That Damn Bigfoot Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 12:47 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 12:41 PM)Free Wrote:  For that, I humbly apologize.

Accepted; and for any problems caused by my not being completely clear in what I posted I also apologize. I tend to generalize sometimes and may have made assumptions about what you were implying based on what I was inferring. Part of participating in this forum for me is to improve in those areas.

I do still disagree that 70%, or even 66%, is much too high of an estimate without more concrete proof of alien technology. Perhaps we can leave it at that?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 12:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:41 PM)Free Wrote:  For that, I humbly apologize.

Accepted; and for any problems caused by my not being completely clear in what I posted I also apologize. I tend to generalize sometimes and may have made assumptions about what you were implying based on what I was inferring. Part of participating in this forum for me is to improve in those areas.

I do still disagree that 70%, or even 66%, is much too high of an estimate without more concrete proof of alien technology. Perhaps we can leave it at that?

Fair enough.

I realize my position is based upon my personal experiences and the O'Hare incident somewhat mirrored what I experienced in my youth. That, admittedly, demonstrates my bias.

But it's not just that. 30 years of investigating these things, with tons of anecdotal evidence examined, as well as *gasp* actually seeing and touching something as close to physical evidence as possible, are just some of the reasons why my belief in extraterrestrial life is at about 53%. The 70% represents two things:

1. 90% certainty that the witnesses seen a craft, 10% they didn't.

Add # 1 to either # 2 or 3 below:

2. 50 - 53% demonstrating it to be my belief that aliens were the possible explanation, with ...
3. 47 - 50 % representing an earthly explanation.

It could just as easily be about 69% certain the explanation is earthly, if you follow my reasoning.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 12:21 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:17 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Oh I'm sorry you have me confused for someone who stomps outta threads in a hissy fit down, down repping multiple people with childish little barbs on the way out, declaring the conversation done only to start a new thread where they continue to dishonestly try and prove their original whack-a-do claims. Caught your reflection in your monitor again did ya? Drinking Beverage

You know if you have time to go back through all my posts why not ...Oh I dunno...address the issues I raised?

Hey in the next thing you type if you are gonna try and accuse everyone else of misrepresenting your view maybe don't edit out all of the strawmen you get called on? Oh noes! The guy with the tin foil hat on too tight thinks I'm embarrassing myself and no one else does! How ever will I survive?Rolleyes

By the way someone does not need to express 100% certainty in a thing for their belief in it to be a positive claim.

I like how you think your argument is a winner before you even make it. I wonder if anyone will agree with it at all. What do you think Free? Or will the shadowy cabal join forces to support me?
[Image: Cuckoo.gif~original]

Yep, as expected, even more demonstration of your lack of maturity and ability to even adequately defend yourself.

Your position is indefensible. You've been exposed for intellectual dishonesty, trapped by your own words.

What is even more disappointing is that you appear to lack the integrity to admit your mistakes, as it seems far more important to you that you continue to recieve a few likes and the odd rep point here and there.

Good luck with your ... popularity contest.

I have added another "like" to your previous post.

Drinking Beverage

My position is perfectly fine and I'll be more then happy to explain why when I have the time. However I'll remind you again that I'm still waiting on you to respond to criticisms from days ago so why don't you settle down bitch, you pat yourself on the back any harder for your made up victories your gonna wreak your spine.

I have not been exposed as intellectually dishonest in anyway, I've demonstrated over a dozen times where you completely strawman and misrepresent the things I say or just completely make things up to argue against that I never said. So maybe just slow your roll there pumpkin. That you may have found an instance where I misrepresent your position ...but ONLY IF I agree with your fallacious and incorrect definition of what constitutes a positive claim is not enough for you to try and declare yourself victorious.....[i]again[/].
You made a positive claim about the likelihood of the explanation being aliens and I demonstrated it was fallacious and how it was. The fact you didn't like my response it does not make it dishonest.

You made a bunch of claims and now you don't wanna own up to them because they are inconvenient for you, well too bad. Ruling out other, more likely, explanations and claiming to believe that the most probable explanation is aliens is a positive claim. Claims don't have to be of 100% certainty to be considered positive claims. You made positive claims and I responded with those claims in mind.

