Acme

I think I'm in Love! To be clear, I'm not married to ridicule; we just have an occasional fling. Even then I don't go much for back-seat stuff but rather prefer wine, low lights, and Bolero. I took up the argument largely on Chadn's broad-brush declaration that ridicule never works and have continued in that only insofar as answering his and other challenges. That you say you aren't "entirely" a fan and find -some- ridicule funny is the chord I mean to strike. Even if after the impulsive chortle you feel some chagrin, the initial reaction is rather more honest in my opinion. As to patience, I like the leisure the forum posting communication allows and strive to be patient in crafting suitable replies whether employing ridicule or some other style. While I have been supporting ridicule here, I have actually employed it very little. Well, I did call names when I said anyone who disagreed with me was a poopy-head, but clearly -I hope- I was being facetious. As to the topic of the thread it seems the majority of respondents, if not readers, agree that Moontanman's friend took a ridiculous stance and if we have given him enough choices as to "what to do about it" then our work here is done. I remain your adoring servant, Acme

That's a question each creationist would have to answer personally. Let's carefully, soberly, and explicitly invite them to. Care to respond Mr./Ms. creationist?

Peel the bark from some twigs, cut it into strips, and use it to lash together your twig-logs. You could also weave the strips into mats, baskets, and other such items as the Iroquois made and used.

If you can provide a link to the article the table appears in, I would like to see it in context. Regardless, the table throws no light on Moontan's question in the OP, "How do you deal with people like this?". I understand you don't think ridicule works and that you can't or won't support that thinking with any kind of reference. Perhaps you can or will weigh in on what you do think works; supporting references would be nice. Or is it you think creationism is A'OK? If so then by all means say so and give your supporting argument(s).

I realize you think that, but you haven't made the slightest effort/advance to support it. As I said to Chadn, if you want to discount my reference regarding ridicule as an effective tool/weapon then you need to address specifics in that reference. As to the table, as Mooeypoo pointed out this thread is not about god belief but about creationist belief vs. reality. I'd also note that IIRC Chadn said -from his personal experience- that many/most Christians he has knowledge of are not and/or do not support creationists.

I am equally certain that neither is pointing that out. I at least have made a sincere effort to tie my responses to the specifics that Moontan laid out in the opening post and I have also introduced an historical perspective/argument on creationism vs. reality.

Perhaps you can review your arguments/reasons? I don't recall anything other than anecdotes from your personal experience. If you mean to discount my reference -which is contemporary- then you need to address specifics in it that you discount. Then too, I reiterate that you et all have no basis to judge the effectiveness of ridicule on those who do not report on their response. While I don't discount that ridicule may not be effective for changing the mind of an individual it is directed at, the effectiveness of ridicule is best realized when it is delivered publically to a wide audience. The more people disposed to embracing some ideal or belief who see that ideal/belief and its proponents ridiculed, the more likely they are to rethink their position. Care to address/counter any specifics for my reference on ridicule or the reference on erroneous believer-attribution for the story of Noah?

And just because you disagree does not make it unreasonable, bad, or wrong. (post hoc ergo propter hoc?) I have at least searched out & posted a supporting reference for my position on ridicule. You for your position; not. I have also sought out & posted a supporting reference contradicting the belief in Bible inerrancy. You to support it; not.

No, I think he was just ridiculing your approach. Since you think ridicule has such a time-honoured reputation then I'm sure you will welcome his remarks. Mmmmmm...well StringJunky said in response to me that ridicule wasn't his style. In regards to my thinking on ridicule I have at least given supporting evidence for its time honoring. But nevertheless you are correct and I do enjoy a well turned barb even when directed at moi or my approach. Let me know when you come up with one.

Then there is the matter of creationists misrepresenting -or if generous, misunderstanding- the inerrancy of the Bible in regards to history as well as science. Specifically that the story of Noah is a hatchet job lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Fantastic distortionists from the git-go. To whit, Tablet XI. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm Clip clip here, clip clip there, We give the roughest claws, That certain air of savoir faire In the Merry Old Land of Oz Ha!

Re-reading the thread I see I saw it just once. Apparently it stuck. Whatever other mentions of intellectuals I thought I saw and meant to address with my comment you quoted, they were not yours. On the contrary, I find your posts most agreeable and perceptive. Carry on.

Creationists -all creationists- reject scientific discoveries that they perceive to be in conflict with their holy book(s), principally the Bible. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creationist That isn't a stereotype, that is a definition. The rejection of currently demonstrable facts in favor of non-demonstrable beliefs based on writings that are 1000's of years old and of questionable/debatable origins is ridiculous, silly, pathetic, laughable, ludicrous, preposterous, idiotic, absurd, and otherwise farcical by all measures of those words and their synonyms. Creationists would cut off their own noses to spite their faces. While simply holding a creationist belief is in-and-of itself rather harmless, those who set about to have their views supplant science in public projects and law are a harmful detriment to society and worthy of all lawful efforts that oppose them. What's it been; almost 90 years since the Scopes trial? And we're still dealing with this kind of idiocy. Good grief.

Whether or not you like the idea is immaterial. By your reasoning -and I use the term loosely- we should have something better than a spoon to eat soup with. As to the thread, its proposition is so poorly constructed that it guarantees railing if not derailment. Your speculations (arguments?) are just so much word-salad. What are we supposed to learn from them? What advancement or insight do you expect to generate?

