Should intellectual Dishonest be more strictly moderated?

[Magical Realist]

Look, look everyone! I'm a victim!!!
And of course just another Pot, Kettle, Black episode, after your continuing insults and false claims about science in general.

What insults did I attack Billvon with? Quote them..

 

[Kittamaru]

No..I'm not going post all the background info on those 15 videos just because you think I'm lying. I told you what I do. Now tell me. Do you do the same for your unicorn pics? Do you EVER look up the background info on any of your unicorn photos?

From your own article:

"The North Korean news agency does not have much of a reputation for factual accuracy. When the country’s former dictator Kim Jong Il died in December 2011, it reported a rock carving glowing brightly and ice near his presumed birthplace to have cracked “so loud, it seemed to shake the Heavens and the Earth” in mourning of the Dear Leader. While he was alive, Kim reportedlyinvented the hamburger, wrote 1,500 books in three years while at university, and shot eleven holes-in-one the first time he played golf (a feat verified by his 17 bodyguards).

Looking back at those reports, unicorns don’t seem that far off."

And here is the fundamental problem here - you are not providing the sources to be cross-examined by unbiased observers. Are you really so insecure or unsure of your sources?

Typical trollish smear of my character and integrity based on nothing whatsoever except that I don't back down in a debate. Oooo...burn the witch!

Except it isn't smear - it's an observation of your actions.

The truth stings, doesn't it.

 

[Magical Realist]

And here is the fundamental problem here - you are not providing the sources to be cross-examined by unbiased observers. Are you really so insecure or unsure of your sources?

I told you I check the background of my photos and videos. Now answer the question. Do you do the same for your unicorn photos? Yes or no will suffice, unless you're being dishonest about something here.

Except it isn't smear - it's an observation of your actions.

What actions? Where did I ever act like Bernie Maddoff or Kim Jon Un in this forum?

 

[Kittamaru]

I told you I check the background of my photos and videos. Now answer the question. Do you do the same for your unicorn photos? Yes or no will suffice, unless you're being dishonest about something here.

Red-Herring - prove to me that you actually do that research. Post it - put your money where your mouth is.

What actions? Where did I ever act like Bernie Maddoff or Kim Jon Un in this forum?

Irrelevant - Berie Maddoff and Kim Jung Un have no bearing on this discussion. You have, however, acted like an incredible tool time and again, attempting everything from redefining terms and meanings out to cherry picking quotes out of context to ignoring evidence that refutes your statements.

There is no other word for it except dishonesty.

 

[Magical Realist]

Red-Herring - prove to me that you actually do that research. Post it - put your money where your mouth is.

Are you officially refusing to answer my question?

Irrelevant - Berie Maddoff and Kim Jung Un have no bearing on this discussion. You have, however, acted like an incredible tool time and again, attempting everything from redefining terms and meanings out to cherry picking quotes out of context to ignoring evidence that refutes your statements.

Then why was I compared to those two ignominous figures if they weren't relevant to the insult. That WAS the insult. What evidence have I ignored? What quotes of mine were taken out of context?

 

[Daecon]

So, about these bigfoots, ghosts, and alien spaceships...

Do you understand why the evidence that is "acceptable" by your standards, is woefully insufficient for the scientific community to accept as "proof" for what is being claimed?

You have yet to answer that question.

 

[Magical Realist]

So, about these bigfoots, ghosts, and alien spaceships...

Do you understand why the evidence that is "acceptable" by your standards, is woefully insufficient for the scientific community to accept as "proof" for what is being claimed?

You have yet to answer that question.

I don't think it IS insufficient for scientists. We have many examples of scientists who believe ufos and bigfoot to be real. If the evidence was insufficient, they certainly wouldn't be persuaded.

 

[Kittamaru]

Are you officially refusing to answer my question?

I used your own tactics against you - I deemed your question to be irrelevant and an attempt at derailing the conversation. Per your own statements, I have no obligation to answer it

Then why was I compared to those two ignominous figures if they weren't relevant to the insult. That WAS the insult. What evidence have I ignored? What quotes of mine were taken out of context?

Do you not recall your anti-vax spew from a few months prior?

 

[Daecon]

I don't think it IS insufficient for scientists. We have many examples of scientists who believe ufos and bigfoot to be real. If the evidence was insufficient, they certainly wouldn't be persuaded.

That doesn't really answer the question. Do you understand WHY that evidence isn't accepted by the scientitic community? I'm not talking about a few "I want to believe" scientists, I'm talking about if you understand the standard for scientifically acceptable evidence.

 

[Magical Realist]

I used your own tactics against you - I deemed your question to be irrelevant and an attempt at derailing the conversation. Per your own statements, I have no obligation to answer it

I answered your question about MY photos being checked on. I pretty sure you don't do that with your unicorn photos. Which is why you won't answer me. A blatant sign of intellectual dishonesty folks. Shall we burn the witch now?

Do you not recall your anti-vax spew from a few months prior?

The one where my over 70 medical studies showing a connection between vaccines and autism symptoms were repeatedly ignored. Yep..I remember it well.

 

[Magical Realist]

That doesn't really answer the question. Do you understand WHY that evidence isn't accepted by the scientitic community? I'm not talking about a few "I want to believe" scientists, I'm talking about if you understand the standard for scientifically acceptable evidence.

