Women and Astrology, psychics etc.

Sardonicat

Walking Wounded wrote: »

All I'm saying is don't be the arrogant atheist gimp who think he's better than her.

Read up on your own star sign. It can pay off

It's not only men who think it's nonsense. Or atheists either.

mikhail

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Also, by that logic you'd have a machine that could measure all kinds of other feelings/senses like how much one person loves another, or how guilty a criminal feels for his or her crimes.

But we don't say love and guilt don't exist because they can't be measured in a lab.

We can absolutely measure those things. Brain chemistry and brain electrical activity are complicated, but those things are emergent properties of both. This tiresome argument from ignorance is completely fallacious.

cj maxx

Completely misread the op as astronomy and physics,.
Not that other ****e.
Though if anyone is looking for a Virgo born in the year of the rat my number is xxx yyyyyyyy

Sardonicat

Walking Wounded wrote: »

True. But I've noticed there's a breed of man who seems to think he's being clever and funny by taking women down a peg or two when it comes to astrology and the like.

Well, if I come across someone who gives credence to these things, I assume they are a gullible cretin. I most likely will not waste my energy trying to bring them down a peg or two or make fun of them but I certainly would not want to get to know them beyond a superficial level. I find willfully stupid people draining.

kikilarue2

Sardonicat wrote: »

Walking Wounded wrote: »

True. But I've noticed there's a breed of man who seems to think he's being clever and funny by taking women down a peg or two when it comes to astrology and the like.

Well, if I come across someone who gives credence to these things, I assume they are a gullible cretin. I most likely will not waste my energy trying to bring them down a peg or two or make fun of them but I certainly would not want to get to know them beyond a superficial level. I find willfully stupid people draining.

So you don’t hang out with anyone who’s religious at all, and as well as considering them stupid you think they are cretins?

I think I’d rather hang out with a gullible naive person who’s sound than someone like you.

Sardonicat

Walking Wounded wrote: »

Ok Sheldon.

I'm not male. I'm not on the Autistic spectrum. I'm not a scientist. (I've never studied science) In what way do you think I resemble a fictitious character who is all 3 of those things?

kikilarue2

mikhail wrote: »

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Also, by that logic you'd have a machine that could measure all kinds of other feelings/senses like how much one person loves another, or how guilty a criminal feels for his or her crimes.

But we don't say love and guilt don't exist because they can't be measured in a lab.

We can absolutely measure those things. Brain chemistry and brain electrical activity are complicated, but those things are emergent properties of both. This tiresome argument from ignorance is completely fallacious.

Let’s assume here that you are 100% correct.

Why not express it in a civil tone? You don’t convince people that you’re right by repeatedly calling them stupid (see: Trump, Brexit)

I’ll take on board what the likes of Phutyle has to say because he’s able to get it across without practically orgasming in arrogance and intellectual superiority.

I’ll disregard anything anyone who’s talking down to me has to say (without providing a single link to back up their sweeping assertions).

Sardonicat

kikilarue2 wrote: »

So you don’t hang out with anyone who’s religious at all, and as well as considering them stupid you think they are cretins?

I think I’d rather hang out with a gullible naive person who’s sound than someone like you.

I'm not an atheist. The people who I consider cretins are grown adults who have had the benefit of an education yet give credence to horoscopes and mediums and psychics. But thanks for putting words mouth. Is that a psychic ability?

kikilarue2

Sardonicat wrote: »

kikilarue2 wrote: »

So you don’t hang out with anyone who’s religious at all, and as well as considering them stupid you think they are cretins?

I think I’d rather hang out with a gullible naive person who’s sound than someone like you.

I'm not an atheist. The people who I consider cretins are grown adults who have had the benefit of an education yet give credence to horoscopes and mediums and psychics. But thanks for putting words mouth. Is that a psychic ability?

How is believing in psychics any more ridiculous than believing the central tenets of Catholicism or Islam?

mikhail

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Let’s assume here that you are 100% correct.

