What is going on

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Really?

You know my motives?

Please, please enlighten me as to my reasons, because, like, I wouldn't know what my motives are...

Oh, your were in law enforcement, were you not ? As you know, for every "crime", there is both motive and opportunity. The opportunity is these forums, and the chance to lecture "woo" promoters, or even "woo" witnesses with no real desire to promote, about the error of their beliefs, and demand proof of what they witnessed. Knowing full well it won't be forthcoming. What purpose would that serve, for you ?

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

What purpose would that serve, for you ?

Stop deflecting, answer my question:

What are my motives?

 

Or, stop pontificating and just ask me. I dare you

I double-dog dare you!

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Stop deflecting, answer my question:

What are my motives?

 

Or, stop pontificating and just ask me. I dare you

I double-dog dare you!

I've already told you what the motive is, earlier today. You have doubts, you'd prefer not to have those doubts, about these subjects, and if you can regularly repeat to people that they "ain't got nothing", and you know they have not got the evidence to contradict that, the preferred idea that there IS nothing, seems to find support. But obviously, not conclusive support, it is a very temporary "fix", so it becomes a matter of repeat the dose, with the next "victim".

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I've already told you what the motive is, earlier today. You have doubts, you'd prefer not to have those doubts, about these subjects, and if you can regularly repeat to people that they "ain't got nothing", and you know they have not got the evidence to contradict that, the preferred idea that there IS nothing, seems to find support. But obviously, not conclusive support, it is a very temporary "fix", so it becomes a matter of repeat the dose, with the next "victim".

Do you enjoy being wrong? All the f'ing time?

Since you are too chickensh*t to ask, I will.

"Hey Jodie, what's your motive for challenging believers to provide proof?"

Hey, thanks Jodie, I'm glad you asked! It's a little complicated to answer, but in a nutshell, I could never reconcile what I was taught about religion with what I observed. And while I have no intention of bragging, I was considered a very, very bright child, even though I never saw that in myself.

"and what about claims of ET's, or other extraordinary claims?"

Well, I seem to be a person who requires fact and evidence that support claims. Experience has shown me that "heart felt" statements can be erroneous due to preconceptions and bias, and just plain errors. Not to mention, wishful thinking.

"Soooo, why the interest in the extraordinary, if you don't believe in it?"

Honestly? Because in some ways, I truly envy those that have the faith to believe the unbelievable. Because I want to see what they see, to feel whatever it is that they feel.

maybe, because like Fox Mulder, "I want to believe".

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Honestly? Because in some ways, I truly envy those that have the faith to believe the unbelievable. Because I want to see what they see, to feel whatever it is that they feel.

maybe, because like Fox Mulder, "I want to believe".

But don't you know all this stuff just isn't real ? You certainly speak as if you do. If you like being absorbed in stuff that you know isn't real, there are novels, and films etc. Are you telling me it might, at least in part,  be real ?

[Jodie.Lynne]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

But don't you know all this stuff just isn't real ? You certainly speak as if you do. If you like being absorbed in stuff that you know isn't real, there are novels, and films etc. Are you telling me it might, at least in part,  be real ?

Because, Mr A**hattery, I do not see evidence for the miraculous, or the extraordinary. And if someone, ANYone, show me something that I could label as evidence, then maybe, just maybe, I could perceive what they, the believers perceive.

 

Now, if you'd like to actually provide anything towards the goal of showing me the possibility of the extraordinary existing, please do so.

However, if you merely wish to keep telling me what my motives are, attacking my position and persist in being an aggressive amadon, then we have nothing to discuss.

 

Your call.

[Habitat]

I have told you the obvious, that evidence is simply not going to happen, realistically, and certainly not making its debut in response to you, so you really aren't here for the evidence, and you say anecdotal evidence of is no interest.

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I have told you the obvious, that evidence is simply not going to happen, realistically, and certainly not making its debut in response to you, so you really aren't here for the evidence, and you say anecdotal evidence of is no interest.

Gee thanks Mister!

Thanks for mansplaining my motives to me. It's all so clear now!

Annnnnnd, ignored.

