I get maybe a couple of emails a day on average from readers of this blog. Many are in the "thanks for being a voice of reason" type, but many are also of the "you're an arrogant idiot" type - many more of the first than the second though. But some of the second type are entertaining, in a perverse sort of way.
For example, I just received an email from one Stef Coburn, who really doesn't like this blog. I mean really. To the extent of 1800 words. Except that I find he wasn't really complaining about me, but about you gentle reader. Specifically, the regular commenters on this blog (you know who you are). It's a bit long and rambley, but it will become clear eventually. This was his original email:
Just came across your site and read through some of your postings growing steadily more appalled as I went. Finished up with your (and your various contributors) mind-bogglingly boorish, seemingly wilfully ever more progressively stupid treatment of a clearly well motivated if metaphysically confused single mother who after first making the mistake of describing her personally positive experience of 'The Secret', compounded this initial error in judgement with the naively mistaken impression that she was debating the subject with reasonable people. (as opposed to the pack of smugly self-satisfied pseudo-intellectual science-mullahs she had in fact fallen amongst) In maintaining and attempting to qualify her position, however ineffectually, in the face of the concerted and steadily more hysterically OTT attack you and your competitively-pissing pack-mates gratuitously subjected her to, this lady demonstrated a degree of 'grace' under fire as far beyond the capabilities of you and people like you as M31 galactic central is from whatever rock you live under.
For all your protestations of faux outrage at the (alleged) transgressions and emotional violations of Allison Dubois and her various ilk, it is my very strong impression that everything you people know about human decency and dignified restraint could be written on a post-it and posted in the Planck space. What could this lady have possibly said or done to deserve the treatment you all so joyfully meted out to her? Scientific knowledge and technological expertise, whilst, in themselves both the products and facilitators of human civilisation and intellectual progress clearly guarantee the presence of neither virtue in either their practitioners or their hangers-on. On the basis of your own ghastly expositions, I frankly don't think you or your cohorts would recognise a proportionate response, for instance, if it jumped up and spat in your eye.
Intellectual bullies like you have turned up (and continue with tedious regularity to turn up) throughout history, trumpeting their prejudices and inchoate or partial theories as fact or (paying lip service to reason) probable fact, in the name of science. (and 'natural philosophy' before there was any such thing as 'science') Often times these people have spent their entire professional or vocational lives putting the boot into others (as often as not as well 'qualified' as themselves) who, for whatever reason, have disagreed with them on this or that point of principle or order.
Far from any spirit of rational discourse and debate, the attacks you and people like you habitually and reflexively level at those who (whether logically or illogically) espouse theories, philosophies or, dare I say, 'beliefs' different in almost any significant regard from your (their) own, are frequently marked by a level of gratuitous (and, for the most part) entirely unnecessary and unrestrained viciousness levelled willy-nilly at their fellow beings, that, occurring in just about any other arena, than that sanctified by your supposed quest for 'truth' and, even then, more likely than not, safely insulated by physical distance, would likely quickly result in the reciprocal and entirely deserved visiting upon your physical person of what (to use a widely employed and understood oxymoron) is commonly referred to as 'a good kicking'.
So ******* what if you can, (as your fellow thug Tom Foss suggests he can) normalized a wave-function, describe the three-dimensional Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation, or give the basic expression for momentum using the complex conjugate of the wave-function. As far as human consciousness is concerned (without which you could do none of these things) you simply don't know which way is 'up'. What (except in the most rarefied of circles) does it matter if you know what an eigenstate is or have any idea what value is represented by < a | a > if you can't comprehend the simple (anthropic) fact that without consciousness (which, despite the pretensions of intellectual nazis like you, you are no closer to understanding, let alone explaining than any rainforest native or Kalahari 'bushman') literally nothing would or could subjectively exist. As we only have, furthermore, our necessarily subjective human consciousness upon which to base and from which to derive whatever indicators we believe we have discovered, to the existence of a supposedly 'objective' universe 'external' in any meaningful sense to ourselves, in the absence of an explanation for this precursor 'ground' of our being, the jury, whether over-protesting dressed-up talking chimpanzees like you (or me for that matter) like it or not, can only be said to be stubbornly 'out' where the nature of 'reality' is concerned.
When you dream about a tree, I'll bet you waste not a moment doubting its existence, but only appreciate it as the source of equally unquestioned dream-fruit, or thankfully shin-up it to escape the equally substantial dream-tiger that is chasing you. When you 'wake-up' where is the tree? Who is to say that the World you perceive (and measure) in your alleged 'waking' state has any more 'objective' substance than the objects (and people) you experienced in your dream. Ever had a 'false awakening' where you thought you had awoken from one dream, only to find that you were still caught up in another? How do you know, as a matter of irrefutable fact that any such state as 'awake' even exists? To save you the bother, I'll answer for you here. Whatever comforting intellectual protestations and sophistry you may employ to argue otherwise, you simply don't.
Even assuming (for the sake of argument) the existence of the physical, you ultimately have to take it on 'faith' that the picture of the World (even you must acknowledge) you are constructing in your brain from the mish-mash (a technical term) of diverse electro-chemical impulses arriving there via your nerve fibres, corresponds to a commonly imagined but ultimately unprovable objective environment. For all you know, the 'laws' of physics only remain 'lawful' for as long as you continue to imagine them so. For all you know, you either have no physical 'reality' at all, or if you in fact do, are nothing more than a disembodied brain in a bucket, being fed (Matrix-like) a stream of data from which you elaborately derive the perceived entirety of your world. In either case, as with so called 'lucid' dreaming, who is to say that the 'rules' of the game are anything like as fixed as people like you commonly assume? Who is to say that merely by 'believing' otherwise, the world, or to make a critical distinction, an individual's subjective experience of the world (the only kind of experience we can prove - cogito ergo sum) cannot be altered to suit whatever belief system or cloud-cuckoo land fantasy we can dream up? Who is to say that each of us does not constitute the perceptual centre of our own separate idiosyncratically constructed 'parallel' universe, in which all imagined facts and figures are uniquely formed by and channelled through our own biased (this way or that) perceptual moulds and filters?
Please note carefully here, that I am not insisting that any of this is so, merely that, as things currently stand, neither you nor anyone else can prove that it is not so. Your broadly demonstrated arrogance therefore is simply that; you abrogate to yourself, an absolute knowledge that you (in common with all the other 'pro-simians' with whom you share (or appear to share) existence, simply do not, possibly even cannot, have. This being irrefutably the case, (though you're certainly welcome to try and prove otherwise - knock yourself out) it therefore behoves all of us to behave with at least a modicum of humility, particularly in regard to our fellow beings.
Put simply, as no-one can state with any certainty that they know (as opposed to merely believe or think they know) how the World works, but everyone knows when they're being unjustly 'dissed' or dismissed, it is, at least 99.999 percent of the time, more important (certainly more consequential) therefore to be nice than right. No matter how infuriating the widely demonstrated human aversion to logic and applied reason can seem, in the face of this or that 'beautiful' body of theoretical or experimental so-called 'knowledge', except in the most extreme cases where others, acting out of degradation, prejudice or malice, have set themselves against us, laws of courtesy and common decency must take clear and constant priority over whatever body of abstraction we might philosophically adhere to. To do otherwise is to act as the catholic and muslim (to name but two) so-called, self-appointed, religious 'authorities' have historically acted toward those who have not enthusiastically echoed (if not necessarily shared) their own imperialising brand of unproven and unprovable superstition. When you castigate and condemn people as 'pro-simians' or 'dipshits' merely for disagreeing with you, regardless of their education or lack of it, how is that different in substance from advocating the excommunication or even (metaphorically at least) the burning or stoning of those you consider to be either 'heretics' against, or infidel unbelievers in 'holy' science? When you apply glib contemptuously dismissive labels like 'woo woo' to your fellow humans, how is that different in any substantial regard to the application of other terms of prejudicial abuse like 'untermenschen' 'split-tail' or 'nigger'? You use 'woo' in the exactly the same way, after all, to set yourself apart from a perceived underclass to whom you flatter (and likely delude) yourself, you are in some way superior. When I refer to you and people like you as intellectual 'bullies', 'thugs' or 'nazis' on the other hand I am merely applying the widely understood appropriately descriptive terms for the kind of (unkind) person who, instead of engaging in properly civil rational discourse to settle differences or convey information, prefers instead to resort to fundamentally anti-intellectual intentionally destructive, prejudicial put-downs against people who, regardless of (perceived) educational shortcomings or philosophical differences, are as deserving of courtesy and consideration as any of your (perceived or imagined) peers.
Explain to anyone who cares by all means, wherever possible, in words of one syllable if you have to, (or even can) the difference between the 'scientific method' and other less disciplined forms of thought, but the aggressively hostile hysterical emotionalism with which you leap to attack those not manifestly privileged with your (here assumed - after all I don't know you from mythical Adam) education, constitutes behaviour which the so-called 'enlightenment' of science is supposed to steer us (as a species) away from rather than simply instantiating new barbarism and division in the place of the old.
Oh yes and for ***** sake learn to spell!
P..S. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. My money's on the LHC won't find 'superpartners' black-holes or the 'Higgs particle; the 'standard model' and the 'big-bang' are wishful figments of human imagining; and all those frightfully clever chaps and chappesses at CERN are going to be scratching their primate heads and revising their exorbitant budgets for a long long time to come.
(Note - I ****ed out the f-words. Not that I'm especially prudish, but I have managed to avoid them so far in my actual posts, if not the comments, for over three years, and I'm not letting this jackass be the one to change that.)
Anyway - a confused person and a confusing email. "Learn to spell"? I know I'm not a great speller, which is why I put everything through a spell checker. Typos, yes. Spelling? Really? But apart from that, this was nothing more than the usual badly reasoned rants we have some to expect.
Fallacies displayed:
- Falsely conflating science and religion
- Ad hominem
- False analogy - confusing difference of opinion with pointing out lack of evidence
- Implied threat of violence
- Science doesn't know everything
- Comparisons to the nazis (because pointing out that something is contradicted by the evidence is exactly the same as killing 6 million Jews)
- Appeal to be open minded
Probably some others - he tends to repeat himself. But in all that, I didn't see anything that he could point to that I actually got wrong in any of my posts. So I replied:
So what, exactly, do you think I got wrong in any of my posts. Apart from spelling.
Just wondering. Because you don't seem to have come up with anything.
Fairly simple question. But apparently, despite his anger at all he dislikes about this blog, one that he was unprepared to answer. He replied:
This just a quick first response, my blow by blow analysis of the correspondence that ticked me off will follow in due course.
I have not so far suggested (though this will likely change) that you have inappropriately alleged or ignored any specific known or published and peer-reviewed scientific theory or established 'fact'. I know nothing of your personal history, cultural or ethnic derivation, professional qualification (or lack thereof), or gender specificity. For all I know you could be a fully paid up scientific professional with degrees up the wazoo and a 'cream of the crop' intellectual ego to match, or you could be a student tyro with unfulfilled aspirations jacking up their lack of self-eteem by getting together with other bullies to beat-up people you think lesser than yourself.
My contention, Sir or Madam, is that whilst you may or may not consider yourself an officer, you are neither gentleman nor lady.
As for what I think you got wrong, try switching on the other hemisphere of your brain and reading my mail again.
Wooooooooo
Note he hasn't suggested I have ignored studies, but he knows that (once he works on it) he will be able to show that I have. So decision made before evidence examined - how closed minded of him. Typical woo, of course. Anyway, I replied:
So you've got nothing. Didn't think you did.
He replied with the barely comprehensible:
Told (you fatuous twat) full critique of your correspondence with Mora on the way (including all the 'straw men' arguments you and your idiot pals set-up and attributed to her then shot-down to make yourselves seem relevant in front of Randi and your fellow co-religionists) will take time to assemble (so as not to miss anything) Currently has low priority though as I have much much better things (though not necessarily more enjoyable things) to do. Gist of it is you're a pretentious jumped-up arsehole which I'll have no trouble demonstating [sic] as and when I can get round to giving the irksome crap you belaboured that poor lady with the benefit of a properly forensic analysis..
Aah, how gallant - coming to the defense of a "poor lady". Rather condescending to her though in my view. Also the gallantry was sort-of spoiled by the vulgar language. And the spelling!
But he also gave the first clue about what it was he was so angry about. "Mora". Presumably this Mora who commented on my The Secret post. The Mora who I never replied to myself - several others did, but I didn't. (I only have so much time, and I don't see that I have to reply to all comments - especially if someone else is dealing with it.) I guess he never noticed that at the bottom of each comment, just after the words "Posted by:", there is the name of the person who wrote and posted the comment. And it wasn't me who replied to her. (Not that I necessarily disagreed with what anyone wrote, but everyone has their own style, and I'm not responsible for what anyone else writes.) Yes, this clown read comment after comment, thousands of words, and apparently couldn't figure out that there are people other than me commenting here. I guess he's not familiar with this new-fangled "blogging" idea. What a jackass.
Anyway, I thought I'd post his criticisms here so that the commenters he's critical of can read what he is accusing them of and reply if they want. I expect he'll comment here eventually too. Assuming he figures out what the "Comments" link below is for.
Oh and Stef - watch your language please. I don't mind a few F-words but don't go overboard. (And read the Comment Guidelines.)
Stef seems very impressed with his (her?) own passing knowledge of basic quantum mechanics. I don't know Tom Foss's original comments that inspired that nice little section of the rant, but I doubt he was trying to throw his physics-weight around. What, then, was the point of throwing in some nice buzzwords one could glean from the first few pages of http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222325332&sr=8-1>Griffiths?
I also enjoyed:
Yes, this was "put simply" indeed. We have the familiar old canard "Our knowledge is not infinite -> Be nice rather than right." WTF? Sorry, that fallacy train just derailed. Let me try to figure out what you trying for... "Our knowledge is not infinite -> We know nothing -> ... -> Be nice rather than right." The first part I've seen, but the rest is something unique. I think I'll never be able to fill in the missing pieces on this one.Posted by: Flavin | September 24, 2008 at 11:49 PM
That was a helluva lot of words for "You're all a bunch of meanies"
Posted by: Mongrel | September 25, 2008 at 02:26 AM
Neville Chamberlain with his "peace in our time" paper signed by Hitler was "nice". I'm pretty sure many millions of people would prefer that he'd been "right" instead.
Only, of course, a lot of them didn't survive to say so.
Posted by: Big Al | September 25, 2008 at 05:20 AM
Goons, He forgot to call us goons.
Posted by: wikinite | September 25, 2008 at 06:10 AM
Here's a quote from poet Robert Bly:
"Some people think criticism is always destructive, like an overexposure to x-rays...The criticism of my own poetry that has been the most use to me has been criticism that, when I first heard it, utterly dismayed me."
So even poets think criticism is valuable and necessary for growth.
The only kind of criticism that new age teachers submit their writings to is for style, not content. Consequently their fans are left to deal with all the criticism their teachers avoided.
The proper place for Stef to direct his anger is at Rhonda & Co who caused poor innocent Mora to unwittingly out herself as a crypto-fascist.
(Poor Tom and the other commenters must be feeling devastated. Really, I wonder why Stef is so full of rage!)
Posted by: yakaru | September 25, 2008 at 07:04 AM
Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwow!!! This was some serious crankery. I remain impressed at your unflappability and your replies, which cut right to the meat of the matter-- politely. Keep up the great work!
Posted by: The Perky Skeptic | September 25, 2008 at 07:16 AM
In your fallacy list, you left out what is, technically, not a fallacy, but bad rhetoric: non sequitur -- "your argument is pointless because you can't explain consciousness."
Posted by: Steven Sashen | September 25, 2008 at 07:16 AM
Do I detect the whiff of solipsism? I think I do...
To quote Iain M Banks: "Any theory which causes solipsism to seem just as likely an explanation for the phenomena it seeks to describe ought to be held in the utmost suspicion."
Posted by: Dunc | September 25, 2008 at 07:17 AM
My first thought is "first year philosophy student". No proof of existence of objective reality? Yawn, true but totally useless as a concept, it leads no-where and has no practical application. So what if this is the matrix, or the dream of some ancient god? Can you do anything with hypothesis? Test it? Demonstrate how it differs from reality? No? Then it doesn't matter, nothing more than a vaguely interesting mental exercise. And as a reason to consider complete rubbish like the secret is an equally valid world view? LOL, just LOL.
Posted by: Ramel | September 25, 2008 at 07:52 AM
To be honest, I could only read partway through that screed, but this person really doesn't know what a horrible person Dubois is? Seriously? Do a little reading - she is a fraud and a very sad person. I also am a bit confused about the "when you dream about a tree" bit - there is no reality to think about in a dream tree, nor is there any tree to go anywhere other than a configuration of molecules in the brain. I'm not sure if "first year" or "amateur" philosophy student is more correct, but I think I've seen this type of thinking among followers of delusional beliefs like the "secret".
Posted by: Badger3k | September 25, 2008 at 08:22 AM
The ultimate goal of a skeptical blog is (or should be) to contribute toward raising the collective scientific and philosophical IQ of society.
Shame is a very powerful tool in this endeavor, but it's not always the most effective one.
Back when I was a New Ager (embarrassing but true) stigma did have a large part in guiding me to a smarter path. But it didn't give me everything I needed. There are some intellectual traps embedded in New Age beliefs that do require a gentle approach to rescue a person from. You need his defenses to be down, or your efforts will be wasted.
So, there is a point buried in Coburn's letter somewhere that I agree with. Skeptical blogs often drift into a "preaching to the choir" position over time. They start to stigmatize rather than teach. The intended audience (if the primary goal still holds) gets forgotten and is replaced by the converted seeking to be reminded regularly of how clever they are--the "band of thugs" he spoke of.
Of course it's no one's job here to hold anyone's hand. Shame, as I said, has an important role, and I happen to enjoy reading the snarky blogs just as much as the compassionate ones. But I've noticed the compassionate ones are much harder to come by. I think if more of them were available to disciples of woo, much more progress would be made. There are people like my old self out there who are genuinely hungry for philosophy, but buy into mysticism because they don't know the difference. They've grown up on Big Macs without ever having tasted steak.
Whether you like Coburn's response or not, maybe it can serve as a reminder of the value of humble, gentle teachers like Carl Sagan. A reminder for some of us commenters to just tone it down a little and keep in mind that we have a mission, which requires, at times, just a little extra decency and tact.
Posted by: pendens proditor | September 25, 2008 at 08:42 AM
Classic piece of Secretard projection and denial:
"How do you know, as a matter of irrefutable fact that any such state as 'awake' even exists?...You simply don't."
I don't think any of the people Stef is criticising have claimed knowledge of that order.
However, Stef would be justified in criticising along the same lines the following kind of statement:
(about human suffering): "i know they are experiencing their situations for something...we might not see the reasons but, then, it may not be meant for us to see why..."
That kind of talk sound familiar, Stef? It's from Mora, but it could have been any fan of The Secret.
Posted by: yakaru | September 25, 2008 at 09:27 AM
I said first year student rater than amateur because (s)he used 'cogito ergo sum' instead of 'I think therefore I am'. This feels like a slightly pretentious attempt to assert his/her intellectual power through a demonstration of knowledge, suggesting a student. Either way, I believe the standard response is to point and laugh.
Posted by: Ramel | September 25, 2008 at 11:19 AM
I think you got trolled, Skeptico. :-D
I mean come on, Poe's law and Godwin's law within two paragraphs of eachother?
Dropping the F-Bomb and Ancient latin phrases?
Discussing quantum mechanics and debating if reality is real?
"so i trolled a blog today, and i made the front page. Time to post on my blog about this!"
Posted by: genewitch | September 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM
At least they read the site. Maybe they'll be back and able to "drop their defenses". I think the new catchphrase should be "insult is the sincerest form of flattery"
Posted by: Citizen Deux | September 25, 2008 at 11:36 AM
"Whether you like Coburn's response or not, maybe it can serve as a reminder of the value of humble, gentle teachers like Carl Sagan. "
yeesh...I met him (years ago). This was NOT my impression of him and was always amazed to see him on TV delineating this very persona that you describe.
But then again, this was back in my days of "open mindedness" (wooish). Perhaps if he were alive and I had a second chance I would have a different opinion.
I had a very similar experience with Julia Roberts. She seemed so nice and cool in her movies, but when I worked with her on Hook, she was a consummate bitch with a worse potty mouth than any commenter I have ever seen on any blog.
Posted by: techskeptic | September 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I believe the evidence is probably currently in favor of there being an objective reality, so instead of us having to produce evidence that it does exist, you have to produce evidence to prove there isn't.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | September 25, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Heh, I thought this was someone being satirical at first. The first message was a little too long winded yet polished for the usual "woo"-minded (whom seem to have it out for grammar and coherence as well as science). The later messages unfortunately seem a bit too much flustered to have come from someone who was joking. Plus s/he didn't seem to have as much time to wiki all those nice big terms like "three-dimensional Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation" that were dropped so often in the first message.
Posted by: deep | September 25, 2008 at 04:21 PM
I'll respond in more depth to Stef's psuedo-intellectual half-arsed philosophical masturbation later, but for right now I have one question for him:
Do you believe, as Mora does, that the Holocaust was brought on the Jews by themselves? As an extension to this, do you believe rape victims get what they deserve, as Mora does?
If so, then you are an idiot just like Mora was. And when I say idiot, I'm just using the commonly accepted term for people who believe the idiotic and not using an insult. If you don't, then everything you wrote above is merely the written version of verbal diarrohea typed by a pompous wanker. And when I say pompous wanker, I am not insulting you, just using the commonly accepted term for people who are pompous wankers.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | September 25, 2008 at 06:01 PM
wow, thanks skeptico, you bastard. I just got sucked into reading that long and winding trail from a year ago starting with Moras post, then getting into The Wizards nonsense and ending up with that total wackaloon What_The?
I really missed the party back then.
Posted by: Techskeptic | September 25, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Jimmy_Blue: That was excellent.
Posted by: marty | September 25, 2008 at 08:12 PM
Ok. Got my 12 pack of Shiner chilling in the fridge so I can settle in for this one.
Regardless of whether this is a hoax or troll, I feel like eviscerating the drivel being written by Stef. I can't wait until he actually posts something of substance because then I'll have another excuse to get the beers in.
Stef's words will be in bold and quoted. I won't be responding to everything because, well, it's largely nonsense.
Stef:
That's funny, that's the feeling I got reading your e-mails.
So, no examples just assertions. And since when did 'metaphysically confused' become a euphemism for 'thinks rape victims and Holocaust victims had it coming'? And we are supposed to be the unreasonable ones? Because we don't think victims deserve whatever happened to them?