The thing you quoted was a completely fair representation of your beliefs as expressed by you.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
09-12-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 12:57 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Yep, as expected, even more demonstration of your lack of maturity and ability to even adequately defend yourself.

Your position is indefensible. You've been exposed for intellectual dishonesty, trapped by your own words.

What is even more disappointing is that you appear to lack the integrity to admit your mistakes, as it seems far more important to you that you continue to recieve a few likes and the odd rep point here and there.

Good luck with your ... popularity contest.

I have added another "like" to your previous post.

Drinking Beverage

My position is perfectly fine and I'll be more then happy to explain why when I have the time. However I'll remind you again that I'm still waiting on you to respond to criticisms from days ago so why don't you settle down bitch, you pat yourself on the back any harder for your made up victories your gonna wreak your spine.

I have not been exposed as intellectually dishonest in anyway, I've demonstrated over a dozen times where you completely strawman and misrepresent the things I say or just completely make things up to argue against that I never said. So maybe just slow your roll there pumpkin. That you may have found an instance where I misrepresent your position ...but ONLY IF I agree with your fallacious and incorrect definition of what constitutes a positive claim is not enough for you to try and declare yourself victorious.....[i]again[/].
You made a positive claim about the likelihood of the explanation being aliens and I demonstrated it was fallacious and how it was. The fact you didn't like my response it does not make it dishonest.

You made a bunch of claims and now you don't wanna own up to them because they are inconvenient for you, well too bad. Ruling out other, more likely, explanations and claiming to believe that the most probable explanation is aliens is a positive claim. Claims don't have to be of 100% certainty to be considered positive claims. You made positive claims and I responded with those claims in mind.

The thing you quoted was a completely fair representation of your beliefs as expressed by you.

Whatever.

Here's another "like" for you. It feels like I am feeding the fucking dog ffs.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 12:58 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:57 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  My position is perfectly fine and I'll be more then happy to explain why when I have the time. However I'll remind you again that I'm still waiting on you to respond to criticisms from days ago so why don't you settle down bitch, you pat yourself on the back any harder for your made up victories your gonna wreak your spine.

I have not been exposed as intellectually dishonest in anyway, I've demonstrated over a dozen times where you completely strawman and misrepresent the things I say or just completely make things up to argue against that I never said. So maybe just slow your roll there pumpkin. That you may have found an instance where I misrepresent your position ...but ONLY IF I agree with your fallacious and incorrect definition of what constitutes a positive claim is not enough for you to try and declare yourself victorious.....[i]again[/].
You made a positive claim about the likelihood of the explanation being aliens and I demonstrated it was fallacious and how it was. The fact you didn't like my response it does not make it dishonest.

You made a bunch of claims and now you don't wanna own up to them because they are inconvenient for you, well too bad. Ruling out other, more likely, explanations and claiming to believe that the most probable explanation is aliens is a positive claim. Claims don't have to be of 100% certainty to be considered positive claims. You made positive claims and I responded with those claims in mind.

The thing you quoted was a completely fair representation of your beliefs as expressed by you.

Whatever.

Hahahahaha! Laugh out load
(09-12-2014 12:00 PM)Free Wrote:  Care to even make a vain attempt to defend yourself here, or do you wish to concede now and save yourself further embarassment...
(09-12-2014 12:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Yep, as expected, even more demonstration of your lack of maturity and ability to even adequately defend yourself.
Say's the guys who's response to the dismantlement of his accusations, strawmen, and baldfaced assertions is "Whatever."

Hypocrisy thy name is Free.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
09-12-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 01:06 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:58 PM)Free Wrote:  Whatever.

Hahahahaha! Laugh out load
(09-12-2014 12:00 PM)Free Wrote:  Care to even make a vain attempt to defend yourself here, or do you wish to concede now and save yourself further embarassment...
(09-12-2014 12:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Yep, as expected, even more demonstration of your lack of maturity and ability to even adequately defend yourself.
Say's the guys who's response to the dismantlement of his accusations and assertions is "Whatever."

