I'm considering going back and updating some of the Doggerel series, to cover points better and so forth. If I'm about to hit #100, I'd like to make sure my past entries are sufficiently spiffy.So, any suggestions for ones I should do over?
I'm considering going back and updating some of the Doggerel series, to cover points better and so forth. If I'm about to hit #100, I'd like to make sure my past entries are sufficiently spiffy.
9 comments:
Not really a do over, but still waiting for "I'm going to show you - in my book!"
P.S - Herm/Ephraim emailed me back. That guys crazier than a pet coon.
*guy's*
Hmm...This isn't a do-over, but I just got "You don't know enough to judge!" on one of my cult posts, even though I've had multiple former members tell me I was spot on in my knowledge and my judgements.
Anything involving judgement always seems to be a favorite.
I'm still waiting for "Where do you get your morals?" myself. The pointing out that people in religions don't often listen to their religion's morals, or that there's plenty of ways to be moral without needing a god (or karma or whatever) to tell you to do so has been done but are always valid to bring up. One thing I always try to bring up is that even a god won't make morals absolute. Where did that god get it's morals and what makes the fact that you are doing as a god tells you more "correct" in your morals? I'm not even talking about the reward/punishment angle here, I'm just saying that even if there was a god and it's morals weren't an abomination, following those would be as "empty" as following any sense of morality in the "absoluteness" sense.
yea, more talk about "placebo effects" please.
You should write more about how the happiness in our life is just a illusory perception AKA Placebo Effect.
This could be ground breaking for someone to have the courage to expose the truth!
Well, that's crazy.
I would like to respectfully put in a vote for, and I'm not sure that you've done this one yet, "You don't understand the theory!" Commonly used by anybody trying to defend a theory which is either weak or weaker than they would like. "No, that's not what the theory says!"
Commonly used by defenders of my current favourite target, Risk Homeostasis (I don't disagree with it, I just don't think it's all that important or says anything particularly meaningful), and is generally a good sign that the theory has been either not explained well yet, and is being left open to interpretation, or is just plain not that good. Or utter crap. One or the other.
Dubito, you're totally stealing my handle (or at least, the one I use on the JREF forums) :). At least you're doing it justice.
Never heard of Risk Homeostasis. Care to give some examples of your proposed doggerel being used, like a thread with a woo using it?
I have seen one thing that might come close to that: A lot of believers in psychic powers often make them weaker and weaker to avoid any definitive test, even after they've endorsed someone with the strong powers they believe in.
Post a Comment