This woman thought that if her own child was raped they deserved it because of something they apparently did in a former life that they have no knowledge of. And you think because we found this moronic, twisted, illogical and not a little scary, we are the boorish, stupid and unreasonable ones?
Seriously? I mean, really?
Grace under fire? You didn't really read much of this exchange did you? Subjected her to? Oh that's right, we forced her to keep coming back and to keep replying to us. Now who is being hysterical? This lady demonstrated that she probably needed proper and careful medical care, not to be prayed on by the money grabbing arseholes peddling the Secret and its like.
Try doing some research. You know, I'm sure there must be plenty of names for people who mouth off without having a clue what they are talking about. Allison Dubois wouldn't know what human decency was if it crawled up her ass and lived in her nose. It's so nice of you to defend her without knowing a damn thing about who she is or what she has done though. Speaks volumes about you.
I'm sorry, did you just make a completely unjustified and unsupported generalisation about all scientists based on your biased, incorrect and fallacious impression of a couple of blog posts from one blog on the internet. Who was being hysterical again?
Oh you're absolutely right. See, we are always condemning entire groups of people as uncivilised and unintellectual based on a couple of blog posts from one blog. I mean, that would be a totally proportionate response, wouldn't it Stef? Oh, looks like you have something in your eye.
Oh so true, there have been many many people like us demanding evidence, logic, reason alongside compassion for the victims of psuedo science and psuedo medicine.
OK, then Stef takes some time complaining we're all mean. Oh boo hoo. Grow up.
And then he says we deserve a good kicking. But we are the ones who like to bully people for having different opinions. Do you have to practise hard to be that hypocritical Stef, or does it come naturally?
Then there is a lot of first year philosophy student tripe about us not knowing what is real or not, and a crap quote from that philosophical moron Descartes. Some wierd version of the anthropic principle that says nothing would exist if humans didn't.
Here's a test to see how much you really believe the crap that you typed Stef. Find a busy road, step in front of a speeding bus. If you live, tell us how 'real' it felt.
If we are just a brain in a vat. If this is all a dream, it doesn't matter because this is the only reality we know and we can know no other. Which makes this, in all real common sense terms, reality. Supposing anything else is a dreary exercise in philosophical masturbation of the kind that I learned in my first term of philosophy. It might get you laid for a week Stef, but it makes you look like an idiot. And not in the insulting way but in the 'Boy that guy is an idiot.' way.
The only people who think we can't know reality are the people who also enjoyed the second two Matrix films.
And then I wake up, and it was all a dream. Did you even make it past your first term of philosophy Stef?
I have another test for you Stef. Next time you dream about falling, find someplace just as high the next day when you are awake and jump. Let us know which one feels more real.
You seem to be good proof that people can at least on the surface function whilst the brain is asleep. Good point.
So here is another test for you. Take a brick. Hit yourself in the head with it. Repeatedly. Let us know how that goes in terms of your objective environment. Then allow me to take a different brick of the same type without letting you see it. I'll hit you in the head with it. Repeatedly. Now let us know if it feels any different to the brick you hit yourself with.
More testing is required. When everyone reads this, imagine a single law of physics working in completely the opposite direction. Let me know how that goes for you. Tell you what Stef, he's a test just for you, so we can really tell if you actually believe the crap you write, or if this really is the intellectual equivalent of spanking the monkey in the park. Throw something really heavy in the air, then step under it's path whilst imagining the laws of gravity working in reverse. Let us know how that goes. Or stop talking shit you don't really believe or understand but that you think makes you sound clever.
Try breaking them Neo, take the red pill. It's amazing how many people think they are a genius because they have seen the Matrix.
Anyone who doesn't think they are a Matrix inspired philosophy 101 student genius, thats who.
And here's how we can test it. I tell you how the laws of gravity work as defined by physics, and I state that they will apply to you no matter what you believe. You make your own ones up and state they only apply to you. Then we both get into the same aircraft and at 15,000 feet we jump out. I have a parachute, you don't. Then let us see just whose perceptual moulds and filters were right.
Yes, we can, to within a degree of certianty that is meaningful if not 100%.
You just don't get science even remotely do you?
Really? Could you be any more ridiculously childish? We should be nice to the Nazis? To the KKK? To Islamo-fascists? To slave traders? To people who believe rape victims deserved to be raped? To people who think Anne Frank and the millions like her deserved to be gassed, shot, incinerated alive, buried alive, flayed alive etc etc? I should tell my children that yes they can plug their toys into the electrical socket instead of being mean and saying, 'No, that's wrong.'?
Ah, the tired old 'Everyone's beliefs must be respected.' argument. No, actually, beliefs most certainly and absolutely do not have to be respected. Especially when they are wrong.
Funny you should bring them up, since they are currently two of the loudest groups throughout the world saying 'Don't criticise our beliefs, they must be respected.'
Really had your blinkers on didn't you? It has never been a case of them merely disagreeing with us. It has always been about the manner, the content, the certainty of their own views, the hypocrisy of their views, the bigotry of their views, the dangerous nature of their views. It is never about them merely disagreeing. If you weren't so biased and closeminded this would have been obvious.
If you can't see the difference then yes, you are an idiot. In the sense that you meet the criteria for the commonly accepted definition of an idiot.
Really? I mean, really? Woo woo is the widely understood appropriately descriptive term for people who believe in and practise nonsense. It is not even remotely close to those terms and you should be ashamed of yourself for demeaning the suffering that is inseperable from those terms with a descriptor given to people who fall for and promote bullshit. Give me ONE example of physical harm associated with the skeptics use of the term woo woo. Or apologise for being an uneducated arrogant prick. And when I use the term 'uneducated arrogant prick' I am merely using the widely understood and acceptable term for someone who is an uneducated arrogant prick.
I'm always amazed when a woo or one of their defenders uses this argument: when you insult it is wrong, but when I do it then it is ok because I mean it correctly. Mostly though I get angry when some jumped up moron with no education compares me to a nazi. Stef obviously has no understanding of what the term means, but throws it around like he is making a reasonable point when really he should be ashamed of himself for diminishing the term and its historical meaning and context. How dare you call any of us here nazis you pea-brained waste of air?
Do yourself a favour and read a book of more significance then 'Run Spot, run' and then come back here and apologise to all the victims of Nazism that your shameless idiocy derides while you throw the term around heedless of its true meaning.
If you want to really understand what it is to call someone a Nazi, try understanding what the Secret and its followers think about Jews and the Holocaust. Then see who is closer to the Nazis.
No, they are not. Until you understand why, stop wasting our time. You are quite simply pathetic.
And here is the rub of your problem Stef. You don't, and almost certainly can't, get it.
Seriously? What an arsehole.
You really really just don't get it at all do you?
Boo hoo. I'd rather be rude than an ignorant tit. And when I say ignorant tit I am just using the widely understood and appropriately descriptive term for someone who is an ignorant tit.
I honestly can't wait. You see, for what we wrote to be a strawman argument, Mora would have had to have disagreed with our summations of our arguments, shown how we were wrong and then restated her position. Only, she didn't. She in fact agreed with and expanded on our summations. Good luck tying yourself in knots over that though.
On the other hand, before you even got into substance you made ad hominems, strawmen aplenty, used the good old Hitler zombie, the tired canard of science as religion, the boring old science doesn't know everything, the unimaginative skeptics are all mean argument and the list goes on.
Fire away you jumped up psuedo intellectual minnow. And when I use the term 'jumped up psuedo intellectual minnow' I am merely using the widely understood and appropriately descriptive term for someone who is a jumped up psuedo intellectual minnow.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | September 25, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Sorry, to avoid confusion the third to last paragraph should read:
I'm sure everyone else would have got that, but, you know...
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | September 25, 2008 at 11:09 PM
That letter was absolutely appalling. If this guy's English teachers ever gave him a passing grade, they should be shot.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 26, 2008 at 05:36 AM
Thanks for that, Jimmy Blue! One of the reasons I read this blog is because of the quality of the comments. It's a relief to read sensible responses to the appallingly common lunacy that people like Stef and Mora are babbling.
And just for the record, Mora took up a provocatively contrary position on an article that she obviously hadn't bothered reading. She repeated arguments that had already been rebutted in the article, so it's no wonder that people got impatient.
And as her position was a radical version of "people get what they deserve", she is herself hardly deserving of sympathy.
Posted by: yakaru | September 26, 2008 at 06:51 AM
Wow, I've been called a thug and a Nazi by a solipsist complaining about how we call people names. Fantastic. I'd do a point-by-point of this post, but honestly, why bother?
Oh, you know me, I'll bother eventually. And as usual, Jimmy_Blue has beaten me to it.
But for the actual people commenting:
Flavin:
Well, after a fashion I was. The original exchange is here, and was with an idiot named John Vincent who tried to claim to be an expert in quantum mechanics. I asked him some pretty basic first-year quantum questions, which he was unable to answer (except by plagiarizing Answers.com), and so I called him out (and a f*****) on it. That's where Stef goes wrong: what matters about knowing what < a | a > represents is that it either validates or demolishes one's claim to be an expert in quantum physics.
Pendens proditor:
I can't speak for everyone here, but I try to give each commenter the benefit of the doubt. They get at least one post that's as nice and polite and kid-gloves as I can be while still explaining where they've gone wrong in their thinking. When they refuse to read the comments or engage in any kind of substantive discussion or even attempt to examine their thinking thereafter, I (and others) will understandably get more impatient and less accommodating.
Naturally, though, if they come in abusive they're going to get abuse in return. After all, like attracts like, right?
Ramel:
Same here, Ramel. Also, the little factoids dropped in (we all know what "natural philosophy" is, it's not a point) and the multisyllabic jargon that only confuses things and obfuscates the point suggest to me "arrogant undergraduate."
As usual, I'll be back when I have more time.
Posted by: Tom Foss | September 26, 2008 at 07:18 AM
YAY
I can read your blog from p.r.china now!
Posted by: Sigrid | September 26, 2008 at 08:54 AM
Wow, someone apparently owns a Thesaurus.
This rant was practically unreadable and bares an almost uncanny resemblance to the kind 'dummy copy' designers use as placeholder text.
Posted by: Leopold Stotch | September 26, 2008 at 09:09 AM
And in today's competitive pissing challenge Jimmy_Blue is in the lead by about 800 (very good) words! I would try to compete, but I'm far to lazy and he beat me to the best stuff.
I still get a little annoyed with people like Steph using Nazi as a general insult. It shows a truly appalling historical ignorance, seeing as very few posters on skeptico are either german or rabid nationalists.
Posted by: Ramel | September 26, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I'm just going through the thread that Tom Foss linked to above. The Secret really brings out the worst in people doesn't it.
Posted by: yakaru | September 26, 2008 at 01:04 PM
Jimmy_Blue, I've been reading this blog for awhile now, but have never felt compelled to comment until now. Your response was fantastic. I really enjoyed reading that.
Posted by: Bindi | September 26, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Hey, it even has one of my favorite Shakespeare quotes in there, probably in another attempt to sound intellectual.
"There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
So I will just respond with another one of my favorite quotes from Shakespeare:
"Lord what fools these mortals be."
Posted by: Ted H. | September 27, 2008 at 11:07 PM
All other points aside, this is the best single sentence paragraph I have read in a long time:
" Far from any spirit of rational discourse and debate, the attacks you and people like you habitually and reflexively level at those who (whether logically or illogically) espouse theories, philosophies or, dare I say, 'beliefs' different in almost any significant regard from your (their) own, are frequently marked by a level of gratuitous (and, for the most part) entirely unnecessary and unrestrained viciousness levelled willy-nilly at their fellow beings, that, occurring in just about any other arena, than that sanctified by your supposed quest for 'truth' and, even then, more likely than not, safely insulated by physical distance, would likely quickly result in the reciprocal and entirely deserved visiting upon your physical person of what (to use a widely employed and understood oxymoron) is commonly referred to as 'a good kicking'."
Reminds me of the Dark & Stormy Night contest for writing the worst opening sentence possible. It even includes four parentheticals!
Posted by: matt | September 28, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Ted H.:
What else could you expect? The e-mail was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Posted by: Tom Foss | September 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM
What else could you expect? The e-mail was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Definitely a tale told by an idiot, after all.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 28, 2008 at 02:14 PM
I, too, read the entire old thread.
It occured to me that mora is an acceptable plural for moron.
Posted by: Buford | September 29, 2008 at 01:31 AM
Actually, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he did actually get something right, but in the wrong way:
This is perfectly fine to me. We don't actually live in the real world, we each live in mental models which approximate the real world (some more than others). However (and this is the important bit) there is a real world, and it bats last.
Much confusion is caused by mistaking the world in your head for the real one, or vice versa.
Posted by: Dunc | September 30, 2008 at 04:14 AM
Dunc:
As the saying goes, even a stopped watch is right twice a day!
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | September 30, 2008 at 08:42 AM
Unless it's digital....
Posted by: Ramel | September 30, 2008 at 02:42 PM
Too wit to woo..
Stef's response to the list of fallacies your esteemed ringmaster glibly alleges I am guilty of, quite: regardless of the fact that any unbiased reading of my letter to Skepticock shows his fallacio to suck on all counts.
1. Falsely conflating science and religion:
I did no such thing. What I did do was to directly compare the behaviour (and absolutely no other aspect) of your contributors and some scientists of my previous acquaintance (as well as that of some scientific publications) to the behaviour of some religious persons and institutions. Namely in the degree of casual brutality they were/are prepared to intolerantly even zealously mete out to those who express, whether from a scientifically educated or uneducated point of view, a differing opinion. As the child of two devout (and in my father's case) allegedly 'intellectual' Roman catholic parents, with whom I found myself in bitter conflict from as far back as I can remember, I am only too aware of the toxic effect of any such primitive unproven and unprovable superstition on human knowledge, relationships and civilisation. If I could push a button and sink (once and for all) the entire unholy edifice, (including all the spin-offs and also-rans) I would do so joyfully and without a moment's hesitation. I absolutely understand the essential and profound differences between science and religion and come down squarely on the side of science every time. Studying the history of science, however reveals a great many occasions when disagreements have arisen (chiefly amongst scientists) that have been marked by the most extreme, unnecessary and frankly unscientific rhetorical abuse. All of this, aside, some of my best friends throughout the years up to and including the present either have been or are, either professional scientists (in this discipline or that) or people of a strongly scientific bent with degrees up the wazoo. I have spent a great many stimulating and fruitful nights discussing and debating a broad diversity of subjects with these people as well as reading material they have recommended to me.
2. Ad hominem:
This assumes that in criticising you or your contributors, my real intention was to attempt to target or discredit some or other statement of accepted fact made by either you or your contributors. I am absolutely not guilty of this at any point. I have made no accusation of factual scientific error
against either you or your contributors nor against any scientific professional or institution, but only criticised the behaviour and most definitely not any particular case or point made by your contributors. My contention without repeating myself here ad-nauseam is simply and solely that the modes of communication employed by your contributors in attempting to make their no-doubt otherwise perfectly valid points, were unnecessarily brutal and in several cases outrageously rude. If, on the other hand, you are claiming some special exemption for scientists (and science-aficionados) from widely accepted rules of courtesy and consideration, particularly when communicating with non-scientists, then that I will continue to strenuously dispute. Are you all really so arrogant as to assume that anyone who disagrees with you simply and absolutely must themselves be an arrogant ignoramus? To accuse me of this, frankly, on the grounds of anything I have written to you, is as ludicrously intellectually shoddy a manoeuvre as it would be to say that to criticise the behaviour of the State of Israel, for any reason whatsoever, is necessarily by a-priori definition 'anti-Semitic'. This argument is of course, bollocks.
3. False analogy - confusing difference of opinion with pointing out lack of evidence:
Not this one either. I'm quite aware of the vast and ever growing body of evidence in support of this or that scientific proposition. I'm also however aware of some of the deep and pivotal mysteries of existence that remain, for which there is, as yet, insufficient strongly convincing argument or
experimental data to support any specific hypothesis or conclusion, most notably (and the only such issue specifically mentioned in my post) in regard to the pivotal matter of consciousness, in that the precise nature and mechanisms underlying the various qualia from which we derive our 'picture' of the World, remain, to this day, (unless there have been major recent breakthroughs I have yet to hear about) largely mysterious.
4. Implied threat of violence;
Don't be more of a complete twit than you absolutely have to be! If you re-read my post you'll see that what I say is, in essence, that if any of you were foolish or presumptuous enough to go around talking to members of the general public whom you happened to meet in a pub, in a broadly similar fashion to the manner in which you addressed the poor woman who had the temerity to advocate 'The Secret' on your site, there is a better than even chance that someone would sooner or later decide to thump you. I should point out in this context, however that this person would most definitely not be me. If you met me and talked to me in any such manner, I would, without laying hand or foot upon your person, conversationally chew you up and spit you out in tiny pieces to the point even that you might well out of a fit of apoplexy, finally be tempted to thump me. This would be a course of action I would strongly advise against, as it is only in the highly specific circumstance wherein you had already initiated a physical assault against my person (or that of someone either defenceless or dear to me) that I would then be more strongly tempted than I would likely be inclined to resist, to physically flatten you by return.
5. Science doesn't know everything:
Do me a favour! it either does or it doesn't and you all damn well know it doesn't. Some things, for sure, are so near as dammit certain that they, for all practical purposes, constitute 'knowledge'. Some things seem likely to resolve themselves either this way or that, but the jury's still out on which, whilst others remain entirely in the realm of speculation.
6. Comparisons to the nazis (because pointing out that something is contradicted by the evidence is exactly the same as killing 6 million Jews)
Yet another 'straw-man' argument (yawn) from you here, unless you are contending that the only thing the Nazis ever did was to murder Jews. Whereas in fact, long before they got to that point, they were demonstrating all manner of lesser-league intolerance and intellectual brutality. Go study a little history, unless that's too unscientific for you. Further to this I reiterate here that I have at no point insisted that anything is not so that has been categorically shown to be so. Even Dr Johnson's famous 'refuting it thus' remains subject to establishing the actual nature of the consciousness that
experiences (and not the toe which appears to experience) the rock.
7. Appeal to be open minded:
I fully realise that, in principle at least, particularly in the absence of conclusive data in any specific regard, science is supposed, by definition, to be open minded to any proposition that does not, without significant new evidence, contradict previously established theory. Pursuant to this, I am fully aware that the 'scientific method' as applied to any particular conundrum involves first gathering as much data as is obtainable, then constructing a hypothesis (or hypotheses) derived from and not contradicting all the said data, then attempting by repeatable theoretical and/or experimental methods, to disprove the hypothesis (or hypotheses). Only when a given hypothesis continues to stand up despite the best repeated attempts of multiple researchers to discredit it, will any such hypothesis (and even then only conditionally) accede to the status of generally acknowledged theory that has 'stood the test of time'. I'm quite well aware of (and indeed habitually myself employ) William of Ockham's 'razor' to patiently deal with (amongst other issues) otherwise well meaning friends and/or acquaintances who might from time to time recommend homoeopathy or 'crystal therapy' or the like to me. Notwithstanding the fact that this is sometimes hard to do without appearing to dismiss the friend and/or acquaintance out of hand along with their improbable advice. Not, of course, that 'the law of parsimony' is necessarily always and in every case the deciding factor. Once in a blue moon, there may very well be some or other instance where some underlying assumption that should have been made has been missed. Should this be the case, of course, this should serve to point subsequent enquiries on the subject in some or other fairly specific direction, in search of the (putative) missing principle. The supposed but as yet undemonstrated existence of 'dark-matter', for instance, has come about in just such a manner.
8. (my inclusion here of the accusation of 'solipsism' against me by your contributors) I am quite well aware of the existence of other people (and sundry other beings) whose appearance in my perceptual sphere, I do not think it reasonable to suppose are being generated, or in any other way supplied by my own consciousness (assuming here that consciousness is a word to which the concept of fundamental plurality can be ascribed) - you will insist that it is whereas, long before the presence in the market-place of deeply questionable entities such as 'What the Bleep' and 'The Secret', I had acquired an appreciation for the works and ideas of Fred Alan Wolfe and Amit Goswami, (to name but two) who both think otherwise. You may not like what these two career physicists have to say but neither can be described with your derogatory term 'woo' as both are fully paid-up professional s-c-i-e-n-t-i-s-t-s. I should add that whilst I do indeed 'get' science, as your contributors seem to think I do not, I am not, myself, by formal qualification or profession, a scientist, have never studied at any university, my disastrous formal education ending at 17 prior to which I was the victim from an early age of maths so-called 'teachers' whose idea of teaching was 'get it right or else!' As I have always done when confronted by overweening arrogant a-holes of any stripe, I chose 'or else'. Continuing my education under my own steam, I have read and debated extensively on diverse aspects of science and philosophy. To name but a few items from more decades than I, here, care to mention, I have read biographies of Newton and Galileo, non-fiction science works by the late Isaac Asimov, watched and greatly appreciated video (filmed originally) lectures by the wonderful if equally late Richard Feynman (who was also clearly every bit the gentleman your contributors are manifestly mostly not) as well as struggled (quite a few years ago now) through works by by Fritjof Capra, Laurence Kraus, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking. Most recently I have been hugely entertained by Richard Dawkins' glorious 'The God Delusion' and struggled through, Gordon Kane's book on 'Supersymmetry'. I also pick up (by which, of course, I mean 'purchase') copies of 'New Scientist' wherever I find them.
Posted by: GUITARDIS | September 30, 2008 at 07:43 PM
If I may be so bold - I would have to agree with techskeptic here. This is my first time happening upon your blog (Greta Christina linked you as a favorite), and this being the first post, I went back and read The Secret post, along with all the comments.
While Jimmy Blue and others were right (very right) and Mora was wrong (very wrong), I was disappointed in the amount of ad hominem that Jimmy fell back on. It just didn't feel needed or effective. Now, I understand and acknowledge that you guys certainly aren't writing to please your readers, but if your goal with this blog is to inform and inspire people to embrace skepticism and science, then it seems like less ad hominem would be a good idea.
