Favorite Quack Claims

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That is exactly what I've been thinking frequently as others accuse me of it.

Just after you label other forum members quacks and then call them stupid? Not using their name doesn't help either -- passive-aggressive attacks are even more annoying than blatant ones.

 

I hope you realize that we consider certain behaviors unacceptable, even if you think they're great debating tactics.

 

Now, let's get back on topic.

 

---

boing[/hr]

 

My old favorite quack claim was chiropractic treatment for diseases like asthma and allergies; I'm not entirely sure how you convince someone that the better flow of nervous signals to their legs will decongest their sinuses.

[ParanoiA]

No, I just point and laugh. I'm not a monster.

 

Well that's a relief. I still see an inconsistency with sympathy for someone in a wheelchair and ridicule for the stupid.

 

It's almost like you think you earned your intelligence and that every stupid person earned their stupidity. I'm interested in how you know this to be true of the stupid people you ridicule, or do you just assume? Or do you have an entirely different justification for it?

 

Oh, and my favorite quack claim was that there were no black swans...(ok, that was stupid sorry).

[iNow]

Now, let's get back on topic.

In fairness, it was you who began the off-topic diversion, not me. Maybe a thread split is in order, as it seems others wish to share and contribute to the side bar.

 

 

 

 

It's almost like you think you earned your intelligence and that every stupid person earned their stupidity.

This isn't about "stupid people." It's about smart people acting stupid, and making stupid points, and then being immune to counter argument showing the silliness of their points. It's important to note the difference.

 

 

I'm interested in how you know this to be true of the stupid people you ridicule, or do you just assume? Or do you have an entirely different justification for it?

Did I strike a nerve with you? Did I refer to something you believe in as stupid? I guess so.

 

You asked how I know my assertions are true? Because when these stupid claims get challenged and debunked, I see people keep repeating them as if they are still perfectly valid, all the while not offering a single bit of evidence in their favor nor a reasonable response to the debunking.

 

 

Now... I made a post in this thread. I said:

 

My favorite quack claim comes from those who like to assert that economics is not a practice based on the principles of science and empiricism.

 

 

I think that is perfectly valid. You're welcome to disagree. This entire thread is about ridiculing people, and somehow Cap'n thought it would be a good idea to lambaste me for suggesting something is ridiculous in that context. You wonder why I don't often take your feedback seriously? Look at the context here to see why.

 

We're going to have a thread intended to ridicule. We're going to have members and staff alike contribute to it. Then, when iNow posts, we're going to attack him for suggesting something is ridiculous. Give me a break.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We're going to have a thread intended to ridicule. We're going to have members and staff alike contribute to it. Then, when iNow posts, we're going to attack him for suggesting something is ridiculous. Give me a break.

 

Nope. We're going to attack him for using a thread about quack claims (not the people who make them!) to make a veiled personal attack on a forum member because of a long-held grudge.

 

Quackery refers to promoting scam or unproven medical practices, but the OP extended this to pseudoscience as well. Attacking economics falls under neither umbrella. Regardless, given your past record on SFN, it is clear that anti-economics-ism isn't your favorite quack claim. You just wanted to make a cheap shot.

 

You asked how I know my assertions are true? Because when these stupid claims get challenged and debunked, I see people keep repeating them as if they are still perfectly valid, all the while not offering a single bit of evidence in their favor nor a reasonable response to the debunking.

This does not follow. It is possible for people to fail at debunking a false claim. It is also quite possible, due to various confirmation biases, for someone convinced that a view is correct to reject various attempts at disproving it as unfounded or unreasonable.

[ParanoiA]

This isn't about "stupid people." It's about smart people acting stupid, and making stupid points, and then being immune to counter argument showing the silliness of their points. It's important to note the difference.

 

How do you know they're smart, in order to determine they said something stupid, presumably out of character? And how does ridicule somehow fix that? Why is ridicule your choice of tool for such a problem?

 

Of all your years of ridicule here at SFN, it doesn't appear to have made a scratch. So how smart is it for you to keep deploying this tactic?

 

You asked how I know my assertions are true? Because when these stupid claims get challenged and debunked, I see people keep repeating them as if they are still perfectly valid, all the while not offering a single bit of evidence in their favor nor a reasonable response to the debunking.

 

But, if they're stupid, then isn't this to be expected? If a mentally handicapped person can't do math, yet you teach him 2 + 2 = 4 and he still doesn't get it...do we ridicule him then? "hey I already debunked your slobbery mumbo jumbo dude..."

 

Did I strike a nerve with you? Did I refer to something you believe in as stupid? I guess so.

 

No, not at all. You haven't offended me in any way. I just enjoy poking at bullies.

 

I think your obsession with ridicule is based on ego. It's not based on any sort of logical deduction. Further, I don't believe you have given a second thought as to why "people saying stupid things" even deserves ridicule.

 

I think it's fairly universal for people to slam on stupid people without much consideration as to what they're really doing. To me, it's not much different than harrassing the handicapped. If someone is missing an arm, you might help them open a door. But if they're missing intelligence, then you kick them and mock them.

 

Apparently, the fact that you were born with some quantity of intelligence, somehow you have earned it and deserve to be praised while those born with lower intelligence somehow has earned being kicked around for it.

 

I think that's really weird.

 

On the other hand, if you had said that you verify through previous conversations that the person is actually smart, and that their later stupid comments reflect intellectual laziness, then I could probably buy the argument that ridicule is at least an attractive tool.

 

Otherwise, you're just tripping people born with one leg merely because you were born with two.

[iNow]

I rather frequently, sort of as a standard operating procedure, verify, validate, and confirm through experience and test the intelligence of people, so when I see people who have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to think logically and reasonably make stupid comments which show them being intellectually lazy I find ridicule to be somewhat attractive.

 

Better?

 

 

FFS, guys... Here was my post:

 

My favorite quack claim comes from those who like to assert that economics is not a practice based on the principles of science and empiricism.

 

Did I really need to qualify that with, "It's tough to pick a favorite... Here's one which has been on my mind lately?"

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I rather frequently, sort of as a standard operating procedure, verify, validate, and confirm through experience and test the intelligence of people, so when I see people who have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to think logically and reasonably make stupid comments which show them being intellectually lazy I find ridicule to be somewhat attractive.

 

I'm glad you acknowledge that, so you can avoid doing it in the future.

 

On the other hand, I find this explanation unlikely, given your previous encounters with the subject of your ridicule. And your frequent ridicule of that person.

 

Now, can we please get back on topic?