Jump to content

So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder with the skeptics on this forum that continually make their points to why they think there is no BF but yet it appears they are obsessed with it as much as any proponant or fan would be and possibly more. They are here everyday using their time and effort and for what? Are they so obessed with it but yet in a denial that they really want it to be real but won't admit it? Feel free to blast me , I don't mind :) The skeptic can't turn a believer to a non-believer and the reverse seems true too.. Just another thread here. Happy Friday Eve and Welcome Fall tomorrow !! Yay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest HairyGreek

They aren't skeptics GEARMAN. I have no problem with healthy skepticism. I have an issue with people who's minds are made up on the issue at hand and think everyone else is wrong. They come on here to change minds or argue with people they, frankly, think are deluded (or lying) idiots. I don't care that they do, I just see it as a monumental waste of time and energy better diverted elsewhere.

Edited by HairyGreek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question! I've wondered the same thing myself. My only conclusion is that some people just like to argue. They enjoy the back and forth discussion. Since nothing Bigfoot related is really proven no one can be called "wrong" so I guess if you have a taste for it you can have an endless argument. Myself I do not enjoy endless arguments. I have been on a lot of different forums and never once have I seen a person say "Gosh your argument is so persuasive, so filled with indisputable facts that I am discarding my long held beliefs". I think the skeptics like to argue and maybe they just dont have much else to do.

The skeptics really seem angered by the PG film. They can attack that everyday and twice on Sunday! Now I'm not saying it's real or fake but it IS 44 years old and it's been looked at every way possible by more people than I can count. WHAT IS LEFT TO SAY? How can you argue about it everyday? To me Patty looks real but since there are no other films, videos or pics to corroborate it and it has been 44 years what is left to argue over everyday? I guess I just dont get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we need to be skeptical about assumptions when experiencing or studying audio or tree manipulations or tracks, etc and not jump straight to declaring it bigfoot. Of course not, I try to keep myself in the mind set of "possible" or "unknown". I am referring to the folks here that write and write , all to the same declaration of "no" bigfoot, obviously there is not proof to say that either. I have heard and seen enough evidence that makes it 99% sure its real to me but still need a clear visual. Witnesses are not gonna accept a person (that wasn't there) telling them they didn't see one , just as a non-believer will have to see one themselves to be convinced otherwise. Plus I am good at "stirring the pot"..LOL I suppose you can lump Skeptic and Non-Believer together and seperate Skeptical Enthusiast or Wanna-Believer..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest HairyGreek

I think that RayG would be a good example of the kind of Skeptic who is good to have around. He actually moves thought forward. I like entering into discussions/arguments with him as he makes me think. He would love for it to be true and is willing to look at evidence and not make nonsensial reasons it can't be true before even seeing it. I like his ideas and his criticisms even if they sometimes **** me off at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A skeptic isn’t in denial. A skeptic asks questions, inquires. I think, based on your question, you don’t know what it means to be skeptical, or to be a skeptic.

I think anyone that feels strongly about skeptics, or questions why a skeptic would come to this board, should study the history of skepticism and the “school†of thought or classical skepticism. To be skeptical is to question, even to doubt, but it is not to deny (as deny is to conclude).

If you're going to speak to or about skeptics, I think it is important to understand the distinctions, and the spectrum of belief. A skeptic can believe, but would likely still question his/her own belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what skeptical means it is crucial to evaluated purported evidence or what is at hand (see post #4), sometimes I fail to type the words I need to properly convey my thought. I just mean the hard nose firm skofftic types I suppose that love to argue endlessly with believers and while their own "Obsession with BF" seems to show.... If you have said your peace over and over , you must just love the little font battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bsruther

A skeptic isn’t in denial. A skeptic asks questions, inquires. I think, based on your question, you don’t know what it means to be skeptical, or to be a skeptic.

I think anyone that feels strongly about skeptics, or questions why a skeptic would come to this board, should study the history of skepticism and the “school†of thought or classical skepticism. To be skeptical is to question, even to doubt, but it is not to deny (as deny is to conclude).

If you're going to speak to or about skeptics, I think it is important to understand the distinctions, and the spectrum of belief. A skeptic can believe, but would likely still question his/her own belief.

Thank you.

It gets old having all of those that don't believe placed in one category.

While I think that some of the steadfast denialists are here just to get pleasure out of antagonizing others, I believe there are others that are here purely for the debate. Overall, I think this place needs the hardline skeptics, to keep it on an even keel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest HairyGreek

I think anyone that feels strongly about skeptics, or questions why a skeptic would come to this board, should study the history of skepticism and the “school†of thought or classical skepticism. To be skeptical is to question, even to doubt, but it is not to deny (as deny is to conclude).

I think the TS is talking about scoffers, not skeptics. We have a few vocal ones and they do absolutly nothing a fair-minded skeptic who says "convince me" couldn't do. I have the same question about their presence on the board as recent posts would attest to. Especially when they call themselves "skeptics" but flatly state Sasquatch does not exist. That is not a skeptic. I will once again state since feelings seem to get hurt that I DO NOT think they should be denied access to the board more or less then I do with any absolute position. It just seems counter-intuitive to a debate based forum to come with preconcieved ideas and notions which you have stated no amount of evidence (minus a body) will suffice. I just don't get the thought process or how they help anything. JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t doubt that’s what was meant; however, if a person were to speak of believers of bigfoot as the “naïve masses†or the “duped crusaders†or something like that it wouldn’t be tolerated. If anyone is going to be clearly speaking about a group, then they need to speak clearly. It is inappropriate to say skeptics if you mean “skofticsâ€. It’s disingenuous and fosters a divide between those that want to pursue this subject critically (critical thinking) and others on the board. It is akin to saying, if you don’t outright deny the existence of bigfoot you’re a naïve dope no matter what else you have to say on the subject. If you wish to speak about a person that “deniesâ€, then call them a denialist.

Edited by Ace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We there is no reason to get worked up, you know what I meant. I am calling out some Denialists as you say as being "Obsessed" with Bigfoot ! My point (or Stab) has been made! Remember I am a "Pot Stirrer" from time to time, I enjoy it. Ok Sorry, can't we all be friends :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General statement, not pointed at any one person. Sorry if it came across that way.

edit to add: my post was not an emotional one gearman.

Edited by Ace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oy vey, another "let's label the skeptics and subtly insinuate that they have mental issues or they wouldn't be here" thread? What is this, the fifth on the BFF 2.0?

I am very interested in bigfoot and have been since I was a boy.

I would love for bigfoot to be real.

Based on my examination of the evidence, I am unconvinced that such creatures exist.

You can call me a skeptic, a scoftic, a denialist or whatever else floats your boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...