Great arguments and comments otherwise though. I'm sure I'll be back to read more, but now I have this nasty little feeling in the back of my head that if I were to comment, ask a question, or challenge something written (like I am right now), I would be immediately attacked and assumed to be a "woo." So I already don't feel terribly welcome to this community.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: Nine | September 30, 2008 at 09:31 PM
OK then.. Mora wrote:
um...i'm just a hard workin single mom who recently watched The Secret...and then put the concepts presented to work...i'll be damned...absolutely everything i've put my focus on has come to pass...i put the thought out there (so to speak...i'm just talking in layman's terms) that i would be working a job closer to home...two weeks later i was laid off from my position which took me 45 minutes to an hour to get to (both ways)...i could have gotten desperate and panicked (single mom, 4 kids) but, i stayed focused...it helped that i was given a month's severance...i went home and wrote down the life i wanted as though i was already living it...3 weeks later i got a call about a position 10 minutes from my home...hired on the spot...
another desire i had was that doggone child support i wasn't getting...so, i put the thought out there again that i would have an abundance of money...yup, 3 weeks after getting this job, the child support kicked in...i actually have enough coming in to put away in savings...and i can finally say yes to my kids for those little things they want like, well...new shoes...
i wanted a vehicle that was dependable and big enough to cart around my kids...got a call from a friend who found a van for sale...got the money...an unexpected gift...got the van...
it's been working in my world...and this began after i started using what, quite frankly, we've been told for years before this movie came out...for me, it just wrapped things up in a way that i could understand and then turn around and use...
my sister put it out there that she would receive $10,000.00 in unexpected income...right out of The Secret...she did her taxes...$6,047.00 right there...$250.00, gift from a friend...and her ex threw in
$100.00 from the goodness of his heart, totally unexpected...
i don't have your intellect...i haven't gone out and studied big books or spent years in college...don't have the time to delve deep into theories or statistics...i'm just someone who thought...what the heck, i'll try it...sounds like i've already been doing it and quite frankly...life has been pretty hard...if all i get from this is a better attitude, that's cool...i've gotten a lot more and yeah...it's way cool...
Posted by: Mora | March 08, 2007 at 09:49 PM
What in essence does Mora tell us here?
She is a hard working single mother who has recently watched 'The Secret' and (as she honestly and forthrightly conveys in her closing paragraph) does not (in common with the vast majority of six-and-climbing billion other of her, your, and my fellow pro-simians) have the training in rigorous
logical thought which might otherwise cause her to dismiss it out of hand.
Mora implies that she was (at an unspecified time prior to her posting) dissatisfied with several aspects of her life. In the order she presents them, these consist of:
1. her job for the reason given that it involved up to two hours travel time out of her busy day.
2. The Child Support she is due but not receiving.
3. Her need for a vehicle suitable for her family.
In establishing Mora's 'wish list', (not that 'wishing' constitutes any part of 'The Secret's stated methodology) it is contextual (and speaks to other factors I will enlarge upon later) and therefore essential here to consider (by which I mean to imaginatively derive from an averaging of known sociological factors, proceeding from a baseline assumption that, for the purposes of constructing a credible hypothesis, and in the absence of any reason to suppose otherwise, Mora is not likely to be far off-centre of any number of widely published and broadly accepted bell curves in any of the areas she mentions) just how hard-pressed any single mother holding down a job while supporting and managing four children actually is likely to be.
In your contributors disgustingly cavalier treatment of Mora, not a single one of them makes any attempt, to empathise to any noticeable degree whatsoever, with how driven from sheer necessity she must be to grasp at any possible source of emotional and/or physical support or relief, and how little time or inclination she has (with no training in formal logic, systems-theory or chaos math etc) to rigorously evaluate the metaphysical or probabilistic ramifications of every fact or idea she encounters. She is in absolutely no way unusual in this regard, and is, in no conceivable way, deserving of your scorn for not being so.
Encountering 'The Secret', Mora decides to give it a go. In the same way that, dumped in primeval Kansas, knowing nothing and equipped with nothing but your physical senses, natural curiosity and a treatise on logic, you could reach no other conclusion than that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and very-likely flat into the bargain, given Mora's stated situation, and entirely reasonable absence of razor-honed intellectual combat skills, with which she might otherwise have successfully grappled with 'The Secret's deeper and more contentious philosophical and probabilistic implications, she would have to be pretty fucking stupid or unmotivated not to make the minimal investment of time and energy required to try it out, against so great a promised pay-off.
Mora does her thing, visualises or assumes or however, she does it, that all her problems have already been solved and guess what? Two weeks later she is made redundant from a job where she is sufficiently established that they pay her a month's severance, and sufficiently respected that she is (all unknown to her) recommended and subsequently, on interview, accepted for, another position ten minutes away from her home. I mean, wow! What a result! To anyone un-versed (as most people are not) in the deeply sober study of statistical probabilities, this must have seemed at the very least, 'spookily' coincidental with 'The Secret's predicted consequences. Mora does not say whether or not she, at the time, attributes these fortuitous developments in her life to her use of 'The Secret', however, unless she had simply forgotten all about it, which seems unlikely in so short a time, it is at least probable that this sequence of events only helped to strengthen her nascent 'faith' in 'The Secret' and decrease, still further, whatever tendency she might otherwise have had to question its fundamental premises in any significant detail.
Shortly after this, with no further effort on her part that she describes, Mora's promised 'Child Support' begins to arrive, better enabling her to both support and provide for her kids and even put some money away for rainy-days etc. Mora's relief at her altered situation must have been profound indeed and any possibility that she would, at this point, even think of 'looking the gift horse in the mouth' as they say, by subjecting the perceived source of her good fortune to a properly constructed rigorously sceptical analysis, reduced, if not to zero, then, at least, to non-trivially small proportions.
Soon (Mora does not say how long) after this (but in apparently fairly quick succession) a friend of hers tells her about a van for sale, suitable for carting her family about. She receives an unexpected gift of money. (she does not say from where) She buys the van and 'bingo' her transport problem is solved as well.
Mora concludes from this, (not unreasonably, given her previously established entry-states (vis-a-vis her level of education and available time and energy) that 'The Secret', whose basic premises she then goes on to suggest, she has been familiarised with 'for years' via other unstated cultural vectors, is/has been, for her, at least, an effective method of exercising (a degree of) control over her destiny, in what she says has otherwise been a 'pretty hard' life.
Mora's favourable impression of 'The Secret' is subsequently further strengthened when her sister 'puts it out there' that she would receive $10,000.00 in unexpected income and is surprised, in short order to find herself $6,397.00 better off in unexpected Tax (rebate or relief) and cash gifts from 'a friend' and her 'ex'. $3,603.00 shy of the requested mark, to be sure, but this is exactly the sort of detail Mora has established, she doesn't have the time or inclination to nit-pick (as she would likely see it) about.
Mora concludes, as already mentioned, by outlining her limited education, from which position (ignorance being 'bliss' after all) she suggests that her experience of 'The Secret' has been nothing but favourable, having conferred on her a 'better attitude' and 'lots more'. 'The Secret', she concludes, is 'way cool'.
Then by Grod* alone knows, what unfortunate mis-chance, Mora encounters your site, where you and your pack-mates are gleefully entertaining each other, trashing willy-nilly any and every idea under (also over, around and co-existing with) the sun which does not conform to your own excruciatingly narrowly defined version of reality.
(Note* The deliberate misspelling here denotes a substitution, for purely conversational purposes, of a satirically invoked fiction, for an otherwise irritatingly widely but (almost certainly) mistakenly assumed and invoked putative deity)
Not (due, in all probability, to the goodness of her heart) properly understanding the degree of unreason she has encountered going about trumpeting itself as the very paragon of reason, and likely attempting, as she (in all probability) naively saw it at the time, to provide and your (and your co-religionists) with, what she (absent a proper education in logic) likely sees as a missing counter-argument to your a-priori dismissals-out-of-hand, of 'The Secret', which she believes by this point (for, on the face of it, good reasons) to have 'worked' for her, Mora posts to your site, detailing in anecdotal form, her reasons for believing as she does. Poor lady, how little she can have expected the hornet's wrath she had stirred up by daring to suggest any such thing.
First to peel-off and dive (tally-ho! tacka tacka tacka tacka) into the attack is 'Jimmy_Blue' who, in refusing to waste a single precious moment of sadistic 'holier-than-thou' bully-boy time by re-reading Mora's post to see if he has missed anything (which, of course, he has) starts right in with a question to which Mora has already supplied a clear answer in her opening sentence and subsequently enlarged upon throughout the remainder of her opening paragraph. (one de-merit already to Jimmy_Blue)
To save time and effort, I have, from here on in, inserted, my observations and questions in regard to Jimmy_Blue's (and subsequent others) responses to Mora, into the posted texts, capitalised for clarity. In this context, my use of the pronoun 'you' henceforth refers, for the most part, to the originator of whichever reproduced posting in which the comment featuring it appears, and unless stated otherwise, only laterally by extension to others supportive of the poster's premise. But hey, if you think the cap fits, wear it.
Jimmy_Blue writes:
Mora,
Had you hoped you would lose your job?
WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE VERY THING JIMMY IS ATTEMPTING TO DECRY, HOW IS THIS RELEVANT?
How many jobs did you apply for that you didn't get?
IN THREE WEEKS, LIKELY NOT MANY. THEN SHE GOT A CALL REGARDING A POSITION SHE HAD NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR... DER! TRY AND KEEP UP!
How hard have you been working to get the child support you were owed and for how long?
OK REASONABLE ENOUGH QUESTION - BUT THEN..
How many people knew you were looking for a new car but didn't call with a possibility?
HOW CAN SHE POSSIBLY ANSWER THIS? WHAT WAS SHE SUPPOSED TO DO, CONDUCT A SURVEY AFTER THE FACT?
Did you watch the Secret before or after these things happened?
MORA HAS TOLD YOU THIS ALREADY JIMMY - PAY ATTENTION!
You refer to a time period covering 8 weeks, but say you watched the Secret recently. If you watched it after, then you could be falling for confirmation bias and selective thinking about events.
ALREADY DEALT WITH! MUST TRY HARDER! PLUS MORA HAS ALREADY DESCRIBED HER EDUCATIONAL SHORTCOMINGS, IF YOU WANT HER TO INTELLIGENTLY DEAL WITH JARGON TERMS LIKE 'CONFIRMATION BIAS' IT IS INCUMBENT ON YOU, NOT HER, TO MAKE AT LEAST SOME ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THEM, UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOUR INTENTION IS NOT TO EDUCATE BUT MERELY TO BELITTLE.
What have we been told for years? That if you work hard and focus then you might get what you're working towards? Is that a 'Secret'? Or is it common sense? Is that some magical 'Law of Attraction'?
RHETORICAL WAFFLE - SO WHAT?
Don't be surprised that you're hard work paid off, and don't sell yourself short by putting the results down to mystical bullshit when it's all down to you.
DITTO, PLUS PATRONISING INTO THE BARGAIN - ALSO, IN THIS CONTEXT IT'S 'YOUR' HARD WORK, JIMMY, NOT 'YOU'RE' HARD WORK - AT LEAST LEARN TO USE A SPELLCHECKER, OR BETTER YET, REFRAIN FROM FUTHER COMMENT UNTIL YOU FINISH YOUR EDUCATION.
More importantly though, think about this. If the Secret is true, then how do you account for all the people who don't get what they are working and wishing for?
HAVE ANY OF YOU KNOW-IT-ALLS PAID ANY ATTENTION AT ALL TO 'THE SECRET' BEFORE CASTIGATING IT OUT OF HAND? IN THE 'THEORY' AS STATED,'WISHING' HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OBTAINING A POSITIVE OUTCOME AND MAY EVEN, ACCORDING TO 'THE SECRET'S STATED PREMISE, BE ACTIVELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
Do the victims of the AIDs crisis in Africa wish for it? How about rape victims, are they to blame for their attack, do they wish for it. Or do the attackers just want it more?
REFER MY PRECEDING COMMENT. 'WISHING' AND 'WANTING' PRESUME AND, IN 'THE SECRET'S TERMS, UNDERPIN AND ACTIVELY REINFORCE PERCEIVED PRE-EXISTING LACK AND/OR DANGER AND HARDSHIP. I'M NOT DEFENDING 'THE SECRET' HERE, MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THESE AND ALL SIMILAR EMOTIVELY VICIOUS, IF TEDIOUSLY, CONSISTENTLY WAY OFF THE MARK CRITICISMS THAT FOLLOW FROM THE CIRCLING PACK ARE BASED ON A FUNDAMENTAL MISAPPREHENSION OF PRECISELY WHAT IT IS THAT 'THE SECRET' ACTUALLY ASSERTS; SOMETHING MORA GETS EVEN IF THE REST OF YOU DON'T.
responding to the Posting by: Jimmy_Blue of March 08, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Jimmy_Blue further enquires:
Mora,
How does your 'Secret' explain this:
BBC article
JIMMY'S CHAMPING AT THE BIT TO LEAP TO THE ATTACK, ALONG WITH HIS AMBIENT LEVEL OF EMOTIONAL HYSTERIA, IS AMPLY DEMONSTRATED BY HIS SELECTION OF THIS SAD AND HORRIFIC NEWS ITEM - WHY THIS PARTICULAR ITEM JIMMY? YOU COULD HAVE CHOSEN GENERAL HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES OR EXAMPLES FROM HISTORY - AS HCN DOES IN THE POSTING THAT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS - OR FROM ANY NUMBER OF OTHER WIDER WORLD EVENTS. TO MAKE THE POINT YOU ONLY THINK YOU ARE MAKING - YOU ARE EITHER (ENTIRELY UNSCIENTIFICALLY) UNFAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO DISMISS OUT OF HAND OR SIMPLY HAVEN'T CLEARLY THOUGHT THROUGH ALL ITS IMPLICATIONS -. BUT NO, MORA IS A MOTHER OF (PRESUMABLY) YOUNG CHILDREN SO YOU DELIBERATELY AND DELIGHTEDLY SEIZE ON THE MOST EMOTIONALLY DISTRESSING EVENT YOU CAN FIND (OOH YOU MUST HAVE HAD FUN LOOKING) TO INFLICT WHATEVER EMOTIONAL PAIN YOU CAN ON YOUR HAPLESS VICTIM. AS TO HOW THE ALLLEGED 'LAW' OF ATTRACTION SUPPOSEDLY UNDERLYING 'THE SECRET' MIGHT EXPLAIN THE OCCURENCE OF SUCH HORRORS, REFER TO MY COMMENTS BELOW ON HCN'S POSTING, THEN CONSIDER ALL THE HORROR STORIES, FEAR-INDUCING INJUNCTIONS AND OVERSTATED TERROR OF STRANGERS, CHILDREN AND PARENTS ALIKE ARE STEEPED IN THESE DAYS (IN LITTLEHAMPTON LET ALONE FLORIDA) TO SEE HOW THE 'LAW' OF ATTRACTION (WERE SUCH A THING TO EXIST) MIGHT UNCARINGLY AND IMPERSONALLY (IN COMMON WITH ANY NATURAL LAW YOU WILL ACKNOWLEDGE) BRING UNFORTUNATE EVEN HORRIFIC EVENTS INTO THE LIVES OF THOSE UNWITTINGLY DWELLING ON SUCH THINGS. AS WITH ALL MY OTHER SIMILAR 'DEVIL'S ADVOCATE' COMMENTS, I DON'T INSIST THAT ANY SUCH PRINCIPLE IS ACTUALLY OPERATING IN THE WORLD, MERELY THAT IF IT WERE IT WOULD IN EVERY REGARD BRING ABOUT A STATE OF AFFAIRS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE WORLD WE DAILY PERCEIVE, COMPLETE WITH ALL IT'S ATTENDENT CRIMES AND MISFORTURNES. CERTAINLY YOU CANNOT BLAME MORA FOR NOT WADING KNEE DEEP, AS YOU SO WILLINGLY HAVE THROUGH SUCH HORRORS, LOOKING FOR GET-OUTS, WHICH EVEN YOU HAVE FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY NAIL-DOWN, FROM A PRINCIPLE SHE PERCEIVES AS ALREADY BEARING FRUIT FOR HER.
responding to the Posting by: Jimmy_Blue of March 08, 2007 at 10:41 PM
HCN then writes:
Mora, how does the father to your four kids figure in this?
WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF FISH?
If you are widow, is it because you brought on to yourself? Did the Law of Attraction turn you into a single mom of four kids? (by the way, if the father is still alive and not providing for his children...
then I have a separate form of rage for that, there is a man who has never acknowledged nor communicated with my step-sibling --- to call him slime would be an insult to slime).
TOO CONFUSED FOR RATIONAL, AS OPPOSED TO PSYCHO-ANALITICAL ANALYSIS, REVEALS OWN SUBSTANTIALLY DATA-DISTORTING EMOTIONAL BIAS.
Remember according to "The Secret" the Law of Attraction is working whether you know it or not.
SUGGESTING THAT HCN HAS THE BEGINNINGS, AT LEAST, OF A BETTER UNDERSTANDING THAN JIMMY_BLUE CLEARLY DOES OF WHAT IT IS THAT 'THE SECRET' ACTUALLY ALLEGES
Which is why some of us are disgusted because it is essentially blaming the victims of rape and even the Holocaust of World War II of bringing the horrors they experienced on to themselves.
EITHER LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT WITH HCN'S PREVIOUSLY IMPLIED KNOWLEDGE OF 'THE SECRET' OR INDICATIVE OF HER CONTINUED MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PRINCIPLE IT ALLEGES. WERE THE VICTIMS OF THE BLACK DEATH AND OTHER PRE-GERM THEORY PLAGUES AND EPIDEMICS TO 'BLAME' FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM? OR DID THEY SIMPLY THROUGH THEIR IGNORANCE OF, AT THE TIME, UNREVEALED SCIENTIFIC FACTS, CONTINUE TO BEHAVE IN WAYS THAT, ALL UNKNOWN TO THEM, LEFT THEM, OTHERWISE AVOIDABLY, VULNERABLE TO SUCH THINGS? IGNORANCE OR MISUNDERSTADING OF NATURAL LAW, IT TURNS OUT, IS NO DEFENSE AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES OF EITHER, WHETHER THIS ENRAGES YOU OR NOT. AS FOR RAPE AND/OR HOLOCAUST VICTIMS, THE SAD FACT, WHETHER HCN OR ANYONE ELSE LIKES IT OR NOT IS THAT IF YOU THINK LIKE A VICTIM YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO ACT LIKE A VICTIM, AND IF YOU ACT LIKE A VICTIM, AS EVERY OPPORTUNISTIC PREDATOR KNOWS, YOU ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE VICTIMISED. IT MAY NOT BE AN ULTIMATE GUARANTEE AGAINST ATTACK IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT GOOD SITUATIONAL AWARENESS COUPLED WITH A REALISTIC ANALYSIS OF TRENDS AND A STRONG PRE-EMPTIVE DEFENSIVE POSTURE WOULD LIKELY PREVENT MOST, IF NOT ALL, RAPES AND/OR STREET ATTACKS, AND WIDELY ENOUGH DISSEMINATED FAR ENOUGH IN ADVANCE, MAY WELL HAVE MITIGATED OR POSSIBLY EVEN PREVENTED OUTRIGHT THE HOLOCAUST. IT MAY NOT BE VERY PC TO STATE THIS BUT THAT'S JUST NAMBY-PAMBY IDEOLOGICAL CLOUD-CUCKOO LAND CRAP. 'THE SECRET', TO BROADLY PARAPHRASE IT IN A NUTSHELL ALLEGES NOT THAT YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT, WISH, PRAY, OR EVEN WORK FOR, BUT THAT YOU GET WHAT YOU EXPECT - GIVEN THE WAY GIRLS ARE RAISED TO THINK OF THEMSELVES AS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS IN MOST SOCIETIES, AND THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCES, WHETHER RECORDED OR SIMPLY ALLEGED AND BELIEVED, OF THE JEWS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS PRIOR TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, THE EXPERIENCES OF RAPE AND HOLOCAUST VICTIMS ALIKE ARE IN FACT FULLY LOGICALLY CONSISTENT WITH 'THE SECRET'S ALLEGED IMPERSONAL UNCARING 'LAW OF ATTRACTION'.
I know for sure that I did not wish for my mother to die in an airplane accident when I was eleven years old... and I really did not try to use any fool "Law of Attraction" to give birth to a disabled kid.
MY PROFOUNDLY HEARTFELT SYMPATHIES ON BOTH ACCOUNTS, BUT RHETORICAL AND IRRELEVANT TO THE MATTER AT HAND.
While it is admirable to be able to overcome adversities... it is not so admirable to blame the misfortune people experience because they had "negative" thoughts.
WHAT EXCEPT, IN LEGALISTIC TERMS REGARDING MATTERS OF CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY OR NEGLIGENCE, DOES THE CONCEPT OF 'BLAME' HAVE TO DO WITH THIS OR ANY OTHER ARGUMENT?
responding to the Posting by: HCN of March 08, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Big Al then chimes in:
Mona,
I wonder how many women in just your former situation watched "The Secret" but have NOT seen this wonderful turn-around you have.
RHETORICAL AND UNANSWERABLE - FOR ONE THING, AS THE PROPONENTS OF 'THE SECRET' POINT OUT, SIMPLY WATCHING THE DAMN THING CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TOWARD ALTERING WHATEVER SITUATION THE WATCHER MAY EXPERIENCE.
Certainly, just sitting around and waiting for something to fall into your lap is not an option if you want to pick yourself up. Hard work is not an inevitable bringer of success, but idleness never is.
IN NOMINE PATRI, ET FIIO, SANCTII. - AAH-AAH-MEN! THANKS FOR THE PATRONISING HOMILY BIG AL, NOW F-OFF BACK TO YOUR PULPIT.
It doesn't take a new universal law to explain that.
NO INDEED! PAUSE, HAND TO BROW, FOR PONDEROUS THOUGHT, WISER WORDS WERE NEVER ETC ETC.
responding to the Posting by: Big Al of March 09, 2007 at 01:21 AM
Mora then replies to her interrogators:
i am not a widow...but i am one who's mindset for years has been that i will always have something to survive"...literally...i grew up with the philosophy, "believe the worst will happen so that when it does, you are not surprised"...little surprise that the worst has come to pass in my life more often than not...
ACCORDING TO THE STATED PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING 'THE SECRET' THEREFORE, MORA HAS ALREADY, ALL UNKNOWING, BEEN USING IT TO BRING ABOUT HER CIRCUMSTANCES - SHE HAS EXPECTED THE WORST AND NOT THEREFORE BEEN REMOTELY SURPRISED WHEN BAD THINGS HAVE HAPPENED TO HER - THIS ACCORDING TO 'THE SECRET' MAKES HER UNCONSCIOUSLY INSTRUMENTAL IN GENERATING HER SITUATION. I LEAVE IT TO ALL YOU RAMPANT, PUFFED UP, SELF-IMPORTANT MORALISTS TO DECIDE IF THIS MAKES HER TO 'BLAME' FOR IT? THE ONLY THING THAT CONSISTENTLY BUGS ME ABOUT MORA'S POSTINGS IS HER FAILURE TO CAPITALISE THE BEGINNINGS TO HER SENTENCES, OR HER 'i'S WHEN REFERRING TO HERSELF - WTF IS THE WORLD COMING TO? ARE THERE NO STANDARDS ANYMORE?
it has taken work, it has taken a conscious effort on my part to be mindful, awake so to speak and to focus on changing the way i think...the next step is to pay attention to the signs and to follow them...trust/have faith that the Universe/God is answering my request...
