@Rarebear, @ETpro, @Seek_Kolinahr and others:
For the record, my brief departure was not a pout and it was not precipitated by @Rarebear. As I will elucidate a little further down, I left this discussion and cancelled my account primarily due to a response from @ETpro.
@Rarebear, (and since I’m guessing you will be the last to understand this, I am inviting @ETpro and @Seek_Kolinahr to consider this as well,) you are correct that I did not know what hit me until it was too late. Now that I have some perspective, I realize that this scenario is similar to times when I’ve encountered subtly abusive or manipulative people or people who habitually tell lies. Often when someone enters a discussion assuming they are dealing with a reasonable person, it can take some time to figure out that they are dealing with someone with a few issues.
What I am referring to in your case is that you have misread or disregarded what the actual context is here and that your behavior is inappropriate for the context. Specifically, the question asked is “Who believes?” The question is not “Is it true?” I was answering the question, and it doesn’t take much to prove that someone believes something. Logic does not have much work to do to prove a belief is believed.
I assumed that you understood this context when you were “just wondering” whether I believe what I believe, which is why I offered more detail about the development of that belief. People frequently stereotype those who subscribe to conspiracy theories, so I think it is useful sometimes to dispel that stereotype using first person testimonial as an example.
Again, since I did not know what I was dealing with, your contextually inappropriate response did not stick out then as it does now. What I see now, though, is that you were all too eager to draw me into a little logic showdown so you could prove I was wrong.
@ETpro & @Seek_Kolinahr, even you all must find it a little odd that @Rarebear interpreted my reference to my schooling as some sort of proof of my authority. Does anybody really claim authority based on a Bachelor’s degree? Isn’t it more reasonable to interpret that as just a reference point to say I’m not a dummy? Or, as I put in plain English just so you know that I have a brain? Does this not smack of someone who’s a little too eager to pick a fight so that they can try out their karate?
Secondly, do you not find it odd that @Rarebear insisted on further dragging past evangelism into the present context as proof that I’m wrong? Taken together, do you not see this as a gross misreading of the question and my response?
Do you see at this point how I sought clarification regarding how these arguments pertain to my contextually appropriate response to the question of whether I believe what I believe? I get that you think my belief is dumb. I don’t have a problem with that, but set that aside for the moment and evaluate the behavior and the context. It is not criminal behavior, of course, but saying that it is inappropriate is not a mischaracterization.
@Rarebear, there is another example of your misreading of the discussion. You said “In all your verbiage you basically asked, ‘Why do I call you on your beliefs’. This is plainly incorrect. I chided you earlier about your reading comprehension, but frankly I do not know how else to explain how you missed this. You asked me initially whether I actually believed these things, and I said yes.
From that point forward, you proceeded with another line of inquiry as if I somehow had not answered your question. I would guess it is because you felt so compelled to begin a test of logic. I would say in this case that you don’t yet have the wisdom to know when it is best applied.
Following that, you claimed to be unclear about which question I demand you answer. Again, these things are available in plain English, so how do I explain this other that a problem with reading comprehension? Knowing now that you are well enough schooled my only other option is to assume you have problems reading social context and offering appropriate responses.
At this point, (also @Seek_Kolinahr & @ETpro), I would like to take a minute to address so called ad hominem attacks on my part. Such a defense is appropriate to arguments and logic. Hopefully, we’ve satisfactorily established that this discipline only travels so far in the context of this question. As such, an ad hominem accusation does not really apply, nor was I attempting to use such a fallacy to prove an argument. My comments were solely referencing the inappropriateness of @Rarebear‘s behavior in this context. I think it’s an agreeable point that people have many and varied responses to unexpected and inappropriate behavior in social contexts ranging from pity to hostility, and I don’t think my response was particularly remarkable.
What I do find remarkable is @Rarebear‘s seeming inability to read and gauge social cues. In addition to what’s already been mentioned, @Rarebear deigns to “give me another chance” for suffering and commenting on his inappropriate behavior! How generous!
Here’s one thing @Rarebear, and it’s another gross misread that you characterized as “obvious” to you. You did not and have not hurt my feelings. You don’t know me either, and what you don’t know (despite my alluding to this at the very top of this discussion) is that I’ve been around here a very long time relative to the age of this site, and that I’ve debated with plenty more difficult than the likes of you. I’m not saying that as a pejorative towards you. I’m saying that as a fact. You just happened to show up after I’ve already played enough times to be satisfied. You failed to notice earlier that I wasn’t attempting to argue with you, but you might think about that now.
