Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus 157 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Abaddon


    You do it to yourself, you do, and that's what really hurts.... YOU You say to Alan; "your contention that I am a troll is without foundation" Alan actually said to you; "I'm finally wondering, just before I hit the Submit button, if you're a true troll, or just someone silly enough to try to act like a troll". Yet again you can't understand what is being said to you in what must presume is your native language. You made exactly the same error of comprehension when Alan said "Your remarks are extremely stupid". If your understanding of the language is so limited in simple debate, one wonders what happens when reading something containing dense scientific or technical language.

  • Forscher


    Here is what Alanf actually said, I copied it straight from his post:

    "Indeed, and now it's painfully obvious to me that you're nothing but a troll. I will suggest to moderators that the usual action towards trolls be taken. Whatever they do, you can be sure that, from today on, I will point out that you're a troll, and many posters will simply ignore you."

    Please note that he said "and now it's painfully obvious to me that you're nothing but a troll."

    True, he may have qualified that before he submitted the post, but he could've eliminated the accusation before doing so just as well. Besides, his qualification was insincere and condescending as well:

    "I'm finally wondering, just before I hit the Submit button, if you're a true troll, or just someone silly enough to try to act like a troll."

    Hooberus sought to make the point that evolutionists are just as intolerant of other opinons as they claim the fundamentalists are. I used Alan to make the point and he fell right into the trap. I don't think that qualifies me as a troll. In fact, I think that to suggest that I am and to threaten to smear me as one (see the first quote) makes the point quite authoritatively.


  • Simon
    Indeed, and now it's painfully obvious to me that you're nothing but a troll. I will suggest to moderators that the usual action towards trolls be taken. Whatever they do, you can be sure that, from today on, I will point out that you're a troll, and many posters will simply ignore you.

    Thanks AlanF.

    However, we will decide if someone is a troll or not and we will decide if action needs to be taken or not ... not you!

    Be aware that I take a dim view of people who bleat "you're a troll" about anyone who simply disagrees with them and if you do insist on harrassing another poster then I will take action.

    (standing by for the usual "Simon, you are too stupid to understand my inspired words and am not recognising the immense importance I deserve ... and you got a comma in the wrong place" )

  • hooberus

    Midget-sasquatch said:


    There shouldn't be any bias in scientific journals. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. Having agendas doesn't have to mean a loss in all objectivity though. The scientific agenda I was thinking about was its trying to explain nature on strictly material processes and phenomena, without calling upon supernatural forces. IDers have a competing agenda to show a need for a supernatural creator.

    If trying to explain nature solely on "strictly material processes and phenomena" (the philospophical tenet of methodological naturalism) is the "scientific agenda" of some scientific journals, then the resulting exclusion of ID arcticles from appearing in them should not then be presented as a some sort of evidence against ID (since ID is being excluded on methodological/philosophical grounds, rather than solely on data/evidence).

    Of course new ideas should be allowed an opportunity to make there case.

    But how can they be, if they are excluded a priori (excluded based on the methodological philosophical viewpoint of scientific journals)?

    Seeing as how that article didn't even mention relevant evidence for the side of the issue being criticized (just to make the other side appear stronger?), I'd say it did a poor job of being an objective and analytical review. Also the arguments for the ID side didn't include any falsifiable material. It wouldn't be biased to keep that article from being printed until the pertinent changes were made.

    There is not always a need to present "relevant evidence for the side of the issue being criticized" if this evidence is already known to the readers. Regarding falsfifiability: ID concepts are able to be stated as being potentially falsifiable.

  • funkyderek


    ID concepts are able to be stated as being potentially falsifiable.

    Please state them in such a manner.

  • Cygnus

    Simon, be careful with Alan. He's a dangerous pipper.

  • hooberus
    ID concepts are able to be stated as being potentially falsifiable.

    Please state them in such a manner.

    Here is one (from ReMine): An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life. This is potentially falsifiable (for example by a demonstration that nautral processes are sufficient to account for life from non-life).

  • AlanF

    On the subject of internet trolls, Wikipedia has some interesting comments ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll ):


    The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a diminutive of the phrase "trolling for suckers," itself derived from the sports-fishing technique of trolling, which can be compared with trawling of which it is a near homophone.

    The word likely gained currency because of its conveniently apt second meaning, drawn from the "trolls" portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, which are often ugly, obnoxious creatures bent on wickedness and mischief. The image of the troll under the bridge in the Three Billy Goats Gruff emphasizes the rootedness of the troll in a physical environment, dislike of outsiders, particularly those who intend to graze on or in his or her domain.

    The troll is almost always a male figure and so may parallel the mythological figure of the witch. The use of these labels for people, as opposed to mythological characters in stories, may have its origins in the conflicts between the pagan religions and Christianity in the middle ages. People who continued to practice the "old ways" were often isolated and identified as dealing with dark forces, as "witches" - and perhaps also as "trolls".

