I did not lie about Karla Turner.
You said she did not claim abductions were the work of space aliens. You said she had not drawn any conclusions about cause. You gave those as specific answers to specific questions I asked.
I posted direct quotes from her that said clearly the opposite of what you reported. I asked you to reconcile that and you never did.
You through the lier label around quite liberally.
No. I applied it only to you, along with evidence of the lie. I invited you to defend yourself, but you did not.
Nor do I percieve losing or winning this debate as having much importance.
Then why do you persist in it? Another question you won't answer.
To loose I would have to present everyone of many thousands of cases abd have each one debunked.
Um, no. When you fail to provide evidence for even one case you claim is strange or mysterious, you lose the debate. Your entire game plan is based on shifting the burden of proof. Making the same mistake many thousands of times does not create a case for you.
You are clearly stuck in the notion of space aliens as the default explanation, against which any other claim bears the burden of proof. That is not how science works.
You make a lot of observations about Karla Turner and Budd Hopkins. What are your qualifications and experiance in the field of psychology to do so?
Shifting the burden of proof. You presented both Turner and Hopkins as well-qualified experts in fields pertaining to the subjects on which they speak and write for profit. You misrepresented them both and were caught both times doing it. What are Turner's and Hopkins' qualifications and experince in the field of psychology?
You finally had to disavow Turner as being unqualified, but now we find that was just for show. Your disavowal was dishonest. What was that you tried to lecture us about a couple of days ago? Was it about how the desire to believe becomes so strong that it approaches a religious status? Aren't you simply holding up these people as apostles of the UFO movement that you fervently believe in?
These people claimed to have been harmed.
More appeal to pity.
I just thought we could cut to the main issue and stop wasting time and energy on the side issues.
Your "main issue" changes willy-nilly depending on how well the debate on that point is going for you. You will be held to answer the questions put to you.
You are not going to convince me of your viewpoint on these issues and I am not going to convince you either.
I'm not trying to convince you of my viewpoint. I'm showing how your viewpoint is logically and factually bankrupt. Whatever viewpoint you want to hold is your business, but not all can be said to be rationally tenable.
If these people are victims of abduction proponents like Budd Hopkins then it would be the responsibility of mainstream science to prove this...
It's far more parsimonious and congruent with the data to conclude based on data already presented that they are hucksters and thus worth little more attention. You continue to beg the question of their legitimacy and shift the burden of proof despite your own demonstrable unfamiliarity with them. Charlatans do not have a right to be publicly debunked. The have a responsibility to prove their own worth.
Alien abduction is the name of this thread and the side issue of trying to establish supporting evidence for the existence of aliens does not further this issue.
Hogwash. Without evidence for the existence of aliens there is no point whatsoever to talking about whether they abduct people. You want to fast-forward to the chase and omit all the science. First provide prima facie evidence of your hypothesis. Then we can decide what's left that's worthy of discussion.
|