MORA HAS HIT THE REALLY HARD PART ON THE HEAD HERE. WISHING AND WANTING, FOR SOMETHING WHILE A HABITUAL INNER VOICE GOES ON TELLING YOU THAT WISHES ARE NEVER GRANTED AND WANTING THINGS IS JUST WANTING THINGS YOU WILL PROBABLY NEVER HAVE, OFTEN TIMES NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU WORK, PRODUCES, AS LIKELY AS NOT, NOTHING BUT MORE PAIN AND FRUSTRATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE FOUR KIDS TO LOOK AFTER. WHETHER OR NOT 'THE SECRET' REPRESENTS ANY ASPECT OF 'REALITY' OR NOT, IN FACT REGARDLESS ENTIRELY OF WHATEVER ONE MAY THINK OF THE DAMN THING, THE GIST OF THE SO-CALLED 'LAW OF ATTRACTION' IS SUPPOSEDLY, NO MATTER HOW RISIBLE RIGOROUSLY SCEPTICAL MATERIALISTS FIND ALL SUCH PROPOSITIONS, THAT ONE'S EXPERIENCE OF THE APPARENTLY OBJECTIVE EXTERNAL WORLD WILL ULTIMATELY CONFORM TO THE PATTERN SET BY ONE'S INTERNAL IMAGINATIVELY CONSTRUCTED ANALOGUE OF REALITY.. IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING TO THE 'LOGIC' SUCH AS IT IS OF 'THE SECRET', IT IS ONE'S EXPECTATIONS NOT ONE'S WISHES THAT COUNT.. TO CHANGE, AS A CONSCIOUS ACT OF WILL, ONE'S LONG HABITUATED EXPECTATIONS OF LIFE THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING, AS LIKELY AS NOT IN DIRECT APPARENT CONTRADICTION OF ONE'S DAY TO DAY EXPERIENCE, IS ABOUT AS HARD, THOUGH SCEPTICS WOULD DOUBTLESS ADD 'MAD' A THING TO DO AS ANYTHING IMAGINABLE. THE FURTHER ONE ATTEMPTS TO DELIBERATELY DEPART FROM PERSONALLY OR CULTURALLY ESTABLISHED 'NORMS' THE HARDER THIS MUST NECESSARILY BE. FOR MORA TO HAVE ALTERED HER MIND-SET FROM ONE OF HABITUAL PESSIMISM TO ONE OF HABITUAL OPTIMISM, WHETHER ONE AGREES THAT THERE WAS ANY POINT TO THE EXCERCISE OR NOT, HAS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS HEROIC. THOUGH 'FOOLISH', 'DELUDED', EVEN INSANE ARE ALL ADJECTIVES MORA'S DETRACTORS WILL NO DOUBT HAPPILY ADD, THE TASK IS A HEROIC ONE NONETHELESS. THAT MORA FINISHES THE PARAGRAPH BY RESOLVING TO 'PAY ATTENTION TO THE SIGNS' AND TRUSTING OR HAVING 'FAITH' IN THE UNIVERSE IS MERELY A HOPEFUL EXPRESSION OF HER RESOLVE TO OPTIMISM. THAT SHE EQUATES 'THE UNIVERSE' WITH 'GOD', WHILST PROBLEMATIC, EVEN FAINTLY DISGUSTING TO THOSE INCLUDING MYSELF WHO DELIGHT IN RICHARD DAWKINS WONDERFULLY COMPREHENSIVE DESCRIPTION OF 'THE MOST UNPLEASANT CHARACTER IN ALL OF FICTION' IS A FAIRLY PREDICTABLE IF ADMITTEDLY DEPRESSING CULTURAL NORM HOWEVER GIVEN MORA'S FREELY ADMITTED EDUCATIONAL SHORTCOMINGS, THIS SHOULD NOT BE BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION. MORA DOES NOT AT ANY POINT BANG ON ABOUT HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH 'THE LIVING CHRIST' OR 'ALLAH' OR ANY OTHER SUCH PUTATIVE DEITY, WHICH, FRANKLY FOR A SEEMINGLY AVERAGE AMERICAN, IS ALREADY GOING SOME.
as for the time frame of all these crazy events...i watched the downloaded Secret for $5.00, right off my computer 11/24/2006. it is after watching this that all the events i mentioned have come to pass...believe what you will...i know what's working in my world...i'm living it...
MORA WOULD NOT, OF COURSE, HAVE NEEDED TO FURTHER QUALIFY THE SEQUENCE OF THE EVENTS SHE DESCRIBES, HAD HER DETRACTORS PAID APPROPRIATE ATTENTION TO HER FIRST POSTING ON THE SUBJECT BEFORE RIPPING INTO HER.
the part about responsibility or blaming oneself for "bad' things that have occurred...the point is being missed...as a child of abuse i for the longest time lived in the mode of victim...constantly angry, constantly in emotional pain...
ANY SURVIVOR OF CHILD ABUSE WILL GET THIS. ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO TRIVIALISE HERE, WHETHER FROM SCEPTICISM, IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN NASTINESS, SHOULD STICK THEIR HEAD IN A BUCKET OF WATER THREE TIMES AND TAKE IT OUT TWICE.
and then one day i took responsibility...certainly i didn't choose the abuse i experienced in this life...but, i believe i did in a past life (here's where noses turn up and lips curl...so be it)...
OF COURSE MORA BELIEVES, FOR WHATEVER IMAGINED REASON, THAT SHE DESERVED THE ABUSE. THAT'S WHAT ABUSED CHILDREN DO. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A VULNERABLE POWERLESS CHILD HAS THEIR SELF-ESTEEM SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED BY ADULTS, OVER WHOM THE CHILD CAN HAVE NO CONTROL, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER AND EVEN SOMETIMES DO, BUT WHO GO ON VICIMISING JUST THE SAME. ONCE SUCH A PATTERN IS ESTABLISHED FURTHERMORE, OTHERS PARTICULARLY OTHER CHILDREN IN THE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT, ALL TOO EASILY, PICK UP ON THEIR COMPANION'S 'WOUNDED' STATUS AND MERCILESSLY JOIN IN. THE EFFECTS OF THIS SORT OF EXPERIENCE, ALL TOO FREQUENTLY LAST, IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE INDIVIDUAL. ONE IDEA, PHILOSOPHY, INSANE CULT, OR DEADLY MARTIAL-TRAINING AFTER ANOTHER MAY BE ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE THE CONSTANT PARALYSING STRESS-INDUCING 'DOWN' SUCH A PERSON HABITUALLY HAS ON THEMSELVES, FOR THE MOST PART WITHOUT SUCCESS. MERELY GROWING TO ADULTHOOD CHANGES NOTHING EXCEPT THE CAMOUFLAGE SUCH AN INDIVIDUAL WEARS TO COVER THE BLEEDING WOUND, WHERE OTHERS THRIVE, THE GROWN WOUNDED CHILD CAN BARELY SURVIVE. WITHOUT SOME FORTUITOUS EXTERNAL FACTOR FORCING RADICAL TRANSFORMATION, HOLED BELOW THE WATERLINE, SUCH A PERSON SPENDS THE ENERGY OTHERS HAVE AVAILABLE FOR EDUCATION AND CAREER ALIKE 'BALING OUT' NIGHT AND DAY IN AN INCREASINGLY DESPERATE STRUGGLE SIMPLY TO STAY AFLOAT. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT DROWNING PEOPLE GRASP AT PROVERBIAL STRAWS, HOW SURPRISING THEREFORE THAT IDEAS SUCH AS 'THE SECRET' OR 'REINCARNATION' OR CLOUD-CUCKOO LAND 'HEAVEN' HAVE AN ALMOST IRRESISTABLE APPEAL. WHAT DOES IT MATTER, IN SUCH A CASE, WHETHER SUCH IDEAS HAVE ANY OBJECTIVE VALIDITY IF THEY PROVIDE A SUBJECTIVE LADDER TO CLING TO OR ENABLE IN ANY DEGREE THE FORMATION OF A DESPERATELY NEEDED NEW PARADIGM FOR THE SELF?
i also chose to view the abuse as an opportunity for me...i decided that the positive for me was that i can go in and speak from experience to those who suffered as i did...the moment i made this decision to take "responsibility", the nightmares stopped, the anger went away...i was even able to forgive...all this due to a simple shift, as is mentioned in The Secret...i took this on years prior to watching the dvd, but, it follows the same mode of thinking...
HOORAY HERE FOR MORA. SHE TELLS YOU ALL THAT SHE HAS LEARNED TO MAKE LEMONADE OUT OF THE LEMONS SHE WAS MARINADED IN FROM AND EARLY AGE AND ALL YOU BASTARDS CAN DO IS 'INTERPRET' HER, IN LINE WITH YOUR OWN PREJUDICES AND SANCTIMONIOUS PRETENSIONS, PUTTING WORDS IN HER MOUTH WHICH SHE NEVER USES AND SLAGGING HER OFF FOR THE CRIMES YOU ALL, NOT SHE IMAGINES - YOU SHOULD BE, THOUGH YOU DOUBTLESS NEVER WILL BE, PROFOUNDLY ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES.
as for the pain and suffering going on in the world...as someone who believes in past lives and follows an eastern mode of thinking, it makes sense to consider that perhaps what is happening in this life is a continuation of whatever lesson one chose from the previous...makes more sense to me than believing all this suffering in the world is somehow the fault of God and senseless...all the suffering, however horrible does come with a positive side...believe it or not...sometimes it takes a searching deep and painful, but it is there...i know this from personal experience...
SO MORA HAS FOUND A 'RATIONALE' HOWEVER DELUDED IT MAY BE, FOR WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO HER. THIS IS IN NO WAY SURPRISING. IF IT PROVIDES HER WITH A CRUTCH TO STABILISE HERSELF WITH WHILE SHE STRUGGLES TO TURN
HER LIFE AROUND HOW DOES THIS HARM ANY OF YOU? BUT NO, INSTEAD OF GENTLY ENCOURAGING HER TO CONSIDER OTHER ALTERNATIVES, ALL YOU SMUGLY SUPREME SO-CALLED RATIONALISTS CAN DO IS ATTEMPT TO RIP WHATEVER SHRED OF COMFORT SHE HAS FOUND AWAY FROM HER TO TELL HER THAT HER SUFFERING IS POINTLESS. ALL THAT MATTERS TO YOU SAD APOLOGIES FOR CIVILISED BEINGS, IS THAT MORA BELIEVES SOMETHING WHICH YOU ALL IN YOUR INFALLIBLE SELF-SATISFACTION THINK (BUT CANNOT ULTIMATELY PROVE) IS SCIENTIFICALLY UNTENNABLE. THAT'S ALL YOU MISERABLE SHRIVELLED NON-ENTITIES CONCERN YOURSELVES WITH. MORA DOESN'T 'GET' SCIENCE SO SHE MUST BE A 'WOO'. HEY LOOK AT THE STUPID WOO! LET'S ALL KICK THE WOO! YOU'RE FUCKING PATHETIC, THE LOT OF YOU.
and, consider for a moment the idea that the law of attraction doesn't just operate on a one person at a time level...it can also operate on a much larger scale...self fulfilling prophesies believed in by the
masses...for example: it is well known and accepted that the children of God are to be persecuted...the Old Testament states this clearly...so, to the Jewish community, Nazi, Germany is just one of many atrocities they've had to deal with...
REFER MY EARLIER COMMENTS ON 'THE SECRET' SUGGESTING THAT PEOPLE, EVEN ENTIRE PEOPLE'S GET NOT WHAT THEY WANT, BUT WHAT THEY EXPECT. IT DOESN'T MATTER, FOR THE SAKE OF THIS ARGUMENT, WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT.
MORA HAS ABSORBED THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND SOMETHING SHE THINKS HAS WORKED FOR HER BUT SHE DIDN'T MAKE ANY OF IT UP. YOU PEOPLE HAVE ATTACKED HER MERCILESSLY FOR THE CRIME OF STATING WHAT AT BEST ARE HER HALF-FORMED IDEAS ON SUBJECTS SHE HAS NOT, BY HER OWN ADMISSION, STUDIED IN ANY GREAT DEPTH AND YOU ALL TREAT HER AS IF SHE HAS EXPRESSED AN ADMIRATION FOR HITLER, POL-POT, TED BUNDY AND THAT GREAT SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTALIST, DR MENGELE. YOU WILLING DIMWITS! OF COURSE MORA DOESN'T THINK THE JEWS OR RAPE VICTIMS OR ANY OTHER VICTIMS DESERVE TO SUFFER. SHE IS STRUGGLING TO RATIONALISE A BUNCH OF STUFF SHE HAS PROBABLY NEVER, IN ANY GREAT DEPTH AT LEAST, THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE. NOR IS SHE SAYING THAT THE VICTIMS OF ANY GIVEN ATROCITY 'BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES'. GRANTED YOU CAN SELECTIVELY EXTRAPOLATE SUCH TWISTED IMPLICATIONS FROM SOME OF THE THINGS SHE SPECULATES ABOUT, IF YOU HAVE A MIND TO DO SO, BUT IT IS YOUR TWISTED DARKLING MINDS, NOT MORA'S DOING THE EXTRAPOLATING. THE ONLY PEOPLE EVEN SUGGESTING THE THINGS YOU ACCUSE MORA OF ARE YOU SUPPOSEDLY ENLIGHTENED PARAGONS OF REASON AND VIRTUE.
certainly i don't condone any of these happenings, to the Jewish people, people with AIDS, children of abuse, to any person who has suffered i pray for and i respect for their strength in the face of such
horrors...but, i go a step forward and i look for the lesson in what they've gone thru...i know they are experiencing their situations for something...we might not see the reasons but, then, it may not be meant for us to see why...
NOW ALL OF YOU READ MORA'S LAST PARAGRAPH AGAIN. REMEMBER MORA HERSELF IS A 'CHILD OF ABUSE'. SHE HAS STRUGGLED TO COME TO TERMS WITH IT IN HER OWN LIFE AND HERE DOES SO ON BEHALF OF OTHERS. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY FAULT HER MOTIVATION, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK OF HER BROADER PHILOSOPHICAL OR METAPHYSICAL PREMISE?
oh boy, here it comes...
OH BUT SHE FULLY EXPECTS THAT YOU WILL. SHE IS WAY WAY OUT OF HER DEPTH AND SHE KNOWS IT BUT STILL HAS THE GUTS TO PUT HERSELF IN YOUR FREE-FIRE ZONE. I TAKE MY HAT OFF TO HER COURAGE TO THE EXTENT THAT I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO CRITICISE HER FOR HER AMERICAN BASTARDISATION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. (THE WORD IS SPELLED 'THROUGH' NOT 'THRU' BUT WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT FROM THE POORER COUSINS?)
responding to the Posting by: Mora of March 09, 2007 at 06:26 AM
Mora,
THIS, OF COURSE, IS THE POINT WHERE 'JIMMY_BLUE' CAN STAND THE PRESENCE OF A WOUNDED INNOCENT NO LONGER, AND DECIDES TO WASTE NO MORE TIME IN SAVAGING HER TILL SHE BREAKS. I COULD, OF COURSE, GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT (BASED ON ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT) BY SUGGESTING THAT AS WITH HIS FIRST POSTING ON THE SUBJECT, IN HIS EAGERNESS TO 'HAVE AT' MORA, HE HASN'T PROPERLY READ HER POSTING AND AS A RESULT HAS NOT FULLY TAKEN ON BOARD, HIS INTENDED VICTIM'S ALREADY EMOTIONALLY DAMAGED STATE AND THE PART IT MUST HAVE PLAYED IN GENERATING HER CORRESPONDING PHILOSOPHICAL CONFUSION, BUT SOMEHOW I DON'T THINKS THIS IS THE CASE. I THINK HE FRANKLY DOESN'T CARE AN IOTA. MY IMPRESSION FROM HIS PERFORMANCE SO FAR, IS THAT HE'S JUST A NASTY PIECE OF WORK WHO HAS SO FAR BARELY MANAGED TO RESTRAIN HIMSELF FROM PUTTING HIS RETIRED SERVICE BOOTS INTO HIS DEFENCELESS OPPOSITION. YAY! GO JIMMY!
You know, last night I voiced a suspicion to my wife that you were a woo and not just a single mum whose hard work had paid off. Glad you didn't disappoint.
OH DID YOU JIMMY? WELL THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG DID IT? AND JUST AS WELL EH? NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER PRETENCE OF COURTESY, CIVILITY OR COMPASSION, YOU CAN GET PROPERLY STUCK IN TO THE SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC BUSINESS OF CLASSIFICATION AND NAME-CALLING. YOU DON'T, OF COURSE, SAY WHAT YOUR WIFE'S RESPONSE, IF ANY, WAS TO YOUR INFALLIBLE EX-CATHEDRA PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE SUBJECT, ALWAYS ASSUMING, OF COURSE THAT SHE'D RUN THE RISK OF TELLING YOU WHAT SHE REALLY THOUGHT OF YOUR TINY-MINDED RELISH AT THE PROSPECT OF A BIT OF UPCOMING CASUAL BRUTALITY)
oh boy, here it comes...
YEAH YOU JUST LOVE IT DON'T YOU, YOU SADISTIC MISBEGOTTEN THUG? - HELL LETS ALL PLAY BY YOUR RULES!
Oh, you got that right. Before I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I know you're a fully fledged paid up woo though, the gloves come off.
TRANSLATION - 'SLAUGHTER THE WITLESS HERETIC!' 'BURN THE FILTHY INFIDEL UNBELIEVER!' WHY DON'T YOU JUST CALL HER A STUPID C**T AND BE DONE WITH IT? BETTER YET, FIND OUT IF SHE'S BLACK OR IRISH THEN YOU COULD CALL HER A STUPID NIGGER OR PADDY C**T INTO THE BARGAIN! YOU F-ING WITLESS MORON.
First, let me remind you of the questions I posted previously:
REFER ALL MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS TO SAME, IN REGARD TO JIMMY'S TEDIOUS, SELF-IMPORTANTLY RE-ITERATED QUESTIONS.
Had you hoped you would lose your job? How many jobs did you apply for that you didn't get? How hard have you been working to get the child support you were owed and for how long? How many people knew you were looking for a new car but didn't call with a possibility?
ALREADY INTERCEPTED AND SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES. NOT THAT YOU'LL EVER NOTICE WITH YOUR HEAD PLANTED UP YOUR BACKSIDE AND FAR TOO BUSY ADMIRING THE VIEW.
What have we been told for years? That if you work hard and focus then you might get what you're working towards? Is that a 'Secret'? Or is it common sense? Is that some magical 'Law of Attraction'?
YAHDA YAHDA YAHDA - SO MUCH QUICKER TO SIMPLY CUT AND PAST ALL YOUR PREVIOUS POMPOSITY, TO SET EVIL MORA UP FOR THE OLD AVENGING ONE-TWO KNOCKOUT, THAN ATTEMPT, KINDLY AND PATIENTLY, TO REPHRASE YOUR RESERVATIONS IN REGARD TO HER STATED BELIEFS, NO MATTER HOW MISGUIDED YOU, WITHOUT ABSOLUTE PROOF TO BACK YOU UP, ONLY THINK THEY ARE.
trust/have faith that the Universe/God is answering my request...
AS UNBEARABLE AS IT UNQUESTIONABLY IS TO CONTEMPLATE, THE SAD FACT IS THAT MOST OF THE WORLD THINKS IN THIS OR SOME BROADLY SIMILAR FASHION. WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE ELITE EDUCATION WHICH MORA ADMITS RIGHT UP FRONT, SHE DID NOT RECEIVE, THEREFORE, WHY WOULD SHE BE LIKELY TO THINK DIFFERENTLY IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL REGARD? IF YOU, OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU, KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO MERELY BELIEVING OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE THREE OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM IN SELECTING YOUR RESPONSE: 1. YOU CAN TRY TO EDUCATE THE UNEDUCATED; 2. YOU CAN SIMPLY IGNORE THE UNEDUCATED; OR 3. YOU CAN SADISTICALLY AMUSE YOURSELF AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNEDUCATED. YOU JIMMY, HAVE CHOSEN OPTION NUMBER 3. IN MY BOOK THAT MAKES YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU, NOT POOR STRUGGLING MORA, THE ONLY LEGITIMATE TARGETS IN ALL THIS. SO 'TALLY SODDING HO OLD CHAP! ONWARD ON THE FOE, WHAT? AND THE MYTHOLOGICAL DEVIL TAKE THE HINDMOST.
What proof do you have that this is the case and that your hard work is not the actual cause of your change in fortune?
WHAT PROOF DOES MORA NEED? SHE CHANGED HER ATTITUDE AND HER PROBLEMS BEGAN TO DISAPPEAR. DOUBTLESS SHE WILL HAVE MORE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. EQUALLY DOUBTLESS, ASSUMING SHE HOLDS HER APPLICATION OF 'THE SECRET' RESPONSIBLE FOR SOLVING HER LAST LOT OF PROBLEMS, SHE WILL APPLY THE SAME METHODOLOGY TO HER NEXT LOT. HER PROBLEMS WILL EITHER BE SOLVED OR THEY WILL NOT. IF THEY ARE, HER BELIEF IN THE EFFICACY OF 'THE SECRET'S UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE WILL LIKELY BE STRENGTHENED. WHICH ODDLY ENOUGH, WILL DO YOU ABSOLUTELY NO HARM WHATSOEVER. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND THEY ARE NOT, SHE MAY EVENTUALLY INDEPENDENTLY ASK HERSELF THE SAME OR SIMILAR QUESTIONS TO THE ONES YOU SO BRUTALLY IMPOSE.
it is after watching this that all the events i mentioned have come to pass...believe what you will...i know what's working in my world...i'm living it...
Did you simply think about those events, or did you actually work hard towards them? People hiring for companies do not simply pick at random from a phone book, so how many jobs did you apply for? How many didn't get back to you?
the part about responsibility or blaming oneself for "bad' things that have occurred...the point is being missed...as a child of abuse i for the longest time lived in the mode of victim...constantly angry, constantly in emotional pain...and then one day i took responsibility...certainly i didn't choose the abuse i experienced in this life...but, i believe i did in a past life
(ABUSED CHILD, JIMMY - ABUSED CHILD, JIMMY - ABUSED CHILD, JIMMY - ABUSED CHILD, JIMMY)
Oh this is going to be fun. So, does the Secret cause bad things to happen to you or not? If not why not? How is it that it only causes 'good' things to happen to you?
