Toto

I think there is enough intelligence and time on this board to deal with your arguments.

Go back to Do you have a survey of these myths? Can you point out the relevant differences? What evidence is there of the exact location of these myths?

Clivedurdle

I would go further - to challenge the concept of archetype and common myths is to challenge the idea of a common humanity. As we have not found alien DNA or languages, this is unlikely,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype

Clivedurdle

And i feel able to make a theoretical prediction - if we do find alien species, there will be communalities of myths - even with octopii.

rlogan

Perfect thanks. Ten pages of diversionary nonsense, blamed on a non-entity "the debate" rather than the person responsible for it.

The escape of blame being that the non-point raised is "too difficult to understand", would take far more than the ten pages already wasted and besides, we're all too dumb.

That's why decent people like Doherty have every reason to be outraged. If we watch the behavior rather than listen to the convoluted "reasoning" then the strategy of sabotaging productive discussion with a gigantic red herring is obvious.

But having to wade through it is a demonstration of that being the best that can be done against Doherty.

ApostateAbe

Sorry, rlogan, but I have been getting progressively more discriminating with who I argue with. If it is difficult to make sense of double negatives or the distinction between "barely anything in common" and "nothing in common," then sometimes I can tolerate it, but tolerance is not productive when those shortcomings are accompanied by a personal grudge against me.

Iskander

You should only argue with yourself. You should call the effort by the name of athato Doherty jijnasa

rlogan

Thanks!

I have a keen interest in manipulative tactics and this is a classic - calling others stupid while playing the victim. Running away, framed as others not being worthy. A personal attack shrouded as defending against a personal vendetta.

Generally it's all about framing things as the opposite of what one is doing. It's against this whole backdrop of pretending to seek clarity over mythology. It's just coincidence the "clarity" is that mythology is too unclear to discuss. :innocent1:

One little tip: when someone starts off with "sorry", check to see if what comes after demonstrates they aren't sorry at all. A manipulative attack often denies what it is just about to do. So look for statements like "I don't mean to be rude...[followed by rude statement].

There's actually a name for this, and it is called covert aggression. If Doherty wants to know the name of this panalopy of tactics that has been deployed against him and why it is so maddening, it is because these tactics are out of the antisocial personality disorder literature.

That isn't to say a person who uses them is one. All of us use these tactics as defense mechanisms, to avoid perceived harm. Like the awful truth about there being no historical Jesus. Logical fallacies are of course part of this package, but I did not realize before studying this how important the emotional component is to this method of warfare.

In all things woo, like religion, ghosts, UFO's, bigfoot, etc. adherents learn to fight with these tactics instead of straightforward and above-board tactics. There is always an element of deception involved, and one of the important things about them is that they are working covertly at the emotional level, eg I am not really calling you stupid with your "shorcomings" in "understanding". And I need you to feel compassion for my sorrow in calling you stupid.

There is a very good book called "In Sheep's Clothing, How to Deal with Manipulative People" by Dr. George Simon and it is really an indispensible tool people should have in dealing with purveyors of woo. Two reasons, really - for one, recognizing every tactic by name and in so doing removing their effect, the most important of which is anger. But they may be working on shame, guilt, vanity, sympathy, or some other emotion to get what they want.

You bet they want Doherty angry. Or to feel shame that he does not have an adequate understanding of mythical literature. Yes, they get under your skin. Because that's an integral component of the whole approach.

ApostateAbe

rlogan, that was actually very interesting. Maybe we can continue, and I will get something out of this. Do you think I am explicitly intending to be deceitful, or do you think it is something more subconscious?

youngalexander

I think that it is bloody boring!:banghead:

Toto

This is way, way off topic.

There is no charge that you are deliberately deceitful, only that your tactics are manipulative and underhanded.

I don't know how long rlogan has been following you. For those who need some background, Abe claims that he initially was impressed by Acharya S's work, but found that it didn't hold up in internet debate. He then decided that mythicism is just like creationism, and that he, Abe, had a calling to expose mythicists.

This has been going on for years. I have been unable to shake Abe from the mythicism-creationism analogy. I have given him facts, arguments, but nothing gets through. He posts claims that are not true, I call him on them, and he backs down. I don't think this is deliberate deception - he just makes up claims that would be true if mythicism were in fact like creationism.

It's like he has been taken over by a mental virus.

And there's no religious aspect to this - Abe claims to be an atheist (unlike GDon, who is some sort of Christian.)

There's something else going on here, but I don't know what.