[Habitat]

What can be said of someone who comes on a forum looking for what ain't gonna be there ?

[+and-then]

On 1/10/2019 at 4:31 PM, danydandan said:

And us Europeans are smack bang in the middle. Perfectly balanced as all things should be. 

Well, except for that growing Muslim fundy issue... I'd agree.

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, Habitat said:

I've already told you what the motive is, earlier today. You have doubts, you'd prefer not to have those doubts, about these subjects, and if you can regularly repeat to people that they "ain't got nothing", and you know they have not got the evidence to contradict that, the preferred idea that there IS nothing, seems to find support. But obviously, not conclusive support, it is a very temporary "fix", so it becomes a matter of repeat the dose, with the next "victim".

You repeat this theory of why anybody would disagree with you from one thread to the next, so apparently you sincerely believe it. It sounds like something you've picked up from Psychology for Dummies or whatever your preparation in the subject was.

Do you really not notice how self-flattering your explanation of your consistent failure to persuade is? That you manage to locate the fault safely in other people, and only in other people? Do you really not see the irony in your being aggrieved at Dale Carrnegie, whose work emphasized that the burden of successful instead of unsuccessful communication resided in the communicator?

Sure, if his advice about "How to win friends and influence people" was "go find some friendly gullible people," then he'd have been a huckster, just like what some of us think might be "what is going on" in the OP. But that wasn't Carnegie's advice. He wanted his audiences to take responsibility for getting their ideas heard and respected.

That'd just about kill you, it seems.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

You repeat this theory of why anybody would disagree with you from one thread to the next, so apparently you sincerely believe it. It sounds like something you've picked up from Psychology for Dummies or whatever your preparation in the subject was.

Do you really not notice how self-flattering your explanation of your consistent failure to persuade is? That you manage to locate the fault safely in other people, and only in other people? Do you really not see the irony in your being aggrieved at Dale Carrnegie, whose work emphasized that the burden of successful instead of unsuccessful communication resided in the communicator?

Sure, if his advice about "How to win friends and influence people" was "go find some friendly gullible people," then he'd have been a huckster, just like what some of us think might be "what is going on" in the OP. But that wasn't Carnegie's advice. He wanted his audiences to take responsibility for getting their ideas heard and respected.

That'd just about kill you, it seems.

Aggrieved at Dale Carnegie ? On the contrary, I cited Carnegie as an example of someone who had given innumerable people a leg-up in life, and that was to rebut Jodie-Lynne telling someone that anyone offering to show you how to be successful, and charging for it, was only creating success for themselves, by the money gathered from selling it ! Glad I could clear that up ! If you don't believe me, read back through those posts.

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You repeat this theory of why anybody would disagree with you from one thread to the next, so apparently you sincerely believe it. It sounds like something you've picked up from Psychology for Dummies or whatever your preparation in the subject was.

If you can posit a better explanation, I'm all ears.

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

If you don't believe me, read back through those posts.

Well, you brought up Carnegie as a foundation for what you claimed was Jodie's cynicism (of all things). In response, she correctly described Carnegie's work, in the context of contrasting it with woo-peddling, and along the way in the back and forth you reported that you weren't seeing a distinction.

I suppose you could argue that in your mind woo-peddling really is all the same as "an example of someone who had given innumerable people a leg-up in life," Come to think of it, that may well be your sincere view of things.

I'm delighted to accept your recent post as a clarification of your position on Carnegie, with thanks. That said, my statements about your theory of why people disagree with you were based on a direct quote from you, which is typical of what you've posted before in other threads. Your theory does conflict with Carnegie's teaching, no less conflicting now that it turns out that you admire the author.

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

If you can posit a better explanation, I'm all ears.

Not my circus, not my monkey.

-

 

Edited January 27, 2019 by eight bits

[Habitat]

23 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Well, you brought up Carnegie as a foundation for what you claimed was Jodie's cynicism (of all things). In response, she correctly described Carnegie's work, in the context of contrasting it with woo-peddling, and along the way in the back and forth you reported that you weren't seeing a distinction.

I suppose you could argue that in your mind woo-peddling really is all the same as "an example of someone who had given innumerable people a leg-up in life," Come to think of it, that may well be your sincere view of things.