WELL TALKING ABOUT IT HAS CERTAINLY CAUSED BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN TO HER. IF YOU PEOPLE CAN CHEERFULLY IGNORE JIMMY RELISHING HIS 'FUN' AT POOR ABUSE-SURVIVOR MORA'S EXPENSE, YET STILL ACCUSE ME OF MISUSING WORDS LIKE 'BULLY' 'THUG' AND 'NAZI'. I CAN REST MY CASE RIGHT HERE, IF THAT'S YOUR VAUNTED LOGIC YOU CAN FRANKLY STUFF IT WHERE JIMMY KEEPS HIS INTELLECT.
as for the pain and suffering going on in the world...as someone who believes in past lives and follows an eastern mode of thinking, it makes sense to consider that perhaps what is happening in this life is a continuation of whatever lesson one chose from the previous
MORA MAY BE CONFUSED HERE BUT SHE CERTAINLY DOESN'T DESERVE JIMMY'S NEXT OFFERING
So, a little girl who is dragged from her bed by a disgusting pervert, who is then raped and buried alive in a bin bag and suffoctes slowly to death deserves it because of something she did in a past life? What kind of lesson did she choose from her past life exactly? Presumably you think the rapist shouldn't be punished then, since he is simply handing out the Universe's justice? In fact, should we not see him as some sort of divine avenger in your world view? If the same happened to one of your children, presumably you would tell them they deserved it as well?
QUITE APART FROM THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME JIMMY HAS DRAWN ATTENTION TO THIS PARTICULAR HORROR STORY, THIS IS A 'STRAW-MAN' ARGUMENT. MORA HAS NEITHER EXPLICITLY STATED NOR KNOWINGLY IMPLIED ANY SUCH THING. THE GHASTLY CRIME JIMMY (AGAIN) REFERS TO HERE HAS BEEN DREDGED-UP AT THE FREE-ASSOCIATED URGINGS OF HIS OWN FOETID DISGUSTING FESTERING IMAGINATION AND PLASTERED LIKE A HANDFUL OF SHIT ONTO INNOCENT MORA SO JIMMY CAN CONTINUE TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT BASHING HER.
makes more sense to me than believing all this suffering in the world is somehow the fault of God and senseless.
Senseless yes, the fault of god, no. He doesn't exist.
NO ARGUMENT ON EITHER OF THESE POINTS HERE.
all the suffering, however horrible does come with a positive side...believe it or not...sometimes it takes a searching deep and painful, but it is there...i know this from personal experience...
You are not the world Mora. Your experience does not hold for everyone or everything. Good you found the positive in whatever it was you suffered. That does not mean everyone can or does.
BE STILL MY FLUTTERING HEART. JIMMY HAVE I MISJUDGED YOU? OH BUT WAIT A MINUTE, MORA HAS MORE TO SAY.
consider for a moment the idea that the law of attraction doesn't just operate on a one person at a time level...it can also operate on a much larger scale...self fulfilling prophesies believed in by the
masses...for example: it is well known and accepted that the children of God are to be persecuted...the Old Testament states this clearly...so, to the Jewish community, Nazi, Germany is just one of many atrocities they've had to deal with
Well known and accepted by people who believe a flawed, contradictory, human book is the inspired word of a non-existent sky fairy (while we're on this subject I recommened everyone read 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman - a brilliant study of mistakes and additions made in the bible since its first copies were made).
So, your argument is the 'law' of attraction does cause bad things to happen, so the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves, right? There doesn't seem any wiggle room in your statement above. The 'law' works at a group level, the Jews believe they are to be persecuted, so they are persecuted, and the 'law' states that this they brought on themselves. Right?
ACTUALLY, AND SHOCKINGLY ENOUGH TO BE SURE, IN THE SAME IMPERSONAL WAY THAT, AS I STATED ABOVE, IN THE COURSE OF MY COMMENT ON 'HCN'S POSTING, PEOPLE 'ATTRACTED' BUBONIC PLAGUE TO THEMSELVES THROUGH THEIR IGNORANCE OF GERM-THEORY, THIS IS CLEARLY ONE HORRIFYING POSSIBLE IMPLICATION OF THE SO-CALLED 'LAW' OF ATTRACION. BUT SO WHAT? NATURE IS FULL OF NATURAL LAWS ABOUT WHICH NONE OF YOU WILL ARGUE, WITH ALL MANNER OF HORRIFYING PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS WHICH DO NOT, AS A RULE HAVE SCIENTISTS OR EVEN COTERIES OF SCIENCE-GROUPIES UP IN ARMS MAKING EMOTIONAL VALUE JUDGEMENTS ABOUT THEM. JIMMY'S ARGUMENT HERE IS, IN ITSELF THEREFORE, NO ARGUMENT AT ALL. IF, ADMITTEDLY, AGAINST ALL APPARENT ODDS AND PROBABILITIES, THE SO-CALLED 'LAW' OF ATTRACTION WERE EVER TO BE ESTABLISHED IN REPEATABLE DOUBLE-BLIND TESTS OF A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT SCALE AND DURATION, AS FACTUAL, YOU WOULD ALL EVENTUALLY SIMPLY ACCEPT, PROBABLY WITHOUT EVEN ALL THAT MUCH OF A MURMUR THAT THIS WAS SO AND BEGIN FACTORING THE DAMN THING BROADLY INTO ALL SORTS OF SOCIOLOGICAL AND/OR HISTORICAL ANALYSES, DERIVING PREVIOUSLY UNSUSPECTED EXPLANATIONS FOR THIS OR THAT CURRENT OR HISTORICAL PHENOMENON, GOOD BAD AND INDIFFERENT ALIKE, LEFT RIGHT AND CENTRE. PUT SIMPLY, 'THE LAW OF ATTRACTION IS EITHER A VALID PRINCIPLE OR IT IS NOT, AND WHILST, IN COMMON WITH THE REST OF YOU, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT EITHER THE SO-CALLED 'LAW' OR 'THE SECRET' WHICH PURVEYS IT HAVE ANY VALIDITY WHATSOEVER BEYOND THEIR UNDOUBTED EFFECTIVENESS AS MARKETTING PLOYS, I CANNOT, AS THINGS STAND, CATEFORICALLY PROVE THAT THIS IS SO, ANY MORE THAN ANY OF YOU CAN. CERTAINLY MORA CANNOT PROVE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, DESPITE HER ALLEGED, SO FAR, PERSONALLY POSITIVE EXPERIENCE OF IT. ALL OF WHICH ENTIRELY MISSES THE POINT. MORA DIDN'T WRITE, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY GENERATE 'THE SECRET'. NOR CLEARLY HAS SHE PAINSTAKINGLY THOUGHT THROUGH ALL OF ITS MORE CONTENTIOUS IMPLICATIONS. JIMMY ONLY IMAGINES BECAUSE IT SUITS HIM TO DO SO, THAT SHE HAS THOUGHT THE THING THROUGH THIS FAR AND APPROVES OF THE RESULT, AND CHEERFULLY PROJECTS HIS IMAGINARY REPRESENTATION ONTO MORA SO HE CAN GET HIS JOLLIES IN FRONT OF THE REST OF YOU BY USING HER AS HIS INTELLECTUAL PUNCHBAG..
certainly i don't condone any of these happenings, to the Jewish people, people with AIDS, children of abuse, to any person who has suffered i pray for and i respect for their strength in the face of such
horrors
I'm sorry, but you just did condone it. They bring these things on themselves either because of something they did in a previous existence (for which you have no proof), or they brought it on themselves through believing they should be persecuted as a group. If that isn't justification for what happened to them in your eyes, what is? You might go through some mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you are not saying they deserved it, but given your stated position there is no other conclusion you can draw.
SHE ABSOLUTELY DID NOT 'CONDONE' ANY SUCH THING. SEE THERE HE GOES AGAIN PROJECTING HIS OWN MENTAL VIOLENCE ONTO SOMEONE HE THINKS HE CAN SAFELY CASTIGATE FOR SUGGESTING SOMETHING ONLY HE HAS SO FAR SUGGESTED. AND JIMMY HAS THE GALL TO ACCUSE MORA OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS! HE EVEN GARNISHES HIS 'STRAW-MAN' WITH A LOGICAL NON-SEQUITUR HERE. EVEN IF MORA OR ANYONE ELSE WERE TO EXPLICITLY SUGGEST THAT THE 'LAW' OF ATTRACTION HAD SOME CAUSAL PART TO PLAY IN THE MISFORTUNES OF OTHERS, WHERE ON EARTH DOES JIMMY GET THE NOTION OF 'JUSTIFICATION' FROM? DOES SOMEONE STEPPING IN FRONT OF A CAR (AS YOU'D ALL APPARENTLY LIKE ME TO DO) 'JUSTIFY' WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM AS A RESULT? IT MAY WELL EXPLAIN IT, IN THE UNCARING DISPASSIONATE MANNER IN WHICH YOU ALL, APPARENTLY WITHOUT QUESTION, BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE TO OPERATE, BUT WHERE, BY ALL THAT'S UNHOLY, DOES 'JUSTIFICATION' FIT IN? THIS IS SO FAR FROM ANYTHING MORA HAS SAID AS TO BEGGAR BELIEF. I BLOODY WELL HOPE JIMMY IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL SCIENTIST, WORKING ON ANYTHING THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY ONE DAY AFFECT ME OR ANYONE I CARE ABOUT, BECAUSE FRANKLY IF THE MIND-BOGGLING LEAPS HE'S BEEN MAKING AFTER POOR MORA ARE ANYTHING TO GO BY, HE'S NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.
If you believe these people deserved it, then why do you pray for them? They deserved it, they don't deserve your sympathy because they brought it on themselves. In fact, those who make them suffer should be praised in your world view shouldn't they, for distributing justice? In fact, in your world view those who commit crime or atrocity shouldn't be punished by us in this life since they will either recieve their punishment in the next life, or they are only doing what the universe wants them to do. Hey, it's your philosophy and your 'law', don't blame me.
AND OFF HE GOES YET AGAIN. FIRST IT'S JUSTIFICATION, NOW IT'S EVOLVED INTO AN OUTRIGHT 'DESERVING'. JIMMY CAN YOU EVEN SPELL C O M P A S S I O N? MORA CAN, SHE HAS IT IN SPADES BUT YOU'RE SO HOT TO TROT YOU'RE JUST LEAPING GAILY FROM ONE IMPROBABLE PEAK TO ANOTHER TRYING TO BRING HER DOWN. GET IT THROUGH YOUR TURGID GREY-MATTER THAT MORA DOESN'T SAY AND HAS NOWHERE SAID ANY OF THE THINGS YOU ACCUSE HER OF. STOP PROJECTING YOUR SHIT ONTO HER, NO MATTER HOW MUCH 'FUN' IT IS FOR YOU. SHE DOESN'T DESERVE IT NO MATTER HOW BADLY YOU RESENT HER VARIOUS NAIVE POLLYANNERISMS. JUST BECAUSE YOUR TWISTED IMAGINATION WORKS THAT WAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT HERS DOES.
i know they are experiencing their situations for something...we might not see the reasons but, then, it may not be meant for us to see why...
REFER MY EARLIER COMMENTS CONCERNING MORA'S ABUSE-SURVIVOR STATUS. SHE LIKELY HAS TO FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT ALL THE SHIT THAT'S HAPPENED TO HER, AND BY EXTENSION ALL THE REST OF THE SHIT THAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, JUST TO GET UP IN THE MORNING AND LOOK AFTER HER KIDS. OR WOULD YOU REALLY PREFER TO DESTROY HER NEW-FOUND OPTIMISM AND SEND HER CRASHING INTO RESIGNATION AND DESPAIR AGAIN? STUPID QUESTION REALLY. YOU CONFIRM THE ANSWER WITH JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU SAY TO HER.
If we might not see the reasons, how do you know they are experiencing it for a reason? What you mean is you hope they experience it for a reason, otherwise you'd have to accept the universe for what it is. Uncaring, unfeeling and uninterested in your brief existence.
DER!
Folks, welcome to the World of Woo. If bad things happen to you it's all your fault. If good things happen, it's the 'Secret', or the 'law' of attraction. If you get raped, don't come crying to Mora, you
deserved it.
AND THERE HE STANDS THE VALIANT VANQUISHER OF VIXEN VARLETS, THE HALLOWED HERO OF HARPY HISTOPATHOLOGY, THE LOOMING LEGEND OF LAMPOONED LEPIDOPTERAE, ANOTHER FRAGILE ONCE BEAUTIFUL BUTTERFLY PINNED TO JIMMY'S KILLING WALL, THAT'LL TEACH THE BITCH NOT TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL EARLY. GROD, YOU'RE NOT AN ENTOMOLOGIST ARE YOU? THAT WOULD EXPLAIN A FEW THINGS.
Mora, I find your views morally repugnant and morally bankrupt, but also childish and blatantly wishful. It's 'click my heels and I'll be back in Kansas' coupled with 'nothing is my fault, whatever happens I or they deserved it.' with a touch of cherry picked mysticism thrown in. Different day, same old woo.
QUITE RIGHT JIMMY, THE INVIDIOUS IMPLICATIONS AND INIQUITOUS IMAGERY YOU DREAMED UP AND PROJECTED ONTO MORA ARE EVERYTHING YOU SAY THEY ARE,.VILE AND VIRTUALLY VOID OF VIRTUE.. (ISN'T ALLITERATION FUN?) NONE OF IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING MORA ACTUALLY SAID OR DID MIND, BUT I'M SURE YOU WON'T LET A MINOR TECHNICALITY LIKE THAT INTERFERE WITH YOUR YOMP TO GLORY. AFTER ALL WHY SPOIL A GOOD PUNCH-UP STORY WITH THE FACTS? (NO REALLY I HAD TO THUMP HER, SHE WAS SEVEN FEET TALL AND PULLS GEARBOXES OUT OF TRACTORS BY HAND FOR A LIVING) JUST AS I'M SURE YOUR CHORUS (IN THE GREEK SENSE) OF COLLABORATORS WILL CHEER YOUR GUTLESS TRIUMPH REGARDLESS AND ADORN YOUR BROW WITH LAURELS. YOU WILL, EVEN AFTER READING THIS (ASSUMING YOU CAN BE BOTHERED TO) NO DOUBT, DECLARE YOURSELF DULY ASCENDENT AND JOIN GLEEFULLY IN THE NEXT ROUND OF DISSECTION OF MY PROSE OR MY MUCH SPECULATED ABOUT SOCIAL/EDUCATIONAL STATUS. NO REALLY, GO AHEAD, I'M FLATTERED TRULY I AM. THAT AN INTELLECT OF YOUR ASTRONOMICALLY STAGGERING MAGNIFICENCE SHOULD EVEN DEIGN TO CONSIDER MY WITTERINGS WORTHY OF A MOMENT OF YOUR CLEARLY PRICELESS TIME AND ATTENTION.
REMEMBER, IT'S HEAD THREE TIMES IN THE BUCKET, BUT ONLY TAKEN OUT TWICE.
responding to the Posting by: Jimmy_Blue of| March 09, 2007 at 09:15 AM
Mora said "for example: it is well known and accepted that the children of God are to be persecuted...the Old Testament states this clearly...so, to the Jewish community, Nazi, Germany is just one of many atrocities they've had to deal with...certainly i don't condone any of these happenings, to the Jewish people, people with AIDS, children of abuse, to any person who has suffered i pray for and i respect for their strength in the face of such horrors...but, i go a step forward and i look for the lesson in what they've gone thru...i know they are experiencing their situations for something...we might not see the reasons but, then, it may not be meant for us to see why..."
I'm sorry, but is just pure evil. To even think that they were persecuted, sickened or abused because "God says so" is horrible and morally bankrupt.
I'LL AGREE THAT IF THERE WERE A 'GOD' WHO COMMANDED OR OTHERWISE REQUIRED SUCH A THING THAT THIS PUTATIVE BEING WOULD (IN MY BOOK AT LEAST) BE DEEMED EVIL AND MORALLY BANKRUPT. BUT TO MERELY THINK OR BELIEVE THAT SUCH A THING IS SO, WITHOUT PERSONALLY AGREEING THAT THIS SHOULD BE THE CASE, IS, IN ITSELF, NO SUCH THING. WE ALL (I TRUST) ACCEPT AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT HITLER COMMANDED THE PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS AND WOULD CATEGORISE HIM AS EVIL AND MORALLY BANKRUPT (ALONG WITH A A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER LESS PRINTABLE THINGS) AS A RESULT. ACCORDING TO HCN'S LOGIC HERE HOWEVER, IT MAKES US EVIL AND MORALLY BANKRUPT OURSELVES TO MERELY ACKNOWLEDGE THE HISTORICAL FACT. MORA NOWHERE SAYS SHE AGREES WITH ANY OF THE EVIL OR PERSECUTION, PAST OR PRESENT, IN THE WORLD. IF, IN COMMON WITH MANY MANY MILLIONS OF OTHERS, SHE SOMEWHAT BEMUSEDLY ACCEPTS THE FACT OF SUCH A 'GOD', MOVING IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS, HIS ATROCITIES TO PERFORM, THAT JUST MAKES HER ANOTHER INNOCENT VICTIM OF LARGELY CULTURALLY ENDEMIC RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION AND BRAINWASHING. BY ALL MEANS ATTEMPT TO DISABUSE HER OF THIS HORRIFIC MEDIAEVAL MINDSET, BUT BEAR IN MIND THAT IT'S BY NO MEANS HER FAULT THAT SHE, IN COMMON WITH MOST OF THE PLANET, THINKS THESE THINGS OR THAT THESE BELIEFS ARE BY NOW LIKELY DEEPLY ENGRAINED IN HER PSYCHE AND WILL NOT EASILY BE DISLODGED,. SO TREAD LIGHTLY AS YOU GO ABOUT IT, AFTER ALL, THERE BUT FOR YOUR EXPENSIVE EDUCATION OR THE ACCIDENT OF YOUR BIRTH, GO YOU.
responding to the Posting by:: HCN of March 09, 2007 at 09:26 AM
More to come (yawn) when I have the time to waste. Pretty repetitive though as you're mostly all impressing yourselves (though Grod alone knows who else) with the same way wide of the mark leaps and bounds over and around your own massively inflated egos. Even so, aside from all the tedious self-importance and gratuitous cruelty you're all so evidently fond of, you paragons are almost as much fun to play with as the Jehovah's Witnesses, so on with the show!
Let's have it then. You know I've been bad. So punish me. You know you want to... You bunch of pathetic losers..
Posted by: GUITARDIS | September 30, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Guitardis:
All this and yet you still can't answer the simple questions posed to you, nor provide your detailed rebuttal of the points we made about the Secret to Mora.
In fact, your post and emails are, it seems, almost certainly hoaxes. Or the product of an extremely immature mind. I mean really:
Either you are a troll or a Sunday Sport reader, with the level of wit expected from such.
Convinced as I am that you are a troll, I'm still going to respond on the off chance that this is really a case of Poe's Law in action.
I did no such thing.
Really? So you didn't say this:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
science-mullahs, 'Faith', 'heretics', infidel unbelievers, excommunication, 'holy' science, co-religionists (as opposed to scientists or skeptics). No, you weren't in any way trying to conflate science and religion were you. But wait, you apparently have an excuse:
The problem is though that the behaviour of the religious and religious institutions is inseperable from religion. So if you are claiming there is a similarity between religious persons and institutions and scientists and scientific institutions then...
Go on, see if you can finish a thought.
Everything else you write about your own personal experience and beliefs is irrelevant. It doesn't stop the fact that you falsely conflated religion and science.
For instance:
Means nothing. Study the history of just about any field of study or knowledge and you'll see that there have been some downright nasty arguments about it. You however deliberately used the language of religion when talking about science. You falsely conflated the two.
This assumes that in criticising you or your contributors, my real intention was to attempt to target or discredit some or other statement of accepted fact made by either you or your contributors. I am absolutely not guilty of this at any point.
You listen to a lot of politicians don't you? So, you seriously believe that the following statements do not constitute an attempt to discredit arguments only through insults:
Now, let's look at a definition of Ad Hominem:
Open and shut really.
But you go on to say this:
So, our 'irksome crap' is now 'perfectly valid points'?
Are you shifting the goalposts? A liar? Back tracking? Or just a troll?
But don't worry, we have noticed that you have completely failed to address any specific points we have made here or elsewhere. Everything you have said has been nothing but explosive verbal diarrhea which amounts to almost exactly nothing of real substance.
This strawman has been refuted already. Do yourself a favour and drop it. We would call you an arrogant ignoramus because it is the widely understood and appropriately descriptive term for the kind of person who assumes they have knowledge they don't and makes pretenses of being able to show this whilst failing miserably to do so. Like for instance someone claiming they have not committed, repeatedly, the ad hominem fallacy when clearly they had an, at best, limited understanding of it.
I'm sorry, were you speaking about yours or ours? Admission that you are after all a troll perhaps?
Not this one either. I'm quite aware of the vast and ever growing body of evidence in support of this or that scientific proposition.
You are not answering this at all. Skeptico was referring to the fact that you claimed we wrote the way we did because of the mere fact that people disagree with us. You claimed that arguments here were over differences of opinion. He was pointing out that this is not a matter of opinion but of pointing out that the woo is wrong because all available evidence says so.
This has nothing to do with whether or not you know of evidence, nothing to do with your pseudo-mystical vision of the knowledge we have yet to understand and nothing to do with you bullshit theories on existence and consciousness.
You fail to even come close to refuting this point because you don't appear to understand the point Skeptico was making.
No, I can't imagine why we might think you arrogant merely from reading what you have written here. Not at all.
You see, just about every point you have made has been refuted. You have refused to answer some very basic questions put to you. You have failed to understand many of the points you claim you can criticise. You have not, despite claiming to be able to do so, refuted even one substantial argument we have made.
In short, you are a blowhard braggart. You are the real life intellectual equivalent of Arnold Rimmer - all mouth, no brains, no balls.
And then you follow up with an implied threat to violence. I call shenanigans. You're a troll.
Do me a favour! it either does or it doesn't and you all damn well know it doesn't.
Completely and amusingly missed the point.
Yet another 'straw-man' argument (yawn) from you here, unless you are contending that the only thing the Nazis ever did was to murder Jews.