The fact is it is proven technology in production and use. You would know that if you had visited the link and/or done any further research into the matter. Is that an impossible scenario? You doing some reading that is. I'm just asking to give some semblance of relation to the OP. The kite is supplemental to the engines and not intended to add speed but rather reduce fuel use and costs.

Rather than quote folks and reply to each specifically I'll just round up some generalized commentary. First, I keep seeing the claim that ridicule only works on intellectuals and I question the validity of that claim. Based on what do y'all make it? Second, assuming it is true then by-and-large the creationists at least consider themselves intellectual insofar as they study the Bible, have taken a tack to rename their belief as intelligent design, and make specific arguments against scientific discoveries. In the specific case of Moontan's lady friend, since she is pursuing a Phd then we ought to allow she is an intellectual if not thinks so herself and so ridicule is well applied. Yes ridicule is not always the best tool and yes it is not everyones' style. That does not discount that those well skilled can use it to good effect. Discounting it whole-cloth is ridiculous.

Stupid people saving money and the environment at the same time!! source: http://www.skysails.info/index.php?L=1

I like your answer and original post for putting a new voice on the issue. I do however think some qualification/justification is due for the claim that we "easily" recognize the voices of others when filtered. What is the basis for this claim? If it is true, is it true only for voices familiar to us in both unfiltered and filtered circumstances, or is it equally true for unfamiliar voices? To clarify, are our easily-recognized-filtered-other-voices easily recognized because we have repeatedly heard them filtered? The hearing ear is always found close to the speaking tongue. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

This thread strikes me as very querulous and approximately equivalent to braggadocio. What am I supposed to be learning here?

Can you provide a link? I can't seem to find the full story from just the images. Learning is pleasurable but doing is the height of enjoyment. ~Novalis

That didn't take long. Searching "study on ridicule as effective" I went to the first result of ...well...many. I'll quote judiciously and leave it to the interested reader to follow up. While not quoted here, good ol' Ben gets due acknowledgement for his effective use of ridicule. www.iwp.edu/docLib/20060209_RidiculeasaWeapon2.2.1.pdf So in conclusion, those who disagree with me are a bunch of poopy heads. lol Most scientific types? What would that be? Appeal to age? I'm older than you. Not a good strategy? See above.

OK The quotation marks were ambiguous in intent so I will take you at your word. Likewise, I will take you at your word that you're no kettle as I don't know you well enough yet to judge. I see you didn't address the issue of your evaluation of what readers think of my writing, or to the bigger point here of whether or not ridicule is or can be an effective tool in swaying peoples' beliefs. (In particular the creationist cadre.) Do you concede my assertion that you have no basis to judge the effectiveness of my -or any- ridicule in changing minds of folks who don't reply to the ridicule? I have made a number of assertions that ridicule is an effective teaching device -in some instances of course- based on anecdotal historical facts in evidence. I'll do due diligence and see if I can find some studies on the issue. Meantime, how's things going with you and your lady friend Moontan? Anything here been helpful? Talked to her again yet? Enquiring minds want to know.

You can't possibly know what effect my writing has on 'them', other than 'them' that reply. And isn't your reply ridiculing me when you say "albeit standard"? Of course it is. So who do you mean to convince that my words are 'standard'? Me, or other readers?

So I shall. Opinions are as opinions do. Do ya think? Do you disagree strongly enough that you go out of your way to broach the issue? Or do you just keep your mouth shut until the issue comes up? Nevertheless, you do understand why you were ridiculed, right? That may be your experience, but as an argument for universal application it is a strawman. I am fully aware of my audience. As I have pointed out, ridicule and mockery have a long and honored tradition in human discourse. This is even recognized in copyright law wherein greater leeway to use the works of others is given to lampoonery. How can you possibly know your influence on those who did not engage? That's rhetorical of course as you cannot know. Well let's party then. Well, you know what lampooners say about opinions. And if your feelings don't count, why should the feelings of those you defend count? There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: ~ Ecclesiastes 3

Hi TAR I'm no Moontanman, but I must reply here. A long time ago and close close nearby I was studying geology as an adjunct to other coursework. While not required, I took some additional classes and one included a 2 week field trip from the Columbia Gorge to the Grand Canyon and back. Along for the trip was a creationist whose sole purpose was to prove accepted geology was a lie. We all hiked to the bottom of the canyon and back and he never let up on arguing with the instructor. Convinced? Hardly. Convinced at Yosemite? Nope. Hiking to top of Mt. Lassen? Not even. Mono Lake? Phhhh. Bryce Canyon? Stupid scientists. Columbia Gorge and Missoula floods? You got to be kidding. I suppose the instructor needed to be patient or lose his job, but more then a few of us dozen other students would have gladly left that SOB young-earther in Death Valley. Not only was his pig-headedness and non-stop arguing a pain to bear, it took away the instructor from those of us who had legitimate questions and topics of discussion. Be nice and don't offend his dear tender feelings? Bullshit. What about my dear tender feelings? I paid for a class in science and that jackass screwed me out of a fair amount of it. Oh that I had known then what I know now. I liked a response from an astronomy prof along about the same time when a girl raised her hand when we were discussing star formation and told the prof what he was saying was against her religion. He said you don't have to believe it, you just have to learn it. As I recall she did neither.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Given the variability we humans exhibit I have no doubt there is more than enough room for spending a lot of time convincing creationists as well ridiculing them. May the farce be with you.