1356: Well Enough

[Tactix]

I also have psoriasis and it does suck... the creams that I use help sometimes but its so hard to keep up the treatment due to work so flare ups happen often.

I was really self conscious about it at first, but a couple of years in and I think I'm managing ok. But it does take a toll on a person's mental state .

[starscream]

Originally Posted by FletchLives

you're trying to be sarcastically funny, but it's helping to prove what i've been saying.

Yay! Now I'm a comedian too! And a point-prover, but that's not as exciting.

[FletchLives]

Originally Posted by starscream

Yay! Now I'm a comedian too! And a point-prover, but that's not as exciting.

you're a terrible comedian, and you proved a point i believe you were against.

[Lanfear]

Fletch is trying to show that knows fancy words like "sceptic" and wants to use it for every-fucking-body that every doubted any tiny thing in his whole life while Bob is discussing the point that there is a philosophical concept called scepticism that is based on the principle that there is no absolute certainty EVER.

So my vote goes to Bob.

[dEadERest]

there is a philosophical concept called dictionaries

[Lanfear]

Originally Posted by dEadERest

there is a philosophical concept called dictionaries

I personally subscribe to the philosophical concept called FYSY which is a subset of the school of P!SP!

[dEadERest]

i agree, quite frankly, i've seen it many times

[asunseeker]

Originally Posted by SlateDando

I like Lucas. He's a good guy, and very matter-of-fact about it. It would make me sad if he killed himself.

Please don't kill yourself, Lucas.

I've only listened to about half of this.....but I'm worried about Lucas. He does seem like a very good guy but very, very sensitive. The KATG community can be very loving and accepting....but then something happens and the forums explode with pretty pointed criticism. I don't want to download an episode that is called "Lucas the awesome intern, RIP".

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by FletchLives

such a long post but you contradicted yourself and showed my point. you couldn't answer my question of what you would call a person who is skeptical.
everyone that is capable of any rational thought proccess is most likely a skeptic in a particular area. i've only used Christians as an example because it is the group that was being discussed with the whole sainthood conversation.
you really can't prove me wrong here Bob the Almighty. all you've done is picked apart "skeptic" and it's meaing to try to make point that i've shown you is wrong.

EDIT: i want all of you to challenge what i've said after reading this discussion. prove me wrong bitches

Are you serious? You're just legitimately dumb. I showed you how many of the definitions of skeptic are particularly apt for describing someone that does not believe in some religious belief, and you're trying to tell me that one half of one third of the definitions of skepticism, which in total was relevant to one half of the definitions of skeptic, prove that you are more right about the word skeptic in a general sense? That's idiotic.

Furthermore, I already addressed that part of the definition. Someone is not - as a general term - a skeptic if they are only skeptical about an urban legend about frogs. They are a skeptic regarding that subject, but they are not a skeptic in general.

You're especially making yourself look dumb when you said "I don't think you know what skeptic means" and every single definition applies to what I said it applies to.

And what's more, people 1000 years ago didn't believe a lot of shit people told them, too. Skeptics are not automatically correct; you can be skeptical about something and be wrong. People 1000 years ago didn't believe stuff with the same frequency that people today don't believe stuff; only what is not believed has changed. If not believing one thing makes someone a skeptic, people long ago were just as much skeptics as people are today, which completely decimates your original point.

A skeptic is, boiled down to the simplest term, a doubter. Just like most labels, it is applied to a person when it is applicable to them more often than it is not, or is more applicable to them than to the average person. I am not a cook if I make ramen one time or make ramen all the time. I would not call someone a doubter if they only doubted one thing because it breaks down the usefulness of descriptive words.

It's pretty telling when I give you the definition of skeptic as support for my argument, as you invited me to do, and then you say I am "picking it apart". Words have meanings and you can't just arbitrarily pick them or try to erode the language just to prove a point. I hope you never have to introduce someone or describe what they do in any way, because everyone in your world is a polymath.

[thepetek]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

But it has worked today. Scientology started much in the same way that Mormonism did -- some dude wrote some shit, people believed it and converted. They started out small but their numbers grew. Mormonism is bigger than Scientology only because it's had 150 years to grow, but their ideas are just as batshit crazy. In an earlier post you simply dismissed this as cultish behavior. But that is how all religions start. As cults. If they get mainstreamed, people call them religions.

Good example. And instead of the people of Illinois killing them, now they get invited on talk shows in Chicago.