Yes..because its taboo for mainstream science to even admit there is evidence for such things, much less research it themselves. It would be a career killer and get you permanently ostracized by your peers, like they do with Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Dr. Melba Ketchum. In science world, you study only what gets you grants and fame as a defender of the majority status quo positions and theories.

 

[Kittamaru]

I answered your question about MY photos being checked on. I pretty sure you don't do that with your unicorn photos. Which is why you won't answer me. A blatant sign of intellectual dishonesty folks. Shall we burn the witch now?

No - you claimed you did background checking. You didn't answer or prove anything.

Put your money where your mouth is.

The one where my over 70 medical studies showing a connection between vaccines and autism symptoms were repeatedly ignored. Yep..I remember it well.

You have an interesting issue with your memory... every "study" you brought up was shown to be utterly decimated by real science.

 

[Kittamaru]

Yes..because its taboo for mainstream science to even admit there is evidence for such things, much less research it themselves. It would be a career killer and get you permanently ostracized by your peers, like they do with Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Dr. Melba Ketchum. In science world, you study only what gets you grants and fame as a defender of the majority status quo positions and theories.

Nope- any scientist to prove the existence of aliens or bigfoot with actual, verifiable science would be hailed as a goddamn hero, and likely win the Nobel prize.

 

[Daecon]

Yes..because its taboo for mainstream science to even admit there is evidence for such things, much less research it themselves. It would be a career killer and get you permanently ostracized by your peers, like they do with Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Dr. Melba Ketchum. In science world, you study only what gets you grants and fame as a defender of the majority status quo positions and theories.

Oh look. You want evidence of you ignoring things that have been explained to you over and over again, well it's right here.

 

[Magical Realist]

No - you claimed you did background checking. You didn't answer or prove anything.

Put your money where your mouth is.

I don't have to prove squat to you. If you want the background on those videos, look it up yourself. They're all out there. I have no interest in pandering to any of your whims.

You have an interesting issue with your memory... every "study" you brought up was shown to be utterly decimated by real science.

Total lie. You're back on my ignore list.

 

[Magical Realist]

Oh look. You want evidence of you ignoring things that have been explained to you over and over again, well it's right here.

What am I ignoring? Show where I have ignored something here.

 

[Kittamaru]

I don't have to prove squat to you. If you want the background on those videos, look it up yourself. They're all out there. I have no interest in pandering to any of your whims.

Total lie. You're back on my ignore list.

OH look, the lil baby cannot actually substantiate what he is saying, so now he's throwing a tantrum. How pathetic... MR, you really do deserve the scorn you get here. You have thoroughly brought it upon yourself.

 

[tali89]

Magical Realist said: ↑
If a poster doesn't agree with your accessment that they are being dishonest, they certainly have to right to do that. The burden will then be on you to prove they are being dishonest and deliberately deceptive, something very hard to do. Again, it all boils down to the subjective feelings of the accuser, which are often already clouded with hostility towards the accused and a desire to shut him up because he will not agree with them. How do we know the very attempt to punish someone for dishonesty isn't itself laden with a personal agenda to censor the opposing view? We don't. That's why its a bad idea as an infractionable or bannable offence. Because it can always be twisted by someone towards getting rid of someone they don't like, particularly when you have a moderator also so embroiled in the debate he has lost all objectivity to properly moderate anymore.
A little context: In several previous threads, MR has taken to simply IGNORING evidence that stands in opposition to his position; be this because he knows he cannot sufficiently explain it or otherwise, he has ignored it. (as a recent example - the bigfoot thread, and his refusal to answer for how the creature could possibly procreate given the lack of genetic diversity)

Kittamaru said: ↑
So you feel that intentionally and repeatedly misquoting someone is not dishonest? That ignoring arguments you dislike or cannot disprove isn't dishonest? Please, elaborate on this.

Kittamaru, I've read through Magical Realist's post, and I can't see where he makes the claim you ascribe to him. Please show where, in the post you responded to (as quoted above), he made that claim that "intentionally and repeatedly misquoting someone is not dishonest? That ignoring arguments you dislike or cannot disprove isn't dishonest?". Please don't refer to posts he made *after* you put those words in his mouth, show it in the post you actually responded to. Thanks.

 

[Dywyddyr]

My POV is shifting slightly.
I still hold that MR has been duplicitous but now I'm inclined to the view that he's so delusional he's actually incapable of seeing dissent or disagreement as rational.
Bells alluded to this earlier when she compared him to a religious fundamentalist.
He's so convinced that he's right that whatever he says in defence of his position is entirely justifiable and, by definition, cannot be dishonest (from his perspective) for the simple reason that he's got the truth. (In this he reminds me greatly of a certain religious poster[1,2] here who lies, evades, diverts to the same extent yet cannot acknowledge that he does so).
The fixed and unshakeable belief is that he is right therefore any dissent must be wrong and must be aimed at discrediting him.
He's intellectually incapable of seeing past that belief.

Accordingly I'm treating MR the same way I treat that religious poster: the ignore list.
There is absolutely no point whatsoever addressing anything either of them says because they will not listen if it disagrees (in the slightest) with their beliefs.
And the only suggestion I'll make is that everyone (rational) do the same.
Leave him to stew in his own juices and address ONLY other woo-mongers (who may or may not be amenable to reason, science, and rationality) who post in his threads.

1 Name available but only by PM.
2 In fact that poster also gets the leeway accorded MR in his posting.

 

[Magical Realist]

Says the one who is already being ignored by me. lol!