Huntster Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 (edited) Who is denying what exactly? Not going there with you again. You apparently didn't get it the first through ten thousanth time. I dont get why proponents have a problem with people who wont "believe" based on the current body of evidence. I don't care what you believe or disbelieve. Why do you care what I believe? Its definitely not enough to make the case for science. I believe it's enough to warrant the appropriate officials charged by law to manage our wildlife to conduct it's very first ever inquiry into the issue. Why cant we argue what is real, and true? You can. Go to an elephant forum. They are real and true. I promise. Sasquatches aren't scientifically established. You can't do "real and true" here. Goodbye! Edited October 6, 2010 by Huntster
Guest Blackdog Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 I have two dogs, they both have gas...So do I so there's your trifecta.
Guest Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 I have two dogs, they both have gas...So do I so there's your trifecta.
Huntster Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 (edited) My dog really has gas How do we know that it isn't you with the gas and the dogs don't? Do you have any proof? If not, this is just another stinkin' story. Edited October 6, 2010 by Huntster
Guest River Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 How do we know that it isn't you with the gas and the dogs don't? Do you have any proof? If not, this is just another stinkin' story. Lol!
Guest Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 How do we know that it isn't you with the gas and the dogs don't? Do you have any proof? If not, this is just another stinkin' story. I don't have that av pic for nothing!
Guest Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 I dont get why proponents have a problem with people who wont "believe" based on the current body of evidence. Skeptic: I don't believe in BF but will weigh the arguments and evidence accordingly. Pseudoskeptic/Denialist: I don't believe in BF, therefore no investigation into BF is valid because It is only logical to assume Bigfoot, Nessie or the Chupa does not exist until they are proven to exist. (bold mine). Do you see the difference?
Guest Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 So a Bigfoot walks into a bar in Willow Creek, CA and says to the bartender (a skeptic), "Awd like a pint 'o yer finest bitters." So the bartender walks over to the beer taps, starts pouring and whispers to one of the regulars, "Hey, get a load of that guy, he's British." (credit to Ilikebluepez) But isn't that about the truth of it?
Huntster Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 So a Bigfoot walks into a bar in Willow Creek, CA and says to the bartender (a skeptic), "Awd like a pint 'o yer finest bitters." So the bartender walks over to the beer taps, starts pouring and whispers to one of the regulars, "Hey, get a load of that guy, he's British." (credit to Ilikebluepez) But isn't that about the truth of it? No. There are no bigfeet in Britain, and even if there were, they can't get a passport to travel to California. I'm in denial.
Guest Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 So a Bigfoot walks into a bar in Willow Creek, CA and says to the bartender (a skeptic), "Awd like a pint 'o yer finest bitters." So the bartender walks over to the beer taps, starts pouring and whispers to one of the regulars, "Hey, get a load of that guy, he's British." (credit to Ilikebluepez) But isn't that about the truth of it? Growing up where I did a bigfoot wouldn't look much different than many of the bar regulars.
Guest Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 "It is only logical to assume Bigfoot, Nessie or the Chupa does not exist until they are proven to exist." That in NO way excludes my view from the "skeptic" views. No where in the quote, which is from me, do I say not to examine evidence. Nice strawman attempt though, Elect B. *wink* lol!
Huntster Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 (edited) "It is only logical to assume Bigfoot, Nessie or the Chupa does not exist until they are proven to exist." "Assume". Interesting choice of words: –verb (used with object) 1. to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace. 2. to take upon oneself; undertake: to assume an obligation. 3. to take over the duties or responsibilities of: to assume the office of treasurer. 4. to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt: He assumed the style of an aggressive go-getter. 5. to take on; be invested or endowed with: The situation assumed a threatening character. 6. to pretend to have or be; feign: to assume a humble manner. 7. to appropriate or arrogate; seize; usurp: to assume a right to oneself; to assume control. 8. to take upon oneself (the debts or obligations of another). 9. Archaic . to take into relation or association; adopt. That works for me, too: I "take for granted or without proof" that sasquatches exist based upon the existing evidence. Other words work here, too. Do you think "it is only logical to presume Bigfoot, Nessie or the Chupa does not exist until they are proven to exist"? –verb (used with object) 1. to take for granted, assume, or suppose: I presume you're tired after your drive. 2. Law . to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary. 3. to undertake with unwarrantable boldness. 4. to undertake (to do something) without right or permission: to presume to speak for another. Edited October 6, 2010 by Huntster
Recommended Posts