Hypocrisy thy name is Free.

Your desperation is showing. Here, have another "bone."

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:10 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 01:07 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 01:06 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Hahahahaha! Laugh out load
Say's the guys who's response to the dismantlement of his accusations and assertions is "Whatever."

Hypocrisy thy name is Free.

Your desperation is showing. Here, have another "bone."

(09-12-2014 12:58 PM)Free Wrote:  Whatever.
Laugh out load

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
09-12-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 01:10 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 01:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Your desperation is showing. Here, have another "bone."

(09-12-2014 12:58 PM)Free Wrote:  Whatever.
Laugh out load

Your response to my argument is "whatever" and I'm the one that's desperate? lol ok, Mr. Crazypants.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
09-12-2014, 01:33 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 01:17 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 01:10 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Laugh out load

Your response to my argument is "whatever" and I'm the one that's desperate? lol ok, Mr. Crazypants.

You didn't supply an argument. You supplied more bluster sure, but not an argument.

Here's another "like," now wag your tail like a good boy.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 02:36 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 12:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:58 AM)Free Wrote:  Completely incorrect, and I am surprised at you.

70% is a reasonable hypothesis which leaves plenty of room for doubt, which means it is falsifiable. It may just be my opinion, but nonetheless, it is how skepticism works.

Any percentage of anything does not demonstrate conclusiveness in any way.

100% certainty demonstrates conclusiveness and a positive claim, and I said no such thing.

Nice try, but no.

You seem to be under the stunning misapprehension that only absolute certainty constitutes a positive claim. This is absurd. I dare say that you are the only person I have ever spoken to who has managed to come to such a misunderstanding. This is not how anyone in any logic book or course anywhere has ever defined things.

To claim something is possible is a positive claim. To claim something is likely is a positive claim. Period. Deal with it. The claim is regarding the possibility itself, and it is most assuredly a clear and definite assertion. A repeated claim of (say) 70% probability is a positive claim. It is not a claim of certain knowledge insofar as it is not a claim of absolute truth. This is indeed so. It is a claim of knowledge as to what the probabilities themselves are. It is puzzling that you do not appear to appreciate the distinction.

Or: "NO U HAV TO PROOF IT WRONG LOL" is not an argument. Come the fuck on.

Incidentally, it is simply not possible to conclusively demonstrate what a few credulous people might or might not have seen over Chicago. That evidence does not exist, nor will it ever. The specific claim is unfalsifiable, and you know it.
(that your best defense against witness fallibility - when presented with eyewitness testimony of far more incredible events and maintained by far more people, and when presented with extensive investigation into the manifest flaws of human memory - is to just plain ol' assert, "but, these guys weren't wrong, because reasons!" is just so much asinine special pleading)

The intellectually honest thing to do, absent reliable evidence and coherent theories, is to not even assign probabilities.

To insist that "possibilities" (with no substantiation beyond hopes and feels?) must then be entertained - because they cannot be "conclusively" dismissed! - is the exact opposite of skepticism.

A positive claim is not merely a claim of existence or non existence, but more so a statement of fact. A statement of fact differs from a stated opinion, not that an opinion cannot be understood as being a positive claim.

When I say that my position is at 70%, I am stating it based upon opinion. What I am not doing is making a statement of fact that absolutely demands the burden of proof, although a burden of proof is also a reasonable expectation to qualify an opinion.

When a position is stated as an opinion, then the intellectually responsible thing to do when responding to it is to acknowledge it as an opinion, rather than misrepresent the position as a statement of fact.

It becomes glaringly obvious that- when an opinion is misrepresented as a statement of fact, and when the adversary is stating as fact something that was never even said in the first place- the adversary is intentionally misleading via intellectual dishonesty.

I can concede that you do have a point on a precise definition of "positive claim," and even take it a step further and opine that any statement we make- even a negative claim- is a positive claim.

But there are distinct differences between claims stated as opinions and those which make claims of fact. It is perfectly reasonable to have an expectancy of a higher degree of the burden of proof when a statement of fact is proclaimed, as opposed to that of an opinion.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: