mile off, they are reapectful, and they contribute to the knowledge bank. Then we have the mocker skeptic. They get a charge out of ridiculing evidence and believers. Some of them hoax evidence. They have a negative impact on the effort to prove BF. Now we have minor skeptics who are cautious, and they believe there is lots of hoaxed evidence, but they believe BF exist. Now we have the nonskeptic who can easily be fooled by faked evidence since they really want BF to be proven quickly. They believe that most researchers are honest.
Huntster Posted October 2, 2010 Posted October 2, 2010 Let's classify skeptics who believes BF does not exist as a major skeptic. 1) Thanks for that wording. I just love it when I can point out that skeptics believe things just like everybody else. 2) Let's adhere to the dictionary definitions, please: Skeptical: –adjective1. inclined to skepticism; having doubt: a skeptical young woman. 2. showing doubt: a skeptical smile. Denial: -noun1. an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent's charges. 2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like. 3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing. 4. the refusal to satisfy a claim, request, desire, etc., or the refusal of a person making it. 5. refusal to recognize or acknowledge; a disowning or disavowal: the traitor's denial of his country; Peter's denial of Christ. 6. Law . refusal to acknowledge the validity of a claim, suit, or the like; a plea that denies allegations of fact in an adversary's plea: Although she sued for libel, he entered a general denial. 7. sacrifice of one's own wants or needs; self-denial. 8. Psychology . an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable. Anybody who openly states that, "Bigfoot doesn't exist" is, by definition, in denial, or a denialist, because they cannot know if bigfoot exists or not. They disbelieve. Period.
Guest RayG Posted October 2, 2010 Posted October 2, 2010 And anybody who openly states that "Bigfoot exists" is, by definition, a believer, because they cannot know if bigfoot exists or not. They believe. Period. That's why I don't throw my support behind either statement. RayG
Guest parnassus Posted October 2, 2010 Posted October 2, 2010 1) Thanks for that wording. I just love it when I can point out that skeptics believe things just like everybody else. 2) Let's adhere to the dictionary definitions, please: Skeptical: Denial: Anybody who openly states that, "Bigfoot doesn't exist" is, by definition, in denial, or a denialist, because they cannot know if bigfoot exists or not. They disbelieve. Period. Huntster you are one hilarious dude. You search around for definitions and labels to apply en masse to those who differ with you, then proceed to show that the labels don't fit. Does it occur to you how circular that is?
Guest Posted October 2, 2010 Posted October 2, 2010 Does it occur to you how circular that is? Your turn P. I read it 4 times and even thought about it ( ) and I'm not getting the circular part. Could you expand? Thanks
Will Posted October 2, 2010 Posted October 2, 2010 Your turn P. I read it 4 times and even thought about it ( ) and I'm not getting the circular part. Could you expand? Thanks I'm with you norcal. Seems Parn is out in LEFT field.
georgerm Posted October 2, 2010 Posted October 2, 2010 (edited) Let's just cut the BS here........................... The lowest category of skeptic is the mocker skeptic. They get a charge out of ridiculing evidence and believers. Some of them hoax evidence. They have a negative impact on the effort to prove BF. Edited October 2, 2010 by georgerm
Guest RayG Posted October 3, 2010 Posted October 3, 2010 Huntster you are one hilarious dude. You search around for definitions and labels to apply en masse to those who differ with you, then proceed to show that the labels don't fit. Does it occur to you how circular that is? While I still don't see the connection Huntster was trying to point out, I didn't view it as circular reasoning either. More like poisoning the well ("Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel skeptic/denialist." ), or a hasty generalization (all skeptics are denialists). RayG
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted October 3, 2010 Posted October 3, 2010 And anybody who openly states that "Bigfoot exists" is, by definition, a believer, because they cannot know if bigfoot exists or not. They believe. Period. That's why I don't throw my support behind either statement. RayG OK, I'll bite. Sorry, but there are alot of people out there that know these creatures exist for a fact. Belief has nothing to do with it. I know the Sun exists for the same reason, I've seen/video taped/photographed/studied it, too. You may choose not to believe in the Sun, and if you'd been locked inside with no windows all your life, I could understand that position. I have the same position on the skeptics view of Bigfoot. I can understand why they don't know and why most don't believe the creatures exist. Knower I'm a knower. I do feel a bit sorry for those who only have a hope that the creatures exist because they have not yet seen one. They have to rely only on known evidence(which is questionable) and testimony of encounters (which is also questionable). Maybe a few have a "not sure" encounter of their own to help sustain their belief. My heart goes out to those folks because they have people poking fun at them on a regular basis, simply because they dare to embrace the hope that there really is something out there unexplained. I hope these folks keep in mind there are alot of people out there like myself who started with a hopeful/skeptical belief and ended up "knowing" these creatures exist. The folks of faith in the possibility of existence will be redeemed. As for skeptics, it's fine and dandy to be a skeptic but go easy on the poor guy that doesn't know. Why the need to sway anyone one way or the other? Believe, or don't believe your choice, but please don't try to belittle someone because they choose a different path than yourself. Yes, there are "Knowers" out there and many of them are not ashamed of it. Belief has nothing to do with it for many of us. Chris B. (yep that's me.)
Huntster Posted October 3, 2010 Posted October 3, 2010 And anybody who openly states that "Bigfoot exists" is, by definition, a believer, because they cannot know if bigfoot exists or not. They believe. Period. Correct. I have no problem being a believer. Do you have a problem with denialists being so labelled?
Huntster Posted October 3, 2010 Posted October 3, 2010 Huntster you are one hilarious dude. You search around for definitions and labels to apply en masse to those who differ with you, then proceed to show that the labels don't fit. Does it occur to you how circular that is? It's English 101. The dictionary. It isn't circular. It's directional. At you.
Guest RayG Posted October 3, 2010 Posted October 3, 2010 Correct. I have no problem being a believer. Do you have a problem with denialists being so labelled? I'm not keen on labels to begin with, but where I see a problem is when all skeptics are considered denialists even when they aren't. RayG
Guest Posted October 3, 2010 Posted October 3, 2010 I'm not keen on labels to begin with, but where I see a problem is when all skeptics are considered denialists even when they aren't. RayG And people with the label "believer" are considered gullible to any evidence presented, even when they are not.
Recommended Posts