Carnegie was used to illustrate that her "bold" assertion that anyone proffering advice on how to succeed in life, for a price, was a shonk, was wrong. I made no comment on, or know anything about, your supposed "woo peddler".

"Let me let you in on a little secret: Anytime someone claims to have the secrets of success, but wants you to pay them for the info, then YOU are the secret to THEIR success. "

To which I replied, quite rightly.....

Plenty of people have claimed that Dale Carnegie's writings did set them on a pathway to success. A little less of the cynical, please Jodie !  

Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Habitat]

33 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Not my circus, not my monkey.

You've bought in already, by claiming it was like an extract from Psychology for dummies. But can't offer a rebuttal, or an alternate explanation, or anything other than what you routinely accuse me of, snide remarks. Yep, you are definitely a member of the "team" ! 

[eight bits]

42 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

Case was already closed, Habby.

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

I'm delighted to accept your recent post as a clarification of your position on Carnegie, with thanks.

Settle for victory.

29 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You've bought in already, by claiming it was like an extract from Psychology for dummies. But can't offer a rebuttal, or an alternate explanation, or anything other than what you routinely accuse me of, snide remarks. Yep, you are definitely a member of the "team" ! 

You can't offer a rebuttal because it is your position, repeatedly proclaimed, by you. There is, in your opinion, a pop-level-of-insight "psychological" reason why people who are interested in a topic don't passively accept everything told to them by anonymous "sources" who happen to appear on the internet.

There's nothing for your "psychological reason" to explain. Or at least nothing for it to explain about anybody else besides the person offering it.

[Habitat]

6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Case was already closed, Habby.

Settle for victory.

You can't offer a rebuttal because it is your position, repeatedly proclaimed, by you. There is, in your opinion, a pop-level-of-insight "psychological" reason why people who are interested in a topic don't passively accept everything told to them by anonymous "sources" who happen to appear on the internet.

There's nothing for your "psychological reason" to explain. Or at least nothing for it to explain about anybody else besides the person offering it.

Your disingenuous ways are becoming chronic, the situation is a very simple one, a horde of people demanding proof, they know they won't get, ( can you see the headlines, " irrefutable proof of afterlife posted on internet website"), and the same people saying anecdotes are useless to them. But they are still banging away here ! So, how to explain that ? I have given my interpretation, but the "team" appears to have a mouthful of sawdust on the subject !

[eight bits]

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Your disingenuous ways are becoming chronic,

Meh, once upon a time a genuine philosopher (!) called me wily. To my face. Disingenuous coming from you ain't nothin'

9 minutes ago, Habitat said:

a horde of people demanding proof, they know they won't get,

Focus. What you're being asked for is evidence. I don't know about Australia, but in a lot of the English-speaking world, people call evidence proof. Yes, it's also jargon in mathematics for a valid demonstration. But does UM look like a math class to you? (OK, I know enough about Australia to say maths, plural. My bad.)

And no, they don't know that they won't get evidence. I have before, right here at UM. Not a valid demonstration, but a foundation for what the person was claiming, and the basis of a coherent follow-up discussion. You know, what I come here for, and get ... not always, but often enough to keep me coming back.

[Habitat]

10 hours ago, eight bits said:

Meh, once upon a time a genuine philosopher (!) called me wily. To my face. Disingenuous coming from you ain't nothin'

Synonyms of 'disingenuous'

 

 

(adjective)  in the sense of dishonesthis disingenuous claims of innocence

Synonyms

dishonest

,

cunning

,

sly

,

designing

,

wily

,

insidious

,

feigned

,

artful

,

two-faced

,

shifty (informal)

,

deceitful

,

insincere

,

duplicitous

,

underhanded

,

guileful

,

uncandid

It seems the "genuine philosopher" and I agree on something ! He was just being a little more polite.

 

Focus. What you're being asked for is evidence. I don't know about Australia, but in a lot of the English-speaking world, people call evidence proof. Yes, it's also jargon in mathematics for a valid demonstration. But does UM look like a math class to you? (OK, I know enough about Australia to say maths, plural. My bad.)