Which brings us to @ETpro and why your comment sent me over the edge.
This is your comment:
@serenade I read the paper too, and it says absolutely ZERO about contrails being evil poison chemtrails. This is exactly the sort of nonsense conspiracy theorists routinely trot out as “evidence” of their imagined global government cover-up
Here’s the thing. If you had bothered to read my accompanying analysis of that paper, you would know that I made no such claim. My point was that there is a gap in the research and that my belief fits in the gap. Again, since it is beyond the context of the question to argue the truth or falsity of my belief, my offering was not an argument or attempt to logically prove my point. It, as I said consistently and repeatedly, was only to further explain my belief in response to what I thought was forthright inquiry or seeking of clarification, this time beginning with science as an attempt to meet @Rarebear on some familiar ground. This would be before I understood that @Rarebear was responding inappropriately to the context.
@ETpro, here’s the thing. This is your time in the Fluther limelight. FWIW, you are at the top of your game, and I can relate to that because I had a time like that too. And it comes with some social capital, and I can appreciate that as well. So to first have to deal with obstinate and inappropriate behavior from someone I don’t know well, and then to see you lay out such a turd of an accusation that made obvious how you completely ignored what I wrote and dismissed my point of view, I had to ask myself just what the fuck I am doing here. Do you get it? I mean, more power to you if you still think that’s a decent response, but I was absolutely disheartened and can’t say much more for this site if that’s going to be my place in the pecking order.
@Rarebear, despite your concessions of verbiage, I think you suffer from a lack of self awareness. In addition to what I’ve already mentioned, you seem to have trouble accepting corrective feedback and as eager as you are to apply logic to arguments, you began right away by contradicting yourself and then dismissing your contradiction. This post is long enough already, so rather than step through your logic, I’ll just say my take away was that “evangelists are all bad and dumb and sometimes I evangelize about science because that’s different.” I don’t need to draw this point out further.
It’s possible to apologize and brag and you were bragging. I’m guessing that the idea of bragging doesn’t jive with your self image as one of the good guys who wins, but I think there are plenty of examples of your boorish behavior already cited, so it’s not really credible for you to dismiss the characterization. Ditto “nothing I said or wrote was remotely offensive”. Frankly, you acted like a jerk, which is a fair characterization of the inappropriate behavior.
@ETpro (and to a lesser extent @Seek_Kolinahr), regarding your comment that “there are some things worth fighting for. Healthy skepticism versus wild credulity is one of those, because a democracy can not survive long when the voters are gullible and easily led about by ridiculous rumors”.
A small point first is that I am no more gullible or easily lead than Bernie Madoff’s customers, and by that I mean no more than any of us are, including people who are far more wealthy, successful and powerful. Nor am I wildly credulous. I do have an open mind, and I apply it.
Here’s the main thing: my exploration of and belief in conspiracy theories has engendered an evolutionary step in my personal development in that I am no longer deluded in the belief that the world need be anything more than it is. It is not Groundhog Day for me when I wake every day to determine what political misdeed and injustice I must essay to reshape. I am not deluded in the belief that there is gullibility that requires my correction because I am one of the smart people. And I don’t have to post 500 iterations of what is essentially the same question and lament about how if only more people understood logic and common sense we could make some progress.
I can appreciate all of that, however, because that was me not too many years ago, and I know how necessary it is to do if that’s your feeling. I would encourage you to assess, though, whether it’s really for the benefit of others or for your own edification. For me, it was the latter.
At the tippy top of this thread, what I mentioned (and what was wholly ignored), is that my not insignificant journey into “bunkum and woo” has resulted in some significant insights, both personal and worldly. While I can appreciate your impulse to protect us from ourselves in service to democracy, I have to say your comment smacks of the allowability only of “correct opinions.” I do understand that “a well informed…,” but these ideas would not be so prevalent if our democracy was functioning better. “Ridiculous rumors” can be an effect of dysfunctional democracy as well as a cause, and again claims are only made extraordinary by the strength of one’s disbelief. One thing that this kind of exploration offers is the opportunity to stretch one’s imagination and open one’s mind well beyond common discourse, and to that end I’m grateful it’s not the logic and skeptic police who make the decisions about what’s available for consideration.
That all being said, my mind isn’t changed. I still believe these things, although they aren’t as important to me now as they were. I believe I said just as much in the beginning and not as argument. Maybe next time, you’ll know to just hear that and let it lie.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
