xspider1 Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) Now think about standing on the proverbial side of the street for 400 years and no vehicle has ever come by, and how silly it would be to not reach the conclusion that no vehicles are approaching. It's not so silly when you get hit by the vehicle that you knew would never approach. The philosophy of 'looking for big shiny things' doesn't always work. Edited September 29, 2011 by xspider1
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 If I had a dollar (sorry, inflation) for every time Parn used "strawman" in a post, I would retire...
slabdog Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) Straw men, evidence, proof, levels of scientific acceptance.................aaarrrrggghhhh! edited for spelling wow.... Well....I for one (a #3 skeptical proponent) don't mind having them here to serve as a healthy thought provoking balance....which is probably exactly why they are here. Edited September 29, 2011 by slabdog
Guest Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 I've written posts like #50 many times on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0. If something like that can't convey why someone like me comes here, then I don't know what can. Now if the BFF desired to change its focus so as to no longer welcome skeptical viewpoints in discussion, I'd be cool with that, and I'd stop posting here. This is why I don't post at the BFRO or other sites, and why I avoid the "Sightings" subforum here. I'm not out to harass people, and if my views really aren't welcome someplace then I'd have to be a jerk to keep sticking them in where they don't belong. In the meantime, quit worrying about why skeptics come here or who's a "real" skeptic or not. We skeptics don't care what you call us or that you don't understand our individual motivations for participating. We can't prove to you that there is no bigfoot, but you can prove to us that there is.
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) "We can't prove to you that there is no bigfoot, but you can prove to us that there is." - Saskeptic Edited October 1, 2011 by Art1972 edited to remove mention of religion
Guest Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 Whether you realize it or not, you are just doing the straw man thing with "proof" and playing semantic games with it. We can't prove to you that there is no bigfoot.. P, have you crossed that street yet? It's been over 160,000 years since modern man has been standing there. And it only took 159,890 years for western science to classify the mountain gorilla. Who's the one playing semantic games?
Guest Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 And it only took 159,890 years for western science to classify the mountain gorilla. Quote from me, upthread a bit: "The discovery of the mountain gorilla could potentially be relevant if no white man had ever explored a region in which bigfoots were reported to live. Captain von Beringe bagged one on what was probably the first trek by a European through the Virungas. He wasn't even on a collecting trip. In contrast, Matt Moneymaker seems to be on the trail of bigfoot monthly, and has yet to score even a decent photograph." When you can demonstrate the relevance of the mountain gorilla's discovery to bigfoot's undiscovery, I might begin to think you have a point. Until then, however . . .
ShadowBorn Posted September 29, 2011 Moderator Posted September 29, 2011 "The discovery of the mountain gorilla could potentially be relevant if no white man had ever explored a region in which bigfoots were reported to live. Captain von Beringe bagged one on what was probably the first trek by a European through the Virungas. He wasn't even on a collecting trip. In contrast, Matt Moneymaker seems to be on the trail of bigfoot monthly, and has yet to score even a decent photograph."When you can demonstrate the relevance of the mountain gorilla's discovery to bigfoot's undiscovery, I might begin to think you have a point. Until then, however . . . But then with the Gorrilla you have to figure in the eye witnesses reports that have actually seen that creatureas well before it became known. Saskeptic you keep it honest Bro!
Ronnie Bass Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 I've written posts like #50 many times on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0. If something like that can't convey why someone like me comes here, then I don't know what can. Now if the BFF desired to change its focus so as to no longer welcome skeptical viewpoints in discussion, I'd be cool with that, and I'd stop posting here. This is why I don't post at the BFRO or other sites, and why I avoid the "Sightings" subforum here. I'm not out to harass people, and if my views really aren't welcome someplace then I'd have to be a jerk to keep sticking them in where they don't belong. In the meantime, quit worrying about why skeptics come here or who's a "real" skeptic or not. We skeptics don't care what you call us or that you don't understand our individual motivations for participating. We can't prove to you that there is no bigfoot, but you can prove to us that there is. Good skeptics like you should not ever have to explain yourself, so don't my good man.
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Agreed Ronnie. He doesn't have to, but he was still kind enough to do it anyways and it is appreciated for those of us genuinely curious and not adversarial in our reasoning for wondering. If I have learned anything lately, particularly from watching and participating in campfire discussions, call them skeptics or skofftics or whatever (and I still will from time to time, hell, I am really more a skeptic in some ways) they are some **** fine people. Arguments on threads aside, I really tend to like having their perspective and the challenge they offer. It keeps me sharp and learning. That's all I ask for from this forum. If news of Bigfoot ever breaks, I would wager the board won't be the first to hear of it anyways.
bipedalist Posted September 30, 2011 BFF Patron Posted September 30, 2011 If news of Bigfoot ever breaks, I would wager the board won't be the first to hear of it anyways. On the contrary, I think certain admins on this board would be among the first to be connected....whether the general membership would be presented that information simultaneously would be up to the "nda" I suppose .
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Let's just say I won't hold my breath and leave it at that.
Guest Kerchak Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 It's been over 160,000 years since modern man has been standing there. And it only took 159,890 years for western science to classify the mountain gorilla. Who's the one playing semantic games? Apparently the Vu Quang ox in Vietnam didn't actually exist until science told us it existed in the 1990s.
BobbyO Posted October 1, 2011 SSR Team Posted October 1, 2011 We can't prove to you that there is no bigfoot, but you can prove to us that there is. I'm gonna frame that Baby, oh yes..
Guest HucksterFoot Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) But a lack of hard evidence does not prove something doesn't exist. So with that gap of knowledge it's alright to insert whatever fairy tale one prefers? (do you agree) Is it justifiable for someone to reject Bigfoot (a real blood and bone mammal; or a paranormal Bigfoot manifesting itself in alternate dimensions: either/or and many other Bigfoot constructs one can conjure up) based on the lack of hard evidence? I'm not seeing a tangible Bigfoot tipping into reality on the demonstrable evidence scale. Do you think there can be enough evidence (or should I say; lack of) to claim (justifiably) that something doesn't exist? maybe not with proof and absolute certainty, but still come to the "does not exist/more than likely mythical/not probable" conclusion. Edited October 1, 2011 by Art1972 edited to remove mention of religion
Recommended Posts