Seriously? Are you really that unused to debating with people? Do you really need us to highlight everything the Nazis did in order for us to demonstrate that your comparison of us to them was a disgusting slight to the victims of the Nazis? How about we say :
Comparisons to the nazis (because pointing out that something is contradicted by the evidence is exactly the same as invading Poland. Or Czechoslovakia. Or France. Or Belgium. Or the Netherlands. Or Norway. Or Denmark. Or the same as executing the disabled. Or the same as invading Yugoslavia, Greece, North Africa, the USSR. The same as bombing Guernica, or Rotterdam, or London, or Coventry. Or repressing freedom of thought, the right to protest, free speech, the right to choose your own government. Or using slave labour. Or suppressing homosexuality. Or promoting dangerous racial myths.)
The point Mr 'Self educated able to crush us conversationally' was to write a quick response by invoking the most well known action of the Nazis. The point remains the same.
How is it you've debated so many people and yet seem to remain unaware of the basic uses of speech and writing? Skeptico used the deaths of 6 million Jews and not everything else for the sake of brevity. Something you could well apply to your own posts.
So you think that you are still justified in calling us Nazis because on an online, voluntary, blog we have been rude to some idiots whilst pointing out why whatever nonsense they believed was idiotic? We make no threats of physical violence, restraint or torture and engage in no suppression of any rights in regards to their freedom of action, thought or speech (in fact, Skeptico encourages well thought out and reasoned dissent). Somehow though you are certain this equates to the Gestapo, the suppression of dissent by physical means and the imprisonment followed by torture and deaths of said dissenters.
Once again I point out that you should be ashamed of yourself you infantile moron. Your historical knowledge is puerile and pathetic (and I'm being kind) and your continued affront to the victims of Nazism is a disgrace any sane person would have dropped and apologised for.
I'll point out even the most basic fact you seem unable to grasp first, you can go from there. To be a Nazi you must be a member of the German National Socialist party. To the best of my knowledge, no one who posts here is.
You are an arrogant ignoramus. You demonstrate not even the slightest in depth knowledge of even a relatively small part of history, but you goad us to study more? Come on, test me. I dare you.
You've shown nothing because you can't. You are merely using a rheotrical trick that Karl Rove would be proud of, assert a lie until everyone accepts it as truth.
No, really?
And yet you demonstrate little or no evidence of this other than the ability to write long winded diatribes filled with jargon that impresses you but no-one else and contains little if any substance.
All of which amounts to nothing more than proof that it is possible to read and hear but still not understand.
If you're a troll then the games up, go back to your Legos before daddy finds you've been using his laptop. If you are really what you claim to be, then quit now whilst you are only really far behind. You're embarrassing yourself.
But wait, just as I am about to click post I see you've made some posts of substance (possibly), so at least for now we can suspend my comments about you not bothering to reply with anything of substance until I read your response.
Nonetheless I'll post this first.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | September 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Ok, on to the allegedly substance filled destruction of our arguments regarding poor defenceless Mora, who needs a big brave knight in shining armour to come charging to her rescue. Because, as we all know, women need a man to come charging to their rescue (oh don't worry, I'll elucidate this point later.)
I will only be responding to Guitardis' comments regarding me, since I understand that even though HCN is a poor fragile woman she is capable of looking after herself and doesn't need the kind of patronising defence awarded to Mora.
First there is the lengthy introduction (my you do like the sound of your own voice, we did get Mora's version, we don't need yours), seemingly designed to portray Mora as someone too dim to think clearly about anything. It seems to Guitardis at least that you have to be smart to think clearly about something, and not just smart but further education smart. Unless of course you are Guitardis, and then you can be self educatedly smart. But Mora obviously can't be. Because he/she knows Mora so much better than we did/do. So he can be smart enough to educate himself, but not Mora. She doesn't have the time.
Mora is unable to think clearly about the Secret because she can't is Guitardis' message, she isn't clever enough, or simply too busy, or to simple to overcome the prejudices she was brought up with. But I'm the one who is an ass to her.
Guitardis seems convinced that no-one can overcome their background unless they happen to be one of the privileged few. I gave Mora the benefit of the doubt, I've known people a lot smarter than me and with no formal education (don't flatter yourself Guitardis, you are most certainly not one of them) and applied that courtesy to Mora except in respect to her belief in the Secret. Smart people can believe dumb things.
What Guitardis is arguing is that if you are the sort of person he/she does not consider smart, you are incapable of rational, reasonable or intelligent though. If you think about something, and that something happens, then your thought must have created it is the thought process all 'non-smart' people must take apparently.
Could you be any more patronising?
WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE VERY THING JIMMY IS ATTEMPTING TO DECRY, HOW IS THIS RELEVANT?
It is relevant because it goes to the heart of the Secret and the Law of Attraction. Haven't you been paying attention? Of course, if you don't want us to refer to the Law of Attraction you've missed the point completely.
Let's define some terms, so at least we are talking about the same thing:
The Law of Attraction
1. Know what you want and ask the universe for it.
2. Feel and behave as if the object of your desire is on its way.
3. Be open to receiving it.
My question would have allowed Mora to say yes she had hoped she was going to lose her job, no she hadn't, no because she'd been fervently asking the Universe to keep it, no but she had been worried about it etc etc.
It was a question intended to get her to start thinking about events that had occurred to her, in terms of the Law of Attraction, from a different perspective. She viewed it only in terms of the positive. I gave her the benefit of the doubt in assuming she was capable of looking at it differently. It's too bad you didn't, but it speaks volumes about you.
IN THREE WEEKS, LIKELY NOT MANY. THEN SHE GOT A CALL REGARDING A POSITION SHE HAD NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR... DER! TRY AND KEEP UP!
Because apparently poor little uneducated Mora couldn't use the internet. Oh wait... Even if she only applied once a day, that's 21. That's a lot of jobs by any stretch. And Mora said nothing about posting her resume online. And we know that employers never check job sites and call people who have never applied to them.
Again, apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of information gathering. It goes like this - someone asks a question to get more details to fill in the blanks so they don't have to make incorrect assumptions, the person asked a question responds. Information is gathered.
On top of that, the question was again intended to get Mora to think about the things you apparently deem her incapable of thinking about. See if you can figure out what.
HOW CAN SHE POSSIBLY ANSWER THIS? WHAT WAS SHE SUPPOSED TO DO, CONDUCT A SURVEY AFTER THE FACT?
Good grief, seriously? Once again for the slow-witted - the questions were intended to get Mora to examine the Secret from a different perspective. If she could think about even a fraction of the people who she had spoken to about needing a car then it may have helped her see that it was not some manifestation of her desire and wishes, but chance and the dissemination of information. I figured she could do this, we know now you think that people need to not rise above their station. This is probably why you have so much trouble understanding my pretty benign intention in the first post.
MORA HAS TOLD YOU THIS ALREADY JIMMY - PAY ATTENTION!
I wanted Mora to think back and examine if she had been focusing in the same way or on the same things before she had watched the Secret - this would then put lie to the idea that the Secret works whether you use it or not. Try seeing past the end of your nose.
ALREADY DEALT WITH! MUST TRY HARDER! PLUS MORA HAS ALREADY DESCRIBED HER EDUCATIONAL SHORTCOMINGS, IF YOU WANT HER TO INTELLIGENTLY DEAL WITH JARGON TERMS LIKE 'CONFIRMATION BIAS' IT IS INCUMBENT ON YOU, NOT HER, TO MAKE AT LEAST SOME ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THEM, UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOUR INTENTION IS NOT TO EDUCATE BUT MERELY TO BELITTLE.
Not really dealt with. And again we have the idea being implied by Guitardis that Mora can't educate herself. I assumed that if Mora didn't know the term she could look it up, and thereby come across more skeptical material than just what she had found here. I assumed Mora could educate herself, or that she might already know the term (you can learn stuff outside school and university you know - remember you self educated yourself. Apparently you think Mora can't though. Interesting.) I gave her the benefit of the doubt so I didn't come off as a patronising ass because I was trying not to alienate her in this first post.
RHETORICAL WAFFLE - SO WHAT?
So, any point you don't understand becomes rhetorical waffle? The point was to illustrate that what had been marketed to Mora as new, exciting and mystical was in fact just common sense and down to earth. Good old hard work that someone had packaged up and was charging people for.
Please at least try to understand what has been written before jumping on it Guitardis.
DITTO, PLUS PATRONISING INTO THE BARGAIN - ALSO, IN THIS CONTEXT IT'S 'YOUR' HARD WORK, JIMMY, NOT 'YOU'RE' HARD WORK - AT LEAST LEARN TO USE A SPELLCHECKER, OR BETTER YET, REFRAIN FROM FUTHER COMMENT UNTIL YOU FINISH YOUR EDUCATION.
Say what now? I try to encourage someone who was obviously having a hard time of things and try to encourage her to take some well deserved responsibility for the good that she has earned and you call me patronising. You claim Mora needs you to defend her, that she is not smart enough to educate herself or to understand big words and fancy ideas, and you are some sort of hero to be respected?
Seriously? Oh wait, my trying to encourage and not be a dick to her doesn't fit into your pre-concieved notions does it, so you have to shoe horn and misinterpret. Won't work here I'm afraid.
HAVE ANY OF YOU KNOW-IT-ALLS PAID ANY ATTENTION AT ALL TO 'THE SECRET' BEFORE CASTIGATING IT OUT OF HAND? IN THE 'THEORY' AS STATED,'WISHING' HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OBTAINING A POSITIVE OUTCOME AND MAY EVEN, ACCORDING TO 'THE SECRET'S STATED PREMISE, BE ACTIVELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
Actually, wishing has everything to do with it, the difference is that proponents of the Law and the Secret have managed to convince people like you and Mora it is something else. Look up any definiton of wishing and tell me how it differs from the definition of the Law of Attraction above in anything other than semantics. Notice also that even though I said 'working and wishing for', you quote mined to attempt to make your point. You were dishonest, and stupid enough to post the original quote for everyone to see how you misquoted it.
REFER MY PRECEDING COMMENT. 'WISHING' AND 'WANTING' PRESUME AND, IN 'THE SECRET'S TERMS, UNDERPIN AND ACTIVELY REINFORCE PERCEIVED PRE-EXISTING LACK AND/OR DANGER AND HARDSHIP. I'M NOT DEFENDING 'THE SECRET' HERE, MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THESE AND ALL SIMILAR EMOTIVELY VICIOUS, IF TEDIOUSLY, CONSISTENTLY WAY OFF THE MARK CRITICISMS THAT FOLLOW FROM THE CIRCLING PACK ARE BASED ON A FUNDAMENTAL MISAPPREHENSION OF PRECISELY WHAT IT IS THAT 'THE SECRET' ACTUALLY ASSERTS; SOMETHING MORA GETS EVEN IF THE REST OF YOU DON'T.
Your preceding comment was dishonest and shows that you actually don't understand what the Law and the Secret are about. You've been fooled by the wrapping paper. This point goes to show that the Law places blame on the victims, whilst also contradicting itself.
The law works even though you don't know it.
Worrying negatively can bring a negative outcome.
If you worry about rape, you might be raped - the Law of attraction would cause this apparently.
However, if your desire not to be raped is stronger than your worry about being raped (even subconsciously - remember it works whether you are aware of it or not), and you worked toward not being raped and acted in such a way as if this were not going to happen to you, how is it possible for this to still occur? The Law of Attraction must be broken or it doesn't exist.
Or, it places all blame squarely and completely on the victim. What then does that mean for the perpertrator? Are they innocent because they are merely acting as an agent of the Law of Attraction?
How could you punish someone for acting in accordance with a natural law?
I assumed that Mora might be able to think about all of this. I thought that perhaps she just hadn't thought about these things before. I assumed she was smart enough to think about it.
You, because you think she is dumb, can't comprehend the point of my questions.
See if, with all your compassion for Mora and horror for our treatment of her, you can understand what this did to her and what it would mean for her actions towards her own children. She, in the end, blames herself for her abuse and instead of seeking help in the form of victim counselling and deep friendships accepted the blame as a direct result of accepting the Secret and the Law of Attraction.
You might be happy with that, I'm not. Because once that house of cards comes down, what does that mean for Mora and those around her in coming to terms with her horrific experience once again?
Because it was in the news at the time. Because the very horrific nature of it would hopefully make Mora think about the negative implications of the Secret. Because a good news story plays right into the hands of the promoters of the Secret and the Law of Attraction.
Do I have to do all your thinking for you?
Hypotheticals would not have had the impact this would have. Examples from history would not have had the impact because they are emotionally distant. Good grief you are lazy.
Oh, you can see now what my mental state was then? Very impressive. That you think someone would find delight in that says more about you than it does about me though. And you understand my motives even though you clearly demonstrate you have no idea? And you know that this caused Mora emotional pain? And you knew that as a parent I chose this because it was the most likely to provide the shock that might actually get Mora, as a parent, to take a step back and re-examine her beliefs?
You see, I believed then and believe now that Mora could change her views. She just went on to show that nothing we really said was going to help affect that at the time.
I understand full well what the Law says about horror coming into people's lives. What you fail to understand is that this makes the Law unfalsifiable - it makes it pseudo-science. It also has unpleasant implications for victims and justice.
What it also says is that even if people wish for, work towards and fully believe in the good of something, the negative outweighs it. Which makes a mockery of the 3 points at the centre of the Law I posted above. Which makes the Law worthless.
Which makes it untestable, but more importantly unknowable. It also does not reflect the world we daily percieve, since bad things still happen to good people even when they are working heart, body and soul towards the good in their lives. The negativity side of the Secret is the get out clause that stops people asking for their money back. And you and Mora have fallen for it.
Further adding to the evidence that the Secret is unfalsifiable and untestable - you've always been using, it's always working, whatever has happened has happened because of you. Of course, it could be what the rest of us just call life and there has been nothing governing it. The Secret is working all the time, especially when it looks like it isn't. And people fall for this and defend it.
Oh look, another strawman. And an incredibly stupid one. We don't blame Mora for anything because we don't think she caused anything to happen to herself through the Law of Attraction because we don't think the Law of Attraction exists. The Secret, it's proponents and indeed Mora herself blame Mora for everything that has happened to her. Don't you even remotely get it? Do you even try to just vaguely grasp an argument before responding to it?
Then there's a lot more of your metaphysical nonsense. Already dealt with that, not going to bother again.
Nobody did, has or would trivialise child abuse here. However, you apparently think that if you throw enough shit some will stick.
The point, which you manifestly seem to have missed, is that Mora needed proper victim counselling and instead got the Secret. Yes this may help her come to terms with it, even in it's own twisted blame the victim way, but when one day that comes crashing down, what then? How much more of her will be invested in the Secret then?
Yes we know this, you're not impressing anyone. The problem was the reasons she gave for blaming herself because of the danger those views presented to the people in her care - her own children. Don't you understand exactly what she is saying here? She didn't just accept blame for what had happened to her, she developed a view she could apply to the rest of the world that she then reinforced with the Secret and was glibly promoting over the internet as if it was one of those alternative viewpoints you think we should summarily treat with respect.
Quite the callous one aren't you, no matter what you pretend. Hopefully you don't work with the mentally ill or mentally vulnerable because this attitude is completely irresponsible. Your subjective ladder could break all to easily genius.
You are quite the hypocrite aren't you?
It harms me not at all. Unless of course she comes into contact with me in the outside world, and then who knows how her beliefs may guide her actions and affect me. And what about her children - how do you know how this has or is affecting them? How do you know she isn't or wasn't letting abuse happen to her children because she believed they deserved it? Neither you or I know. Yet there I was talking with someone whose worldview said child abuse was deserved. And you are happy to let her keep believing something that could enable horrific behaviour to be repeated because it won't affect you. What a noble soul you are.
Yes, because you obviously know what would have happened and how we would have treated her if she had suddenly started to question her beliefs. What else do you see in your crystal ball?
You're pissed because you think we acted despicably to a fragile little flower. I was and still am pissed that this woman will raise her children to think if they are raped they deserved it because of something they did in a former life. My conscience is clear whether I acted like a dick to Mora or not.
Tell it like it really is Guitardis:
Mora doesn't appear to get science, so she is probably a woo and makes statements to back this assumption up. And she thinks that children who are raped deserve it because of something from a former life and because of the action of something called the Law of Attraction, and that would extend to her own children. That's just insane, dangerous and twisted. Let's all try and show her how she's wrong, and yes we'll be mean and aggressive and almost certainly come off as a dick (at least to one arrogant wanker in a year's time), but holy crap look what she is promoting. Do we want to be polite, or right?
Yes, it does. The fact that you don't get this is really part of the problem.
Bullshit. She says it flat out. You can try and play semantic games if you want because you are desperate to paint her as the poor helpless victim and yourself as the knight on his noble steed, but she never once demonstrates how we are wrong in our summation of her position.
Good grief you are a pompous wanker.
Boy, you really are trying to get into this heroic role you've imagined for yourself aren't you? Pray tell, at what point did she break? At what point did she need you to speak for her?
What, more hypocrisy? I thought you said that we couldn't tell something about a person just becase of what they had written here?
Yes I did. No it didn't. When you have seen enough woo arguments, they stand out very quickly.
Upon reading Mora's post she agreed with me. I didn't say it was infallible (easy on the strawmen), perhaps your command of the English language is not as you like to pretend. Unless you know of some definition of 'suspicion' that implies the infallibility of an opinion, that I am not aware of.
And here we get to what I said I would elucidate on earlier.
My wife is more than willing to share her thoughts with me, especially when she vehemently disagrees with me. Only, she didn't disagree.
The fact that she did agree with me doesn't play into your carefully developed fantasy of defending Mora from a bunch of us nasty, male, skeptics though does it?
See Guitardis, unlike you I believe all that stuff about women and men being equal. They don't need me to come to their rescue a year after the event; they don't need me to tell others what they were really thinking; they are not afraid to voice their opinions around me; they are not afraid to argue with me; I respect them as individuals (but not necessarily their beliefs); I even think that, horror of horrors, they can hold informed opinions and be educated. I don't even need to make myself feel big by pretending women need my help. Unlike you it would seem. The tone of patronising misogyny runs through your posts quite palpably.
And yes, my wife did point this out before I even mentioned it when she read your posts.
Incidentally, just to further poke a hole in your fantasy, HCN is also a woman I believe. I am aso fairly certain that there is a poster in the thread you are looking at (or one of the others involving Mora and the sock puppet she introduced) who criticises Mora, and was herself a victim of sexual assualt.
Because I didn't think she was one. Now you on the other hand I think we can safely apply the term to. OOh, and throw some more shit around to imply I'm racist as well. Very mature of you. Of course, we've already been through the fact that you should be ashamed of yourself for dragging up those terms in relation to this, so no need to cover that ground again.
Refer to my comments about those comments.
Not even close.
Since what would go in your book would make domesticated cattle seem incisive, witty and charming I think I'll get over whatever it is you think about anything.
Identifying sarcasm is not one of your strong points is it?
Now who needs to go back and read Mora's posts? Don't worry, we can wait while you find the quotes you have included in this post of yours.
There we go again, poor innocent fragile little flower needs big brave me to fight evil twisted skeptics. I'll bet we all have hunchbacks in your little fantasy too, right?
Of that there is no doubt, but I'm sorry to dissappoint you. I really don't care.
The point you seem to miss is that real laws of nature don't rely on what we are wishing for in order to function. They just are. A further point is that we can test their existence. We can't test the Law of Attraction, since apparently whatever happens is meant to, no matter what.
And if she hasn't that is even more reason to be dismayed and angry.
If you had bothered to think about her argument for even a moment you would see that yes she does condone those things. She believes that you get what you deserve from things passed over from a former life, and that you get what you wish from the Law of Attraction. She believes, from her own philosopy and from the Secret, that people get what they deserve. So yes, she does condone what happens to them.
Ask Mora, that was her argument not mine.
You really ought to try and understand what Mora explicitly says, as well as what she implies. You clearly have not. Note again, Mora had plent of opportunity to say, "In point of fact this is exactly how you are wrong, this is what I said." She didn't. I'll take her words (or lack of) over yours. I believe she is capable of speaking for herself you see.
Yes she does, and the Law of Attraction taken to it's logical conclusion also says the same thing.
No, I'd rather she recieve proper counselling and care, not just whatever temporary fix makes her feel happy for now.
Are you really that delusional? Try reading what Mora actually wrote, not what you think she wrote in your little fantasy so that you could come riding to her rescue. I've said my piece and it is there for all to see and make their own mind up. What's most important is what she said or did not say on the matter, not what you wanted her to say.
Now, I saved this for last.
Really, you want to go there? Seriously? You of the run on sentences, appalling gramma, frequent spelling mistakes and pointless jargon? You who didn't notice the mistakes I deliberately placed in my first lengthy reply to you, just to see if you were as good as you think you are? Incidentally, a spellchecker wouldn't have noticed this anyway since "you're" is spelt correctly.
But, despite that, take a close look at that paragraph in your post. See the mistake yet? Tell me Guitardis, how is 'further' spelt again?
If you are going to pick on typos, try not to make your own in the same paragraph.
Otherwise you might end up looking like a complete twat.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 01, 2008 at 03:28 AM
Can anybody parse that sentence (yes, only one!) so that it actually makes any sense? Stripping out the parenthetical asides and clauses which don't add any significant meaning, I'm left with:
"I am quite well aware of the existence of other people whose appearance I do not think it reasonable to suppose are being generated by my own consciousness - you will insist that it is whereas I had acquired an appreciation for the works and ideas of Fred Alan Wolfe and Amit Goswami, who both think otherwise."
There's clearly something missing - either a couple of additional clauses, or a clue. Presumably this is some kind of oblique reference to now-discredited ideas about the (non-existent) interface between quantum mechanics and consciousness, although exactly what that has to do with accusations of solipsism escapes me. The question has been resolved, and consciousness has sod-all to do with quantum mechanics. That's the thing about science - it moves on.
I'll take "auto-refutation" for $1000 please Alex. The fact that you seem to think that because someone has a PhD they can't be a "woo" is a clear indication that you don't get science. Newton was an alchemist.
Do you even realise what you've just said? Given the choice of "get it right or else", you chose "or else". Indeed you do...
Posted by: Dunc | October 01, 2008 at 05:17 AM
Dear Nine,
(@Sept 30 9.31pm)
Good and interesting comments/feedback.
...........................
"While Jimmy Blue and others were right (very right) and Mora was wrong (very wrong), I was disappointed in the amount of ad hominem that Jimmy fell back on. It just didn't feel needed or effective. Now, I understand and acknowledge that you guys certainly aren't writing to please your readers, but if your goal with this blog is to inform and inspire people to embrace skepticism and science, then it seems like less ad hominem would be a good idea."
...........................
Just for the sake of clarity, ad hominem means attacking the person instead of challenging their arguments. What Jimmy Blue was doing was probably better described as an insult - because, as you acknowledge, his arguments were very clearly stated. But your meaning is still perfectly clear.