    Scientific view

    Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because of the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries and rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious consequences.

    This may be part of an attempt to test the limits of some discourse, or to identify reactive personalities. By removing identities and histories from the situation, leaving only the discourse, some scientists believe that it is possible to run social engineering experiments using troll methods.

    However, few believe that troll organizations are engaged in science, and a few scattered individuals with no particular method or thesis cannot be described as scientists. They might however be engaged in research.

    Political view

    Some authorities consider the term "troll", when used to label a person, as being roughly equivalent to "riff-raff" or "scum" or any other term that dismisses a person as being unworthy of being heard for reasons that are not directly stated.

    Many - perhaps most - people labelled "trolls" are simply being called a name by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary type of dispute. In other words they are labelled as a "troll" for acting as a dissident or heretic. To characterize systems administrators or moderators as "the troll who got there first" is not entirely inaccurate: many debates between those with and without administrative or legal powers seem simply to resemble a heated, personal, argument. On the Internet in particular, the holding of technological powers (such as the power to ban users or block IP addresses) is not necessarily a sign of any superior political or moral judgement.

    As with similar pejorative labels, a group of people who are assigned the label can turn it around to create group identity and the power to collectively resist: Individual outsiders using the label on someone become targets for a collective response. Insiders may use the label without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way. For instance:

    Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates, gadflies or "culture jammers," challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of forum discussions in an attempt to break the status quo of groupthink - the belief system that prevails in their absence. Wikipedia itself has a project to counter systemic bias.

    Critics have claimed that genuine "devil's advocates" generally identify themselves as such out of respect for etiquette and courtesy, while trolls may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether.

    However, the history of anonymous expression in political dissent is long and honourable. The Federalist Papers, for instance, were anonymously authored. Without the public discourse on the controversial contents of the U.S. Constitution, ratification would likely have taken much longer as individuals worked through the issues. The Declaration of Independence, however was not anonymous. If it had been unsigned, it might well have been considered "trolling" by King George III and been therefore that much less effective. In The Infrastructure of Democracy, John Perry Barlow, Joichi Ito, and other US bloggers express a very strong support for anonymous editing (though not "trolling" necessarily) as one of the basic requirements of open politics as conducted on the Internet.

    However, a view is not "political" until it is shared by many other people. Most people who take the political view of trolling advocate some form of faction identification, so that biases and relevant discourses can at least be comprehended by opponents of the troll groups' political view. A good example is SOLLOG, a religious movement that encourages trolling, but makes its rationale and doctrine easily accessible to anyone interested.

    Forscher's self-described activities in this thread clearly fit the traditional internet use of the word "troll", as shown by the bolded statements above. I merely applied these usages to his description of himself. Note his comment in his most recent post: "I used Alan to make the point and he fell right into the trap." The second bolded section above directly applies.

    Simon, of course, as the owner of this board, you can define certain words to mean whatever you please, and act accordingly. But I used the word "troll" in a standard manner to describe someone whose own words precisely fit traditional internet usage. You might carefully read the views expressed above under "Political view".

    Forscher, you give yourself far too much credit. Anyone can pretend to be someone he is not and fool people on discussions forums. Really, it's not hard to imitate the braindeadness of the typical JW or Fundamentalist apologist.


  • scholar

    Alan F

    Are you God or a god? I ask this because you make comments about matters concerning the Origins of Life, Cosmology with much dogmatism. Perhaps you existed in a previous world and have come back a reincarnation in the form of Alan F.

    I seems to me that you simply follow the dumb theories of evolutionists who not only have a coherent singulatr theory of evolution but as yet cannot create life, have not found a single missing link and account for the beginning of the cosmos.

    Celebrated WT scholars through the FDS of loyal, devoted and humble people have published the beautiful, scientific and simple Creator book. This fine publication well documents current scientific theories which are now introducing a new paradigm of science, the ID movement which threatens to displace theistic and atheistic evolutionary pseudo science which is myhtology.

    The evolutionists in Australia are frightened by the introduction into this country of the new DVD Unlocking The Mystery Of Life which has the scientic community tembling at the knees for shows the inability of the evolutionary theory to account for the wonder of life, its origin and complexity. The ID hypothesis acknowledges the simple scientific statements in Genesis that God made all things beautiful in his own way, manner, time and purpose. Evolution at its crudest is simply a mirror image of creation but in a demonic form because evolution is simply change and that is what the Genesis demonstates in the upward progression of life. The Creator is Jehovah revealed in the Creation of the World also revealed in His Word, the Bible.

    scholar JW

  • Daunt

    This thread is filled with too much assumption to be worth-while.

Share this