Why not express it in a civil tone? You don’t convince people that you’re right by repeatedly calling them stupid (see: Trump, Brexit)

I’ll take on board what the likes of Phutyle has to say because he’s able to get it across without practically orgasming in arrogance and intellectual superiority.

First we were angry, now we're arrogant. You want to have a discussion with people who meekly agree that your feelings are more important than reality, you'll find them on mumsnet.

I’ll disregard anything anyone who’s talking down to me has to say (without providing a single link to back up their sweeping assertions).

Oh, now you want evidence.

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

First we were angry, now we're arrogant. You want to have a discussion with people who meekly agree that your feelings are more important than reality, you'll find them on mumsnet.


Oh, now you want evidence.

The contradictions are piling up, and a shrill tone emerging.

kikilarue2

mikhail wrote: »

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Let’s assume here that you are 100% correct.

Why not express it in a civil tone? You don’t convince people that you’re right by repeatedly calling them stupid (see: Trump, Brexit)

I’ll take on board what the likes of Phutyle has to say because he’s able to get it across without practically orgasming in arrogance and intellectual superiority.

First we were angry, now we're arrogant. You want to have a discussion with people who meekly agree that your feelings are more important than reality, you'll find them on mumsnet.

I’ll disregard anything anyone who’s talking down to me has to say (without providing a single link to back up their sweeping assertions).

Oh, now you want evidence.

Yeah, you are coming across as both angry and arrogant. Like I said, I’ll take on board what people who are capable of being civil during a debate have to say.

And yeah, since you have science on your side it should be super easy to back up what you have to say. What tests are used to measure feelings, and how accurate are they?

kikilarue2

Deleted User wrote: »

mikhail wrote: »

First we were angry, now we're arrogant. You want to have a discussion with people who meekly agree that your feelings are more important than reality, you'll find them on mumsnet.


Oh, now you want evidence.

The contradictions are piling up, and a shrill tone emerging.

Ah you’re back love, with more ad hominems and nothing worthwhile to contribute. No change there then.

kikilarue2

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Ah you’re back love, with more ad hominems and nothing worthwhile to contribute. No change there then.

Oh dear. The meaning of "ad hominem" eludes you. Try again.

Sardonicat

Walking Wounded wrote: »

Your arrogance.

You see, someone rejecting magical thinking and choosing to not associate with people who can't cope with their magical thinking being challenged with logic isn't arrogance. And calling someone arrogant because they don't believe in magic isn't a particularly 'sound' thing to do. It's no skin off my nose of you're taken in by whatever new age mumbo jumbo that helps you shape reality to confirm to your own perception of it. Reality will stay as it is even if you can't cope with that .

kikilarue2

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh dear. The meaning of "ad hominem" eludes you. Try again.

An ad hominem is when you attack the poster rather than what they are saying. Playing the man rather than the ball. I've already highlighted two instances on the thread where you've done this, and the "shrill" reference is a third.

You're contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Sardonicat

kikilarue2 wrote: »

How is believing in psychics any more ridiculous than believing the central tenets of Catholicism or Islam?

Again, more presumption. I'm not a Catholic either.

kikilarue2

Sardonicat wrote: »

You see, someone rejecting magical thinking and choosing to not associate with people who can't cope with their magical thinking being challenged with logic isn't arrogance. And calling someone arrogant because they don't believe in magic isn't a particularly 'sound' thing to do. It's no skin off my nose of you're taken in by whatever new age mumbo jumbo that helps you shape reality to confirm to your own perception of it. Reality will stay as it is even if you can't cope with that .

No, but calling people cretins for believing something different than you is a pretty horrible attitude, and certainly belies some arrogance.

You say you're not atheist, so can you explain to me why your spiritual beliefs are more valid than mine?

kikilarue2

Sardonicat wrote: »

Again, more presumption. I'm not a Catholic either.

I never said you were :rolleyes:

kikilarue2

kikilarue2 wrote: »

An ad hominem is when you attack the poster rather than what they are saying. Playing the man rather than the ball. I've already highlighted two instances on the thread where you've done this, and the "shrill" reference is a third.

You're contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion.