If you look at the context of Mora's comments, her approach was very different from yours here. She didn't bother reading the article, she made it immediately clear that she wasn't interested in considering her position. She also shared private details, expecting that people accept that as evidence and allow her statements to stand. There's no point posting anything here unless you are prepared to consider the responses, and are prepared to express your ideas clearly.
.....................
"...So I already don't feel terribly welcome to this community."
.....................
What I like about your comment is that essentially, you have made the points that "Stef" was trying to make, except you used about 5% of the space he's needed, with 0% of the insults and ranting. As a semi-regular commenter, I welcome that approach.
Posted by: yakaru | October 01, 2008 at 05:28 AM
Just wanted to add some extras I forgot to or didn't have time for last night:
Guitardis:
You have made one other assumption, you presume Mora was telling the truth. It turns out from later posts that there is the distinct possiblity she was a troll. That she may have been making stuff up.
Consider this as well. Why did she bring up her child abuse? For sympathy? To try and give her position and arguments authority? Was she lying about it?
You have already made the point that you know nothing about anybody simply from the internet unless they reveal it, and even then you do not know if it was the truth.
Do you know if I have been abused (I haven't, but last night you did not know that)? Do I know if you have? Do you know if anyone else who has posted here has been? Do you know for certain that Mora had been? I don't, but I gave her the benefit of the doubt and for what it was worth she had my deepest sympathy - but it was not going to affect the way I dealt with her arguments.
Nine:
While Jimmy Blue and others were right (very right) and Mora was wrong (very wrong), I was disappointed in the amount of ad hominem that Jimmy fell back on.
Here I was actually parodying Guitardis/Stef's style to make a point. He thought it was ok to throw around insults and claim he wasn't - I did the same and used the same justification for it as he did in order to highlight his abusrd hypocrisy. As for elsewhere, I see no reason to be polite about the ridiculous. If it is idiotic, why should we not say so?
if your goal with this blog is to inform and inspire people to embrace skepticism and science, then it seems like less ad hominem would be a good idea.
A good point, but unfortunately when you deal with the level of crap we do on an almost constant basis then patience really is a virtue, one I don't have and one I don't necessarily see the value of in every circumstance.
Please do note though that if you come here politely, bother to read what has already been written and consider it before posting you own point of view then there is no need for you to feel unwelcome - just be prepared to defend yourself against robust questioning of your position.
The problem we have is either with people who start out as an ass like Stef/Guitardis, or people like Mora who do not bother reading what has gone before, rehash old arguments and even recognise they are being deliberately provocative. As I have said already - disagreement is fine, it is encouraged, but at least make an effort to either not be an ass about it or be original and show you have considered the skeptical point of view carefully and thoughtfully.
I do think this is a little unfair though:
but now I have this nasty little feeling in the back of my head that if I were to comment, ask a question, or challenge something written (like I am right now), I would be immediately attacked and assumed to be a "woo."
I see no reason to arbitrarily declare you a woo, you are merely expressing an understandable distate for insults - dissent is allowed, questioning is positively encouraged and challenges are welcome. The key is the manner in which they are expressed and the nature of them.
I really can't stress this enough because it is a common misconception being reinforced by people like Guitardis - disagreement is not the problem, the manner and nature of it is. Check out the recent GM foods debate before Mike Huben showed up. There is an old post around here where we all had a perfectly civil discussion with someone promoting astrology, because she was polite, dealt with our critcisms and carefully considered both our position and her own. They are just a couple that first spring to mind.
Don't be discouraged because we deal with people like Guitardis in the same manner they deal with us.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 01, 2008 at 09:33 AM
As I previously pointed out to Skepticock:
Wanker: One who masturbates. That pretty well includes everyone doesn't it, Jimmy? And puts me in about the broadest classification this side of 'air-breathing'. If for some no-doubt dreadfully unfortunate reason it doesn't include you (you poor poor chap) that most probably explains your seemingly congenitally constipated state. Otherwise, I dare say you'd find better more convivial or productive things to do with your time.
To clear up a couple of other points while I'm at it.
Oddly enough, as HCN had previously said she had given birth, I had already tumbled to the fact that she was a woman . Just a good guesser I guess..
The word is 'Grammar', Jimmy not gramma! However as I suppose typos are an unavoidable fact of life (I've spell-checked and proof-read and double and triple and quadruple checked and still missed them) I won't henceforth go on poking you about them - pots and kettles and all that..
To respond to your attempted justifications for your inexcusable rudeness toward someone more deserving of your sympathy than your scorn, only bullies, thugs and sadistic animal trainers, attempt to educate anyone or anything with a whip, and only self-aggrandising narcissistic arseholes think it's OK to inflict hurt or distress on other people for their own good. Your dreadful behaviour and piss-poor logic doesn't stand-up no matter how often you repeat it..
As for failing to make valid points, falsely conflating, resorting to ad hominem etc.
The only - now read very carefully here, THE ONLY point I have at any point in these diatribes attempted to make is that your behaviour has been that of intolerant boors and bullies. not that of rational educators, genuinely concerned to any noticeable degree for the well-being of those you so gratuitously brutalise. I make and have, at no point made no criticism - read that again - NO CRITICISM, of any other aspect of your scientific world-view.
What I will point out however, (and if I'm wrong I'm sure one of you elevated beings will compassionately point out how) is that whether you like it or not - and I perfectly well understand why you would not enjoy such a prospect any more than I myself do - merely because something is 'unfalsifiable' does not NECESSARILY make it untrue. It only makes it something you will never ever know about no matter how hard you look. It remains entirely possible that there are aspects, perhaps even critical pivotal aspects of reality which are finally utterly and forever beyond the ability of any bunch of dressed-up talking chimpanzees (to quote Marvin Minsky's wonderful definition) to investigate, or possibly even to notice, no matter how smart they like to flatter themselves that they are. Whilst I understand that such a proposition is widely considered scientific heresy, to insist that merely because something cannot be tested or definitively 'falsified' it cannot ergo be true, reminds me of the person who searches under the streetlight for his or her lost keys for no other reason than that this is the only place where there is sufficient light to look, when in fact the missing keys where more likely dropped some ways off in the surrounding impenetrable darkness. It should perhaps also be pointed out that should such a nightmare scenario, as an unfalsifiable proposition of whatever flavour ever seem the most likely explanation (for just about anything) 'wanking' as, at least a gratifying, if not actually a productive use of one's limited time and energy would make infinitely more sense as a course of action, than science. I however have at no time asserted nor even implied that such a desperately unsatisfying state of affairs either seems to be or actually is the case. Your jobs and intellectual hobby-horses therefore, are, for the moment, at least, probably safe enough, unlike those of all the sad-sack nitwit 'priests' 'mullahs' 'spiritual counsellors', 'witch-doctors' 'shamans' and the like, for whose dubious services, one would hope, demand is (albeit agonisingly slowly) steadily shrinking.
Finally, for those amongst you (JIMMY JIMMY) who still insist that I must be criticising science itself, or some (or any) aspect thereof, merely so you can keep on attacking me for things I have at no point either said or even implied, let me repeat the following, in words, as far as possible, of one syllable:
'Me not think secret good or right! got that? Think secret bad.. Not stand for up for it.. Just hate thick cruel thugs.. Also think Jim-mee one huge pratt! Me not fight for Mora.. No way.. She strong, not need me.. Me no knight and not think of self as great like you... So why you not laugh? Only have 'fun' like you.. You start game, me only play by your rule. You not think like me, so me word bash you. Also think best place to shit is place already stinks of shit...
Posted by: GUITARDIS | October 01, 2008 at 10:58 AM
GUITARDIS you stand accused of excessive verbosity, writing in all caps, callous disregard for punctuation and grammar and willful misuse of a thesaurus. How do you wish to plead?
Posted by: Ramel | October 01, 2008 at 12:57 PM
*Partial retraction* of my earlier comment - it came out as if I meant Jimmy was insulting Mora. I meant just to distinguish between ad hom and insulting.
I don't think Jimmy was insulting to Mora at all. She tried to support her argument using personal details, and all he did was question her and challenge her to apply her philosophy consistently.
Also, the viral marketing strategy used by the Secret turned its fans into aggressive marketers. Mora's tone was immediately strident and aggressive, exactly as the "virus" dictated. But because she was playing the "poor-struggling-victim-made-good" card, any questioning seems unsympathetic.
I hadn't realised Guitardis had posted a whole analysis of Jimmy's comments - I never read caps-lock rants. (I also don't posts containing baby-talk or insulting sexual language either.)
Jimmy, I admire your patience, as well as your humour, intelligence and insight.
Posted by: yakaru | October 01, 2008 at 01:35 PM
Feeling woozy..
See, here's the thing.. I honestly expected and wanted better from you people. I had (and retain regardless) a real interest in researching, the differing views that manifestly exist on a variety of admittedly controversial subjects in which, in varying degrees I have some or other degree of ongoing interest. I had initially hoped, on reading the list of subjects covered on Richard AKA Skeptico's site, that I had encountered a usefully sober grounding 'counterpoint' to some of the wild and wildly overstated arguments for this or that subject or alleged phenomena which the internet is otherwise rife with. I did not at first realise the mistake that I had made, that I had falsely 'conflated' science and civilisation. My reaction on discovering this error was, I now realise an entirely disproportionate anger toward a group of people whom I now realise, despite their overstated intellectual pretensions to the contrary, are just another entirely fallible group of dressed up talking monkeys.
As to how all this came about.
I recently watched the 'Medium' show about the fictionalised Allison Dubois and on hearing that it was supposedly based on the real exploits of a real person, 'googled' her to find out what if anything of what was portrayed on the quite entertaining TV show was in any way true. The first link I followed took me to the Wikipedia article on Mrs Dubois which was contentious at best. The next took me to an interview on 'YouTube' with the lady herself, in which she seemed personable enough but which otherwise told me very little beyond the outline supposed 'facts' I had already picked up. Certainly I was not 'sold' on either her purported history or her alleged 'abilities'. The next link I followed took me to the full blooded assault on Mrs Dubois this site.
Before I go into how this affected me, I should outline why I would even entertain for a moment the possibility that Mrs Dubois was not a-prior by definition a faker. The answer to this involves a number of facts and alleged facts and and a number of difficult to account for personal experiences that whether any of you (or anyone else for that matter) are prepared to acknowledge as 'real' or even possible or not, I cannot dismiss out of hand without some explanation more convincing than that I and competent others of my personal acquaintance have simply been 'taken-in' by tricks, outright lies, or delusional psychological states.
The first of these occurred when my father had his first heart attack, in the aftermath of which, he described how he had found himself viewing his own body lying on the floor, from a POV that was, as he described it, 'up against the ceiling, in the corner of the room', from which perspective he described seeing my mother come into the room and find him, and rush out again to phone the doctor. He described seeing the doctor, a personal friend of his, with whom he used to play golf, arrive and begin to work to resuscitate him. He 'saw' the ambulance personnel, when they arrived, put him on a gurney, and take him out to the ambulance parked outside. throughout all of which he felt neither pain nor distress but only a sense of bemusement. He remembered saying to himself throughout this experience, 'what are you doing laying down there? Get up you silly bugger! (he was Australian so this was normal speak for him) He blacked out, as he then recalled, 'coming to' in the ambulance in considerable pain and physical distress. The experience later amazed and bothered him, as much as anything because as a devout Roman catholic it was nothing like anything he had ever been taught to expect.
The second oddity came a year or so after my father's third myocardial infarction (to be precise) finally took him off some three or so years later. A woman previously unknown to our family, who turned out to be an alleged medium of some local repute, telephoned my mother completely out of the blue to say that she had received a message from my discarnate father for my mother in regard to a course of action she was contemplating in regard to one of my siblings who was having some serious problems of his own. The message is irrelevant here. What convinced my mother (also a devout Roman catholic) that it was 'genuine' was the highly accurate 'evidential' information presented to her featuring descriptions of specific items given to her by my father which she had long previously tucked away and which this woman, previously unknown to any of us, could not possibly have known about. In the course of a fascinating evening (at our home) the alleged medium described aspects of her mediumship including, and the part that most piqued my interest, her alleged ability to leave her body at will and travel in the so-called 'astral' realm. She told me that if I was interested, she could even help me to do the same thing. I said that I would indeed be interested in following this up, The woman left at the end of the evening and none of us ever saw her again. She did not ask for anything in return for the single specific 'service' she said was her only reason for contacting us. At my request she left a telephone number, however for reasons that now largely escape me, (quite possibly a goodly measure of trepidation) I never contacted her to see if she either would or could make good on her offer.
Some years after this I read Dr Raymond Moody's book 'Life After Life' and also Robert Monroe's book 'Journeys Out Of The Body'. I subsequently attempted Monroe's techniques with the result that I had at least one experience that, whilst in many ways maddeningly inconclusive, was nevertheless quite unlike anything I have ever experienced before or since. Some years after this, I had occasion to discuss these matters with a scientifically qualified friend of mine who recounted an experience he had previously had when, having come in from a day's hard work helping to renovate a friend's house, physically tired but still mentally alert, he had lain down on his couch to rest. Finding that the light on in the room was bothering his eyes,.he told me he had sat up intending to switch off the light, and reached out with this intention toward the nearby light switch. He told me he had then been astonished to see his 'hand' pass instead through the light switch. My friend told me he had turned back at that point, to see that he had, as he put it, 'sat-up' from the waist upward, half way out of his body which remained in its prone position on the couch. The experience shocked and frightened him so much that he said that he 'snapped back in' whereupon he promptly jumped up to put the kettle on for a cup of tea to steady his badly shaken nerves. My friend, a very 'hard-nosed' honest and habitually sceptical sort of chap who had amongst other things previously had a fascinating and successful career in the Royal Navy, told me that nothing like this had ever happened to him before or since.
Then there was the mother of a previous partner, whose husband (my then partner's father) had died (protractedly and painfully of Hodgkin's Disease) shortly before I met them. The lady, had been suffering badly from the grief of her loss. This lady (with whom I am still on friendly terms) came in from work one day looking distinctly ragged around the edges, and went upstairs to lie down. She came down the stairs maybe half an hour later practically glowing. She said she had looked up from where she had been laying, to see her late husband looking fit and well standing by the side of the bed, smiling down at her. She was absolutely convinced that this was not a dream in the normal sense of the word, and whilst continuing to experience the practical difficulties of her bereavement, found her mood and general state of being lifted to the extent that she quickly regained the greater part of her previous poise, energy and vibrance. Where she had gotten into the habit of visiting (and weeping at) the site where her husband's ashes were interred, she found that she no longer needed to do this, being convinced from that day forth, where previously she had been (as a lifelong pragmatic atheist) entirely unconvinced, that her husband, whilst obviously still physically absent from her life was existing and thriving on another 'plane' of existence.
More recently, my current partner told me, that she had had a 'conversation' as she put it, as a child, with her deceased grand-mother whom she had never met in life, who seemed at first to be solidly physically present in the room with her but who had vanished in front of her eyes shortly before her mother came into the room. When she described this experience to her mother, that lady became quite annoyed and insisted she must either have been dreaming or was making stuff up. Her highly sceptical mother, however, was subsequently herself convinced when she had a similar experience in which she was told exactly where to look to find some money which her deceased mother had hidden away years before in an unlikely place. I have, employing 'the razor' attempted, at one time or another, a number of 'rational' hypotheses to explain these events, however I have now learned to shut-up about them as my partner who is neither deranged, dishonest, stupid, or in any way that I am aware of, religious, becomes quite angry if I suggest that she should, as she sees it, doubt the evidence of her senses. .
These, together with other rare events I have personally witnessed or experienced that (both at the time and since) have seemed not to fit the pattern of normal 'run of the mill' experiences, have left me less than certain that the strictly materialist hypothesis holds water, to the extent that I now believe (for want of a better word) that the brain is not the generator of consciousness, but is instead, merely something that consciousness finds useful, an interface device between 'fields' of differing frequencies. These events to mention but two include an unexpected telephone call from a relative I had neither spoken to nor heard from or about for a long time, where, without my prior knowledge of his sudden illness and before a word had even been spoken, I just 'knew' in advance, as subsequently proved to be the case, with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, that I was about to be asked for one of my kidneys, and a startling, disturbing, and entirely unexpected precognitive dream, the like of which I have not experienced either before or since, which left me certain without knowing why, that I would shortly have to move out of a flat I liked and had until then thought I would be in for years. The dream subsequently proved reliably prophetic when my landlord came round the very next day to give me two months notice to quit due to unexpected (and previously unknown to me) developments in his life that meant he would soon require the flat for himself.
For these and other reasons, which do not sit easily with my otherwise pragmatic, powerfully anti-religious or superstitious nature, I really wanted to know if there was anything besides 'smoke and mirrors' to the Allison Dubois story.
Which brings me back to precisely how it was I came to stumble on this site. Whilst I was shocked at the vehemence of Richard AKA Skeptico's treatment and dismissal of Mrs Dubois. (even presuming her alleged transgressions) I was not at that point, 'turned off', as I have since become, from the site. I did want, at the time, to know what 'Richard' and other contributors to his blog thought of a variety of issues related to the matters I have described as well as to others I have not.
A good friend of mine, a charming, but in my view somewhat gullible lady, who is, to my amusement and occasional irritation, rather too uncritically favourably predisposed toward homoeopathy and similar, 'out-there' 'alternatives' had recently suggested I watch something I had not then heard of called 'The Secret'. I accepted the loan of the DVD and with a large pinch of salt readily to hand sat down to watch it. As others have similarly expressed, I picked up the gist of the thing in the first few minutes, following which I think I probably dozed off. I have since attempted to watch it on one other occasion, but found that the constant repetition over and over of the same simplistic assertions, together with the hypnotic relaxing 'swirly' music soon has me drifting off. As a mood piece, divorced from any requirement for ongoing attention or analysis, it's by no means an unpleasant experience. I wholeheartedly recommend it, in fact, to anyone who has difficulty sleeping. I couldn't take it seriously though. I grasped what it was trying to say readily enough, but much as I might have liked it to be true. I didn't think for a moment that it was. It reminded me of any number of glib American, 'new-age' marketing exercises I have previously encountered aimed at uncritical people, insufficiently well educated to properly appraise its unlikely premise. Beyond its basic improbability though, it seemed harmless enough. Once bought and paid for, it wasn't asking for money or enjoining it's listeners to engage in objectionable antisocial behaviours. If it makes people happy (or helps them to sleep) good luck to them I say. There are a great many far far worse ways to spend one's time and/or money and if it helps far less critical people than I am to deal with their otherwise difficult lives, I repeat, despite Jimmy_Blue's (and other's) hysterical 'Chicken-Little' terrors of the dire consequences and horrendously extrapolated implications he and they see as inevitably following any failure to reject it out of hand, where's the harm?
I still can see nothing in it to justify the vitriol gratuitously poured on the one clearly well-meaning if philosophically confused person, who had either had the temerity or, more likely the lack of awareness, going in, of the character of the people she was addressing, to recommend it..
Owing to my parent's immersion in the dreadful Roman cult,I have spent a significant part of my life arguing vociferously with Roman catholics about the relative merits of their ghastly historically unjustifiable and philosophically unsupportable superstition, versus the 'enlightenment' of reason and science. I have found that no matter what arguments are offered whether moral, historical or scientific, you actually can't tell Roman catholics anything at all, for the devastatingly simple reason that they 'know' it all already. It is not, despite Richard AKA Skeptico's and his contributors' protestations to the contrary, to falsely conflate science and religion, but merely to report the resemblance in everything but name, of the behaviours (and even some of the arguments employed) to point out that you people are every bit as certain of your own supposed righteous infallibility. (and even your self-appointed duty to convert)
All of the above aside, I do sincerely apologise, as I have already (albeit neither graciously nor particularly convincingly) conveyed to him, for calling Richard a fatuous twat. As I told him though, not that it's any excuse, I was half-asleep at the time and already hovering on the edge of rage at the bloody Tinnitus I have recently developed in both ears (for no apparent reason) when I did so. I was also profoundly, and not unreasonably annoyed that instead of waiting for my further comments (whether any of you think they were worth waiting for or not) which I had already told him I was preparing on the Mora thread, he chose instead to sneer that he didn't think I had anything worthwhile to say to him, when at the time he had no other reason than his own supercilious presumption to suggest this. All of this notwithstanding, I knew I had overstepped the mark the moment after I sent the comment. If it's any consolation to him, I felt bad about it (but only this) then and still do. I stand, absolutely solidly, however, by my criticisms of Jimmy_Blue's (in particular) twisted logic and entirely unnecessary and utterly inappropriately rejoiced-in brutality of word and sentiment alike toward someone manifestly (however he tries to wriggle away from the obvious fact) less able to marshall and express their thoughts than he represents himself to be.
As far as any subsequent 'sexual' insults and swear words are concerned,.Richard called me a 'wanker' after I had admitted to him that my fatigued and depleted state at the time of my (impulsive and unnecessary) fatuous twat comment was no excuse for that entirely disproportionate response to his sneering retorts. When Jimmy subsequently repeated this rather silly observation (it being my contention that just about everybody is a wanker) I merely repeated to him what I had previously conveyed to Richard on the subject.
As far as content is concerned, you're all quite obviously going to maintain your, in my view unjustifiable and frankly idiotic* slavishly closed ranks in regard to defence of Jimmy's (and others) self-appointed duty and presumed right to intolerantly abuse, (as opposed to patiently and compassionately persuade) those you all manifestly perceive as your intellectual inferiors.
(*in that it is manifestly counterproductive to your presumed intent - unless, of course, your intent is merely to preach to the choir)
I maintain that I have never at any point even suggested that I was in dispute with any part of the actual scientific substance of Richard AKA Skeptico's blog, but only with the smugly self-satisfied, self-aggrandising style, no part of my criticism of which do I in any part withdraw.
To (no doubt) all of your relief, this will be my final posting on this or any subject to Richard AKA Skeptico's site, as I really do have far far better and infinitely more pressing things to do with my time. You will (equally no doubt) go on congratulating yourselves for some time to come on your (falsely presumed) 'victory' but I will no longer bother to look.
Bored now.. Bye.....
Posted by: GUITARDIS | October 01, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Guitardis, that comment has some actual content, so I am prepared to respond.
I, and probably others here, see experiences like you describe in a more sympathetic light than you seem to expect.
The problem only starts when someone starts claiming that they have irrefutable knowledge about what they experienced. The experience is one thing, but the MEMORY of the experience is another.
Why not just remember the experience as "holy heck, what was that! I will never forget the impression that it made on me, whatever it was"? Why not just leave it as a personal, profound, mind-blowing and humbling experience?
Instead many people rush to INTERPRET their memory of the experience in a way that makes them *special* and *spiritual*.
