111 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

JGirl, on 13 October 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

i'm skeptical of the definition of skeptical.

I hear ya....but at some point we must agree to definitions if rational public dialogue is to ensue.

[Anonymous User]

JGirl, on 13 October 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

how about a gal who wears a cat for a hat?

Is that Sandra Bullock lol?

[lightly]

that's just too weird

[turbonium]

A true 'skeptic' questions the 'accepted' account, the mainstream viewpoint. A skeptic challenges the status quo.

A false skeptic supports the 'accepted' account without question, and then challenges the true skeptics.

It's a deliberate, planned hijacking of the term. imo.

They are disinfo/misinfo agents, feeding government propaganda.

[Sthenno]

What happened? Semantics happened. Popular culture, by way of the X-Files and Richard Dawkins, transformed skepticism into a belief system. Because of the context in which we're usually exposed to the term (people are, for example, more often described as 'skeptical' of the existence of UFOs than, say, the merits of the two-party political system), 'skeptic' has come to mean someone opposed to more outlandish or esoteric ideas, rather than ideas in general.

Edited by Sthenno, 20 October 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[turbonium]

Sthenno, on 20 October 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

What happened? Semantics happened. Popular culture, by way of the X-Files and Richard Dawkins, transformed skepticism into a belief system. Because of the context in which we're usually exposed to the term (people are, for example, more often described as 'skeptical' of the existence of UFOs than, say, the merits of the two-party political system), 'skeptic' has come to mean someone opposed to more outlandish or esoteric ideas, rather than ideas in general.

The official 9/11 story is also outlandish, and many people are 'skeptical' it is legit.

Certainly, a skeptic is not one who accepts the government account of 9/11, as there are so many unanswered questions.

[MID]

turbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

The official 9/11 story is also outlandish, and many people are 'skeptical' it is legit.
Certainly, a skeptic is not one who accepts the government account of 9/11, as there are so many unanswered questions.

Who is skeptical that the well executed, engineering analysis of the 9-11 occurrances are "legit"?

And what is so outlandish about a sterile, systematic engineering evaluation...save that it's not understood by non-engineering people, like those who tend to put forth nonsensical ideas?

[FurthurBB]

JamesThomas, on 04 October 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

According to the dictionary a sceptic (skeptic) is:
1. a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc, in general

What the hell happened?!!!

Now days a skeptic is a *snip* who parrots the mainstream of media and closed-minded science.

And the person who doubts authority is now a "Conspiracy Theorist".

What's going on?

"close-minded science" is a ridiculous statement and if it made more contextual sense it would be an oxymoron.

[Simbi Laveau]

It all basically boils down to this.....it really does .

[MID]

turbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

A true 'skeptic' questions the 'accepted' account, the mainstream viewpoint. A skeptic challenges the status quo.

This is a classic construct.  A "true skeptic".
I'm afraid that means, "A habitual skeptic".

Quote

]A false skeptic supports the 'accepted' account without question, and then challenges the true skeptics.

It's a deliberate, planned hijacking of the term. imo.

They are disinfo/misinfo agents, feeding government propaganda.

An amazing, but weak effort.

By "false Skeptic", you're actually referring to intelligent, knowledgeable people who can see the validity of the "accepted" account (i.e., a real, engineering analysis, conducted by panels ).
Your "true sleptic" refers to one person:

The person filled with a lack of knowledge, with a mistrust of any official authority, and with a complete lack of anything to back up their declarations.  The CT, or HB, in otherwords...a person like you, turb.

It's just rather amazing an effort, although it had to fail.

[JGirl]

i wouldn't refer to myself as a skeptic, but i am skeptical.
it's not that i negate the idea of ghosts or psychics or ufo abductions - or what have you  - i have not made my mind up on any of those things.
it's the tales i hear and hoaxed pics and videos i see that i'm skeptical of.

if these things exist, and in some cases i hope they do, bring it. stop with all the lies and bullcrap. that's where my skepticism lies.

i have been asked why i bother to come to these forums, and my anwer is simply this:
at some point through all the lies and crap i hope to learn of something truly extra ordinary or truly extra terrestrial or truly paranormal or truly miraculous.
and while i'm here i can learn other useful things along the way, such as information about pyramids, stonehenge, and other ancient places

[MID]

JGirl, on 30 October 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

i wouldn't refer to myself as a skeptic, but i am skeptical.
it's not that i negate the idea of ghosts or psychics or ufo abductions - or what have you  - i have not made my mind up on any of those things.
it's the tales i hear and hoaxed pics and videos i see that i'm skeptical of.

if these things exist, and in some cases i hope they do, bring it. stop with all the lies and bullcrap. that's where my skepticism lies.

i have been asked why i bother to come to these forums, and my anwer is simply this:
at some point through all the lies and crap i hope to learn of something truly extra ordinary or truly extra terrestrial or truly paranormal or truly miraculous.
and while i'm here i can learn other useful things along the way, such as information about pyramids, stonehenge, and other ancient places

Fair enough, JGirl.

[turbonium]

MID, on 30 October 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

This is a classic construct.  A "true skeptic".
I'm afraid that means, "A habitual skeptic".





An amazing, but weak effort.

By "false Skeptic", you're actually referring to intelligent, knowledgeable people who can see the validity of the "accepted" account (i.e., a real, engineering analysis, conducted by panels ).
Your "true sleptic" refers to one person:

The person filled with a lack of knowledge, with a mistrust of any official authority, and with a complete lack of anything to back up their declarations.  The CT, or HB, in otherwords...a person like you, turb.

It's just rather amazing an effort, although it had to fail.

The official 9/11 story is built on "a lack of knowledge", with a complete trust of any official authority, and especially a lack of anything to back it up!!

There are so many examples, such as..

- no Pentagon videos ever shown. Do you think a true skeptic would simply accept this? Not a chance. So who do you think has a "lack of knowledge" here?  Who do you think lacks evidence for their claims? No true skeptic would believe this nonsense.

- all the Ground Zero evidence that they quickly shipped off to Asia. You think a skeptic happily accepts such a farce? No way. A skeptic wants to see the evidence. A skeptic wants to know why it was shipped away without a care.

- a true skeptic wants to know why Bush claimed - on two separate occasions - that he saw the first tower being hit by a plane on TV when it was never seen live.

Those who blindly accept all that sort of bs are simply not true skeptics,  They are just a bunch of phonies who call themselves 'skeptics'. As if that alone makes it so.

[C235]

Its always about the majority.   >  

[flyingswan]

turbonium, on 25 November 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

- all the Ground Zero evidence that they quickly shipped off to Asia. You think a skeptic happily accepts such a farce? No way. A skeptic wants to see the evidence. A skeptic wants to know why it was shipped away without a care.

If the debris contained any incriminating evidence, what would be the advantage of giving it to a foreign power?