And no, they don't know that they won't get evidence. I have before, right here at UM. Not a valid demonstration, but a foundation for what the person was claiming, and the basis of a coherent follow-up discussion. You know, what I come here for, and get ... not always, but often enough to keep me coming back.

Again, disingenuous, you can't help yourself. You know very well what kind of subject matter I am referring to, that being the "supernatural". Your "coherent" discussion topic doesn't even rate a mention, from you. Dodge, duck, weave, dance, but no explanation forthcoming, for why people who ask for evidence or proof of the so-called supernatural, in full knowledge that it is not going to be produced, and dismiss the anecdotal as valueless, still persist ? It really isn't that hard to fathom !

 

[eight bits]

@Habitat

If I agreed that disingenuous was a synonym for dishonest, then this conversation would have ended there.

Your thesaurus is worth every penny you paid for it.

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

It seems the "genuine philosopher" and I agree on something !

Too bad you don't agree on more.

Quote

You know very well what kind of subject matter I am referring to, that being the "supernatural".

And? The other poster was trying to understand what seemed to him to be a supernatural event he'd experienced. On the basis of his testimony, I was able to locate a witness' contemporaneous statement off-line (compare "my wife would tell you that she saw just what I did, too...").

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

no explanation forthcoming, for why people who ask for evidence or proof of the so-called supernatural, in full knowledge that it is not going to be produced, and dismiss the anecdotal as valueless, still persist ? It really isn't that hard to fathom !

No, it isn't that hard to fathom, hence the absurdity of your "psychological" posturings. And what is sought is evidence bearing on the fact claims that raise the question. After the evidence is produced, then we can each be the judge of what it is evidence of. Can't do that without the evidence, and while some posters do volunteer, other posters you have to ask. That's life.

-

Edited January 28, 2019 by eight bits

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

And what is sought is evidence bearing on the fact claims that raise the question, which some people do produce, which can be discussed, which discussion does sometimes happen here. Once the evidence is produced, then we can each be the judge of what it is evidence of.

Show me an example of this evidence produced, of a supernatural "claim", here or anywhere else, that was considered as solid, undeniable, non-anecdotal evidence.

[eight bits]

30 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Show me an example of this evidence produced, of a supernatural "claim", here or anywhere else, that was considered as solid, undeniable, non-anecdotal evidence.

Why? What supernatural claim have I made?

You need to focus on what you're claiming, not change the subject. People come here to have discussions about topics that interest them. Evidence is what makes such discussion work.  Contrray to your blanket characterizations of other posters, some claimants have evidence sufficient to explain why somebody interested in their claim would want to talk with them about it. That is the explanation why people of all perspectives come here, not some psychobabble about why people who happen to disagree with your perspective don't leave.

 

[Habitat]

6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Why? What supernatural claim have I made?

You need to focus on what you're claiming, not change the subject. People come here to have discussions about topics that interest them. Evidence is what makes such discussion work.  Contrray to your blanket characterizations of other posters, some claimants have evidence sufficient to explain why somebody interested in their claim would want to talk with them about it. That is the explanation why people of all perspectives come here, not some psychobabble about why people who happen to disagree with your perspective don't leave.

 

My giddy aunt......I have kept this as simple as I can, there are a host of people here that are focused on debunking the "supernatural", aka (to them) as "woo", they keep asking for the "proof" ( knowing full well it won't be forthcoming), and have total disdain for the anecdotal "evidence" of said woo. Given that no resolution of the actual subject matter can be achieved under those circumstances, any reasonable person would ask, why do they keep talking about it ? All I get in response, is a smokescreen !

[Mr Walker]

On 27/01/2019 at 11:38 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Fixed that massive typo for you. You're welcome.

lol Pity you cant fix all those IDEAS and BELIEFS  other people have, as easily.    Besides which the writer goes to the trouble  to expressly state this is a world view or belief.   Your own  are no more correct nor valuable than another's.  You can express your own, but not correct another's, beliefs.   

 

I come from a worldview that there are real things and sources of real information beyond the physical level of objective proof stuff 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Mr Walker