The whole new age movement is exploiting the feeling for the profound, and actually destroying sensitivity for such experiences, as well as necessarily dumbing down intelligence to stop people questioning it.
I can't see any reason to dismiss a straight forward report of an experience. Just the interpretation, or worse, the claim that it is somehow disrespectful to question the interpretation, is what I object to.
Posted by: yakaru | October 02, 2008 at 05:35 AM
For those of you who are sick to the back teeth of sifting through the ridiculous prose for some hint of meaning, I've condensed that post into something more readable. In some cases, of course, I'm just making a best guess, so forgive me if some of the original meaning is lost in translation.
I'm interested in skepticism and was hoping for a good debate, but you guys are just mean. And you're monkeys.
I Googled Allison Dubois a bit. I hadn't made up my mind about her when I came across this site.
I didn't want to assume she was a heartless lying bitch without more proof.
My father had an NDE. It was amazing.
My mother and I were duped by a charlatan just like Dubios.
I read a book about OOBEs and my scientifically qualified friend said he once had an OOBE. When he was tired. Resting on the couch. It was amazing.
A lady who was mourning the loss of her husband went upstairs to lie down. She met her dead husband. It was sooooo not a dream.
My current partner met her deceased grandmother as a child. It was amazing and totally unexplainable.
I believe in woo because I have experienced stuff I can't explain. I also exhibit prescient tendencies. No, really.
I want the truth!
Although Skeptico was mean about Dubios, I kept on reading. To find the truth!
I don't believe in the Secret, and it's harmless.
There's nothing wrong in insisting that rape victims had it coming.
Skepticism is your religion.
Sorry for calling Skeptico a fatuous twat, but Jimmy_Blue totally deserves all the long-winded crap I hurled at him because I refuse to listen to what he's actually saying.
I am a wanker.
You guys suck.
I believe in science OK?! You guys still suck.
I have other blogs to be arrogant and annoying as hell on. Bye.
Phew... Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out!
Posted by: Fleegman | October 02, 2008 at 06:22 AM
Oh, thank you for that summary Fleegman. I am just passing through and my eyes glazed over at all that verbosity. I caught my name and searched up thread and noticed it was about comments I made over 18 months ago!
I could not be bothered.
(actually I am participating in the Scienceblog book discussion).
Thanks.
Posted by: HCN | October 02, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Lot to reply to here.
Guitardis:
Wow, what wit and command of the English language you demonstrate. Only, as we are about to see, as with the rest of your knowledge your command of the English language is not as great as you think.
If you think you know the complete definition of the term wanker when in fact you don't, yes it may well include everybody.
But, not altogether unexpectedly, you're wrong.
Wanker
Contemptible person, jerk or male masturbator. Which one do you think we meant Guitardis?
Your supposed command of the English language really does seem to be taking a pounding.
And how grown up of you, a playground like taunt of my ability to masturbate. Your debate opponents really must quake in their boots.
Since the obvious needs to be pointed out to you on a regular basis, I thought I'd help you out. You're welcome.
And perhaps if you spent as much time learning the rules of grammar, in particular punctuation, you might not have mangled the use of commas in that sentence.
Oh I am so relieved. Since you so obviously had me on the ropes having found one spelling error from a post I made 18 months ago, and one further error I made when posting at 4am my local time with a squirming 2 year old child in my lap. I felt so threatened.
By the way, what is your excuse? How many spell checkers do you have that except 'futher' as a correct spelling for anything?
And yet you still couldn't respond to it in any way that passed a casual inspection, and instead resort to the monkey shit flinging exercise again. I can almost see you repeating the mantra "Some will stick! Some will stick!" Typical woo tactic.
See now. All the stuff you write about only making one point that follows this is neither an answer to these things as they were pointed out to you, or entirely truthful.
Yes you have harped on about us being mean. But you have also asserted that we can't know reality (something in direct contradiction to the scientific viewpoint on this blog) and that the LHC won't work or find the answers it is looking for (something in direct contradiction to the scientific viewpoint on this blog).
So, when you say this:
You are lying.
Perhaps. And I am not saying I agree with you. What it does make it is worthless.
Like I said, worthless.
...
Whilst I understand that such a proposition is widely considered scientific heresy
So much heresy that Richard Dawkins makes the same argument, I agree with him, and I am pretty sure both myself and other commenters have mentioned it on this blog before.
You're such a maverick Guitardis.
Why do woos always make such a mess of analogies?
The person under the streetlight would be a woo, Guitardis, the person who insists that you can't find anything outside the current light. The person who searches in the darkness is called a scientist, we like them here, we promote their methods and findings. We don't say that something we can't prove one way or the other must not be true, we say it is either worthless or we say wait and see.
If you hadn't come on here with your ideas already formed (despite what you claim) then you might have seen that.
Used up all your big words did we? Poor dear.
Wow, good job you steered clear of ad hominems. We'll wait and see what you think about the Secret until I re-read your latest post though.
Really? Because your use of language and attitude clearly displays something else entirely. Perhaps you should work on that instead of attempting to criticise everyone elses' use of language.
And thus you show that you still don't get it, and never will.
The only person who has attempted to demonstrate and claimed intellectual pretensions here Guitardis is you. Enough of your projection please.
And I believe it would be more accurate to say apes, not monkeys.
The rest of your anecdotal reports do nothing to prove anything other than you are not as scientifically, skeptically or critically minded as you think.
Do some research on the actual science behind near death experiences, behind how those and out of body experiences can now be induced in people who are not in any physical distress. Do some research on the explanations for why NDEs and OOBEs all have common themes and appear so similar.
Do some actual research on lucid dreaming, sleep paralysis, hallucinations, stress, the griefing process, the most common sorts of visions seen by children, physchological states of denial, bias and fatigue; the physiological effects of fatigue, grief and stress. Look into the use of cold, warm and hot reading by alleged mediums. Look into the infallible nature of memory and the psychology of deception and wishful thinking. Look into, as alleged mediums do, the research into most commonly found household items and hidden keepsakes.
Almost everyone who posts here will have a watch they keep in a draw or box in their bedroom that no longer works but they don't throw away. If they don't, they will know someone who does. Does guessing this mean I am psychic?
Everyone here knows someone who died because of something to do with their chest area. If they don't, they will know someone who does. Does guessing this mean I am psychic?
My brother is also an engineer/scientist and just happens to be an officer in the Royal Navy too. Doesn't mean he is an expert in out of body experiences, near death experiences or hallucinations. The argument from authority is a logical fallacy Guitardis. Just because my brother relates a story about him experiencing a strange psychological state he can't explain doesn't mean there is something mysterious and unexplainable about consciousness and reality anymore than your mate's story does.
That's why anecdotes are nearly useless as proof for anything, just ask the police how reliable eye witness testimony is.
How many times has anybody had the experience where someone they hadn't spoken to for a long time called up out of the blue? If it is a relative, might not medical emergency spring to mind? Might not a cynical person think they were going to be asked to donate an organ? How about this, how many times have we all been thinking about a person who called soon after? Well, obviously that means there must be more out there.
So you saw the Secret, seemingly didn't think much of it, didn't bother to think through to the logical conclusion of its premises, and then immediately dislike anyone who criticises it and conclude it is harmless.
You conclude, because you didn't think it through, that it is harmless. You see evidence of its harm and ignore it. There is at least one case of harm we know of. One woman gave up her cancer treatment because she thought the Secret would cure it. Mora was blatant evidence of the potential harm, and you instead think it is working as a powerful tool for her and attempt to villify those who disagree.
Then there is little point in continuing to communicate with you, you just don't appear to grasp even the basics of it.
More 'Mora' was too dumb to change her mind comments. More strawmen (I have never represented anything of the sort and I did not rejoice in arguing with Mora despite what Guitardis and his feeble understanding of the English language wants to claim). And boo hoo, no apology for poor little me.
So, you kept repeating your error. And incidentally, I didn't just call you a wanker. Pompous wanker and arrogant wanker on the other hand, yes. How then are you a pompous masturbator? How about an arrogant one? Or do you read all words in isolation to the surrounding ones?
You could feed a lot of cows with that straw.
Then you are either a liar, incapable of reading what you actually type, or have serious memory issues. LHC? Nature of reality and experience? Any of those jog your memory?
Always a relief to see the back of people like you. Chances are you'll be back though.
Your type just keep coming.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 02, 2008 at 11:11 AM
His writing is improving though it is still a little bit long winded, and maybe a little pompous.
A couple of quick points:
My own mother claims the spirit of her grandmother visited her in hospital and spoke to her... She seems completely convinced that this was a real experience, but I think it is much more likely to be a result of the massive head injury (she was in a bad car wreck) and strong medication. The Denialism blog recently had a post on Bayes' Theorem that I think is relevant to this sort of thing, anecdotal evidence is weak at the best of times but with the plausibility of supernatural experiences being so low the probability of these stories being true is effectively nil.
A second related point on consciousness is the effect of a head injury (and for that matter drugs or alcohol) on a persons personality only really makes sense if consciousness is a property of the brain. Also if the brain interfaced in any way with a separate source of consciousness there would be a detectable transfer of energy, which there just isn't.
The final point is the often asked question of "If it makes people happy, then what is the harm". Thats an easy one, people make decisions based on what they believe. If what they believe is bollocks, then they risk making catastrophically bad choices, such as a women who believes in 'alternative medicine' abandoning chemotherapy in favor of vitamin pills. Or in the case of Mora, believing that if something bad happens to your kid, like if your child is raped, then the child is to blame.
We know we are not perfect, and that some times we can be wrong and make some ridiculous mistakes (for a while a bought into the whole global warning denial thing, for example) but at least we're trying to understand our world and to deal with it as best we can. Unfortunately people keep jumping for easy explanations of the world, they get ripped off, hurt, families torn apart, diseases go untreated or people die because of mistaken beliefs. It's hard to sit idly by and watch all this going on, and being told to respect 'other viewpoints' is just going to make people here angry.
Hmm... Ok, maybe not such quick points, I could probably written that better, but I hope I got those points across.
Posted by: Ramel | October 02, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Hmmm... A bit verbose. We can loose the parentheses, and does "manifestly" really add anything? How about:
Still quite wordy. "Controversial" is obvious really...
Is there anything else I can cut?
Well, if they didn't exist I could hardly research them, could I? "Variety" is implied by the plural "subjects", so:
Final draft. Let's really pare it down. "Views on subjects"? The subjects are the views really. "Some degree of an interest" is still an interest, so I think we can live without "some degree".
There. That's better.
Posted by: JC | October 02, 2008 at 03:07 PM
JC, how can I download you as my plug-in in Firefox?
Posted by: Martin | October 02, 2008 at 03:35 PM
'to insist that merely because something cannot be tested or definitively 'falsified' it cannot ergo be true'
Bit of a straw man there. If it can't be tested or falsified, then it isn't science, and pretty much by definition cannot be included in scientific discussions. Also by definition, you cannot measure effects, so you can safely leave it out without harming the conclusion. That invisible pink unicorn in my garage does not change the amount of cubic space in my garage, so I don't consider it in my calculations of what will fit in there. (I know, if it's invisible, how do I know it's pink? Long story)
Things like the Secret may be true. The point being made here is that it is impossible to say if it is or not. If it happens no matter if we're aware of it or not, then there is nothing we can do about it, so what's the point of even considering it? We therefore can move on like it's not there.
For the record: "You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong," is an ad hominem, but "You are wrong, therefore you are an idiot," is just an insult. Neither has a place in rational discussion, but insults alone do not lessen the points being made, while there is not point in an ad hominem.
Posted by: Ted H. | October 03, 2008 at 09:05 AM
Thank you for clarifying, Jimmy. Parody/sarcasm/satire very often goes over my head over the Internet, so I'm not surprised that it did again. Everything makes more sense now. When responding to Mora, you certainly did start out with very clear, thoughtful, unpresumptuous questions, so I can see how Mora was given a pretty fair chance.
There's no doubt in my mind that you guys are subject to daily onslaught. I had a hard time slogging through Stef's writing, so I didn't even realize that I ended up saying the same thing he did only, as you say, Yakaru, with much less wind.
Thanks for clarifying for me! (And for the record, I do feel better about commenting here.) :)
Posted by: Nine | October 04, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Nine:
You are more than welcome. One significant problem with debating over the internet is that sarcasm does not come off all that well when written in a blog post.
The problem with Mora was that she didn't read what had already been written, and she in the end was not prepared to reexmaine her beliefs because she had become so heavily invested in them. And I still think there is a significant chance that she was actually just trolling anyway.
One of the many problems with Guitardis was that he thought just because Mora claimed she was a victim of child abuse, and just because she claimed this was one of the reasons for her acceptance of the Secret, we should have treated her with kid gloves and wrapped all of our criticism of her in soft spongy foam, despite what she was claiming. What he failed to see is that none of us brought her alleged abuse up, she did, and she did so as reason for us to accept the Secret was true because of the way she had woven her experience into the Secret's worldview.
She made it fair game, she implied it gave her views authority. None of our criticism was aimed at her because she was a victim nor in relation to her being an abuse victim apart from in connection to the issues which she introduced. In particular, none of us denigrated her alleged abuse as he claimed.
In short, he couldn't see the difference between attacking her viewpoint and attacking her, which is further shown in the manner by which he responded to us here. To him, insulting us was the same as refuting our arguments.
In short, he was a typical woo. No substance, no critical thinking, claimed he was a skeptic. Dropped right into the insults and piled on the logical fallacies, full of anecdotal evidence and nothing more. Dropped in the names of books he had read as if that gave him authority by virtue of having read the words regardless of his understanding. Plenty of jargon and buzz words. Did I mention the logical fallacies?
I can summarise his position as:
Did I miss anything?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 05, 2008 at 10:00 AM
whoa!
Posted by: fred | October 06, 2008 at 05:39 AM
Well, Stef Coburn aka GUITARDIS has taken his bat and ball and gone home. Boo hoo – no one’s missing anything. He originally emailed me, remember, pretending to the moral high ground, but all he ultimately offered were schoolyard insults, fallacies and lies as he backtracked on his original claims. His “arguments” were taken apart masterfully by Jimmy Blue and others. Unable to respond in any kind of meaningful way he posted a final screed of over 3000 words of drivel and left.
Thanks to Fleegman for summarizing (above) Coburn’s last post – I’m sure I would never have ploughed through it all.
Thanks also to JC (above) for exposing Coburn’s verbosity for the vacuous drivel it is.
And thanks to Jimmy Blue for bothering to deconstruct it all. I think Jimmy’s summary of Coburn’s position (just above) is pretty good.
I thought Coburn might have something worth debating but he never did. I’m wondering if it’s worth posting any of these any more.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 06, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Holy crap! I just checked back here after a month or so. I couldn't wade through all of Stef's letter, nor most of the comments, but I just want to say that I agree (and said so a while back) with the basic sentiment (leaving out the first-year philosophy nonsense and talking to dead people). That is, as I said before, why is everyone here so rude to anyone who has weird thoughts? I mean, yes, they're damn frustrating to deal with and often make no sense. But I think the best way to deal with people is politely. You've got a way, way better chance of changing some minds if you take any blow and just respond intellectually and sincerely. You may not win the direct opponent over, but you could very well sway a few fence-sitters just browsing. Be rational and humble and respectful no matter what's been thrown in your face. And quit with the 'woo' slags.
I'm on your side, guys and gals. It would be great if I could like you, too!
Posted by: GM | October 07, 2008 at 01:42 AM
In all my time reading here, it's largely been my observation that people are treated politely, as long as they behave politely. But there's only so much abuse and wilful stupidity you can take before deciding that someone isn't actually worth the bother, and then the gloves come off.
Besides, who decided that we have to be saints? We're just folks. I dunno about anybody else, but I'm not here to save anyone, or to make the world a better place. I'm just here because I'm sat at work in front of a computer and I'm bored. Who says we can't have a little fun from time to time? If some idiot waltzes in waving a big neon "please kick me" sign, chances are he's gonna get kicked...
Posted by: Dunc | October 07, 2008 at 03:11 AM
Sweet FSM, Guitardis, turn it down, please! No need to shout.
And do you mind leaving a few adverbs in the drawer for the rest of us?
You are making the mistake also made by quite a few trolls: that writing long, complex sentences that are hard to understand is the sign of an intellectual.
Instead, it's the sign of someone trying to look like he's an intellectual by baffling everyone.
You claim to admire the late Richard Feynmann - well, so do I. He was a real genius with few peers.
However, his non-scientific writing is clear, entertaining and enlightening. It's as far from pretentious, "intellectual" writing as you can get. You don't have to be a Nobel laureate to understand it.
Putting one's point across in concise, lucid sentences is not an admission of stupidity or ignorance. It's just common courtesy.
Why don't you try it?
Posted by: Big Al | October 07, 2008 at 03:20 AM
GM,
You say you agree with Stef's "basic sentiment" about being more respectful. But Stef is probably the least respectful commenter I've read here!
And then you even write disrespectfully yourself - "first year philosophy nonsense" and ridiculing private details he shared ("talking to dead people").
I think you are indulging in a bit of projection and denial there! Also not seeing what is really going on. Stef shows up and uses terms like "you fatuous twat" and "skepticock with his fallacio" and so on, and your response is to remind other commenters not to be rude. ???
How about reading a bit more of Stef/Guitardis, then compare it with the responses, and reconsider what you are saying. Who was ranting disrespectfully, and who was answering with great patience and reason?
Also two more points. I'm not interested in converting anyone. And the term "woo" is not an insult - it's shorthand for a whole set of oft-repeated criticisms. Calling someone a twat is an insult. Calling someone a woo is no more insulting than refering to "first year philosophy nonsense".
Posted by: yakaru | October 07, 2008 at 05:05 AM
Fair enough, Yakaru. Point taken. Although I disagree that 'woo' is just neutral shorthand. It's probably derived from the onomatopaeic sound of a crazy or fanatical person.
I don't think what I said was insulting the person -- just the philosophy, which is fair game in a debate.
And yes, he was being equally, if not more, insulting. My point is that it would probably not exacerbate the situation if you (in the general sense) replied with reason and patience. I know, easier said than done. Had that been done, the poster probably would have conceded a point or two and maybe you'd reach a consensus or, at the very worst, agree to disagree. But if you make it a pissing match, each side is just going to get ruder and ruder until nothing is accomplished.
Dunc says he's not trying to save anyone or make the world a better place, but wouldn't it be nice if there was less lazy thinking out there? Chances are you're not going to change most minds, but I read one of the posters here say s/he used to believe in New Age thinking. I, myself, have a friend who's a diehard skeptic and science lover who used to be super religious. And Michael Shermer used to be born again. So it's possible. Did they change because they were insulted so much? I don't know, but it's doubtful.
Posted by: GM | October 07, 2008 at 08:51 AM
Dunc says he's not trying to save anyone or make the world a better place, but wouldn't it be nice if there was less lazy thinking out there?
Sure it would - but I'm not personally taking that on as a career. I'm not Spiderman or Mother Teresa. I am a lazy, arrogant, misanthropic dilettante. I am a rhetorical bomb-thrower, and I don't honestly pay that much attention to where the rockets land. I do it purely for fun. Frell, if there's one thing the internet is good for, it's unloading a dose of snark on some random idiot. I don't know what we ever did without it. Got into bar fights, I guess...
So save your concern for someone who cares. You want to make the world a better place? Give money to UNICEF.
Posted by: Dunc | October 07, 2008 at 09:10 AM
Ah, cack - the first para should be blockquoted.
Posted by: Dunc | October 07, 2008 at 09:10 AM
Well, Dunc, maybe there's someone on the site who does care. It ain't all about you. If it doesn't apply to you, so be it.
Posted by: GM | October 07, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Granted, the matter of tactics is certainly something that reasonable people can reasonably disagree over, and I can appreciate other people's methods. I just don't think that there's any value in standing calmly while someone shouts and pummels you about the face and head.
Incidentally, despite the fact that Jimmy has the situation pretty well sewn up, I'm drafting my usual point-by-point rebuttal. I'll post it all at once on my blog rather than taking up space here; I anticipate it being pretty long. And ranty.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 07, 2008 at 09:04 PM
In the original e-mail exchange, Skeptico responded with nothing but patience and reason, and received abuse and steadfast ignorance in return.
But I think Skeptico got it wrong. He replied:
So what, exactly, do you think I got wrong in any of my posts. Apart from spelling.
Just wondering. Because you don't seem to have come up with anything.
Not rude, I grant you, but not "nothing but patience and reason", either. Yes, the following response was rude, but he also said to read his message again. Because I got it the first time, too. His complaint was mostly aimed at the commenters to Skeptico's posts, not to the posts themselves. Yet Skeptico wanted proof that his posts were wrong.
Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I've made my point. It's just a preference. I think it's fun to fight ignorance and hate with reason and neutrality, and watch them get even more frustrated. It's hard for someone to maintain an abusive stance when the other person is being kind in return. The harder they go to rile you, the nicer and more understanding you get. So I'm not above pissing them off. I just do it in a more passive-aggressive manner!
Posted by: GM | October 07, 2008 at 11:18 PM
dear guitardis,i think had you said in your very first post,all you guys are big meanies.your all rude and should NEVER pick on poor defenceless single moms.dont you know they are all heroes?had you said that instead of going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on,flexing your big old intellectual muscle,did i say you drone on and on yet?about things that,as it turns out,were not even your point.i think the story of "the poor single mom mora and the secret" would have gone away long ago.did i mention your boring posts drone on and on.oh yes i did.please stick to "me no like secret"and "me no think im great"you sound alot smarter,and a more enjoyable read too.
Posted by: mwd25 | October 13, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Obviously this person hasn't read anything that has been said, save for the few snippets that Guitardis chanted without merit.
Mora was never being preyed upon. She came here of her own free will and tried to press her points without evidence and failing to comprehend any of what was being said to her in response. It seems that in your haste to find a cheap laugh, you ignored the point of the responses as well.
Heck, the story of the Secret and Mora did go away, until Guitardis dredged it back up, what, almost a year after the fact?
I'm not even sure why entertainment value is even brought up. Do you expect these debates to be laugh riots or action-packed muscle fests or what? Why are you even here?
And going by your examples of smart and enjoyable, I can only shudder to think where your true interests lie. Perhaps if you'd write somewhat intelligibly, you could sound smarter, though definitely not more enjoyable.
Posted by: Q | October 14, 2008 at 12:47 AM
I vote for this one to be added to the classic posts like the "what the bleep" and "the secret" ones. (well...it's some kind of "sequel" anyway). That way, people would have more examples (as if there weren't enough already...) of irrationality, stupidity, people who refuse to apply critical thinking, and so on.
Posted by: Pelger | October 26, 2008 at 10:17 PM