You've been trying to dictate the thread on your own terms, continuously on the defence and launching vitriolic broadsides at those who disagree with your assertions. You're shutting down open discussion. Get real.

mikhail

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Yeah, you are coming across as both angry and arrogant. Like I said, I’ll take on board what people who are capable of being civil during a debate have to say.

You've contributed nothing to this conversation but the supreme arrogance of believing your gut feelings that there's some link between people is worthy of consideration. It's simple really: if it affects reality, we can see it. You can observe love, fear, anger, even feelings of superiority. I already explained how, but you're not interested in anything but petty sophistry.

kikilarue2

Deleted User wrote: »

You're been trying to dictate the thread on your own terms, continuously on the defence and launching vitriolic broadsides at those who disagree with your assertions. Get real.

More ad hominems. I haven't dictated anything. As you will have seen, I'm having a very civil conversation with Phutyle because even though his opinion is similar to yours, he's able to express himself articulately and without resorting to personal insults. Give it a go.

Sardonicat

kikilarue2 wrote: »

No, but calling people cretins for believing something different than you is a pretty horrible attitude, and certainly belies some arrogance.

You say you're not atheist, so can you explain to me why your spiritual beliefs are more valid than mine?

I haven't called anyone a cretin
I said I would privately consider them such and I prefer not to associate with stupid people. In order to engage in a discussion comparing our respective spiritual beliefs I would need to know what yours are. So what do you believe?

kikilarue2

mikhail wrote: »

You've contributed nothing to this conversation but the supreme arrogance of believing your gut feelings that there's some link between people is worthy of consideration. It's simple really: if it affects reality, we can see it. You can observe love, fear, anger, even feelings of superiority. I already explained how, but you're not interested in anything but petty sophistry.

Can you explain how love, fear or anger are tested for in a lab? What tests do they use? What equipment? How accurate is it?

If you're so much more intelligent than I am, can't you enlighten me?

kikilarue2

Sardonicat wrote: »

I haven't called anyone a cretin
I said I would privately consider them such and I prefer not to associate with stupid people. In order to engage in a discussion comparing our respective spiritual beliefs I would need to know what yours are. So what do you believe?

I've already outlined my spiritual beliefs on the thread, it's your turn. And I can't wait to hear why yours are valid and mine are not.

Sardonicat

Walking Wounded wrote: »

But you're missing the point. I'm not saying you have to believe in horoscopes, I'm saying if you like someone, don't act all high and mighty because they mention they like to check their horoscope.

Realise I'm talking about the kind of man who spends 8hrs a day playing computer games but accuses religious people of living in a fantasy world. That's the type I'm talking about.

But this thread isn't about religion. It's about horoscopes and mediums. And with all due respect, how is anyone to know what what kind of man your talking about if you don't specify?

mikhail

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Can you explain how love, fear or anger are tested for in a lab? What tests do they use? What equipment? How accurate is it?

If you're so much more intelligent than I am, can't you enlighten me?

That's a trap. You have no interest in this. I can explain how an fMRI works until the cows come home, and all you'll do is move the goalposts or change the topic. I've met too many people like you. There's no reasoning someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

kikilarue2

kikilarue2 wrote: »

If you're so much more intelligent than I am, can't you enlighten me?

Another fallacious argument. You've repeated this tactic throughout the thread. Putting words in someone's mouth, without the person having ever expressed them. You should be ashamed of yourself.

kikilarue2

mikhail wrote: »

That's a trap. You have no interest in this. I can explain how an fMRI works until the cows come home, and all you'll do is move the goalposts or change the topic. I've met too many people like you. There's no reasoning someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

That's a no, I take it.

You'd rather insult my intelligence and attack my character than answer an honest question. That's fine. But know that the only person who has in any way given me pause on this thread is Phutyle.

Here's what you should take from that: I'm willing to be convinced. But not by someone who's going to make a series of broad sweeping statements and then refuse to in any way back them up.

kikilarue2

Deleted User wrote: »

Another fallacious argument. You've repeated this tactic throughout the thread. Putting words in someone's mouth, without them having ever expressed them. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Are you capable of posting without attacking me?