|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2006 : 23:05:45 [Permalink]
|
| Interesting we're on the fourth page on this. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 04:59:09 [Permalink]
|
jordoskeptic is having fun with us, laughing as long as we take him and his mirror "gag" at all seriously. I don't. This might have been fun, perhaps, if this hoax had been perpetrated with a better sense of humor.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 05:12:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Interesting we're on the fourth page on this.
I know! I think I'm going to mke a sock puppet and start a thread challenging the board's skeptics by claiming that a cabal of hyper-intelligent apes run the world. If you doubt me, it's only because you're not skeptical enough. The over/under for the thread will be 5 pages. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 05:20:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jordoskeptic
I like this quotation the best
"Why not question something for a change?"
This is coming from a guy who's asking to see proof from a premise.
So based on the responses the following must be the case:
Nope. You have constructed a strawman argument by misquoting what we are saying and also assuming that it must be the mirror that is causing the harm and not what is reflected IN it. As you have yet to state what is in mirrors that would be causing aforementioned harm, your assertations are untestable. You also have failed to even produce evidence that they actually DO cause harm.
quote:
1. Like clean, temperate water or oxygen, a mirror poses no risk to humans whatsoever. Unlike water and oxygen, a mirror cannot be contaminated and cause any harm. Moreover, there aren't any conditions or circumstances in which mirrors could cause harm (also unlike ingesting water or oxygen).
Strawman #1: point posited was that the reflectivity of a substance does not directly cause harm. Likewise, just like water, it is what is reflected that may cause harm. You have produced exactly zero evidence that contamination of mirrors is happening at all. Since they have been in use for over a millenia without harm to the user (excepting the cases where the thing reflected caused the direct harm), your premise is unsupported.
quote:
2. The act of avoiding mirrors is not the same as a Diabetic who avoids certain food. It's a sign of neurosis.
Strawman #2: The diabetic avoids certian foods because of medical testing which reveals a chemical imbalance. Avoiding mirrors without medical or scientific evidence that mirrors have a harmful effect is completely different. Some may term it eisoptrophobia or catoptrophobia. It is covered in the ICD-9-CM as 300.20.
quote:
3. Only a mirror can be used in a car, not a video camera, but there would be no difference in the affect on the driver because mirrors cause no harm.
Strawman #3: Why use high-tech when unpowered low tech does the same job? Unlike video cameras (which is the new high-tech toy on big rigs and luxury cars), mirrors do not require power to operate, draw no amperage from the battery, and are far more economical than the video camera counterpart. At no time has anyone suggested that only a mirror can be used on a car. What was said is that there are methodologies to reduce the harm from the stuff reflected in automotive mirrors.
quote:
I'll shut up now. I come up with better arguments against my own premise--should I post those to assist anyone who disagrees?
So an environmental factor shouldn't be considered when diagnosing a breast cancer patient? Why doesn't someone post a list of studies showing how safe the things are? But there aren't any of those either. This is called taking something for granted. It's blind faith. How is it not? Is there a list of other things which absolutely should not be studied? I'd like to see it.
It's called there are far more pressing issues than researching something which does not have any evidence for it causing harm. Even anectdotal evidence does not exist for it causing harm.
quote:
Skeptics should sign their posts with signatures that say "6 billion people cannot be wrong."
I'll take my chances with a reflection-free lifestyle.
If you choose to avoid mirrors, you are free to do so. Your lack of support for your premises and relaince on emotional arguments and ad hominem arguments does not support your premises.
I casually piss napalm on your strawmen arguments, too.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 09/28/2006 05:27:17 |
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 14:58:46 [Permalink]
|
| joke topic |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
