Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Cite! Show me a cite!
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:30:52 -0400
Organization: Eek
Lines: 62
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <utg9le$200g0$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jtem01@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="69147"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kQ+tz8c+Ks/7Td63lwB2BRCYJiA=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id D6C1722976C; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDDE229758
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:27:16 -0400 (EDT)
	id 7DB467D122; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 03:30:56 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
	by mod-relay.zaccari.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDA57D009
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 03:30:56 +0000 (UTC)
	id 62DB9DC01CC; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 04:30:55 +0100 (CET)
Content-Language: en-US
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19G1Gp592Y2N1noSkIjaAaC4u9YXXTSGLA=
Bytes: 3467



The collective, being of questionable parentage
and dubious intellect, has made a career out of
shouting "Cite!" at random and almost always
inappropriate intervals.

What do I mean?

Someone will lay out a position, bring up many
points, arrive at a conclusion and the jackass
posting as the collective will react with:

"Cite!"

To what?

What would the be disputing, specifically? What
would they NOT be disputing?

Nobody ever has a clue, certainly not the collective.

The issue here is "Deconstructing the problem."

To know WHAT to challenge, WHAT you are disputing,
you have to be able to deconstruct the argument.

"Prizes," like Randi's or Hovind's, are ambiguous.

Intentionally.

They exist to help people NOT think. In the case of
Randi's prize, I was disgusted by it, convinced that
Randi was performing a HUGE disservice to the world.
Online "Skepticism" had quite literally degraded to
to the point where mouth breath would cry out; "Win
da million! Ifs you realz den winz da prize!"

Randi's prize was an excuse not to think. If anything
sounded the least bit off, like someone somewhere
might call it "Paranormal," then you never had to
think. They'd just tell the person to win the million
AND THEN come back and talk about it.

Hovind's prize existed for the exact same reason. It
performed the exact same role.

THAT is what "Prizes" do, why they exist. They don't
further science or discussion, they stop it.


          ...just like the collective's mindless
call for "Cites" when it doesn't know what it wants
cited, and wouldn't be capable of altering it's view
even if you gave it I cite. I know. Because the
collective even calls for "Cites" after they've been
given one.



-- 
http://jtem.tumblr.com