Gemli, and attacking those who make sense.

[Kishkumen]

Yeah, gemli doesn't really seem to have a lot of points to make, and yet he keeps on hanging out with these clowns, exchanging the same kinds of barbs. He reminds me a bit of this awesome old website about tinfoil beanies and microscopic black helicopters. At first it was hilarious satire of internet wackiness, but then it went on so long, after the joke had been made, that you couldn't help wondering whether the author didn't just have some different form of the same kind of wack.

EDIT: That old site is still there!

There is a certain Andy Kaufmann element to the whole thing, and I respect that, but Andy was not a one note piano.

[Lem]

Nope. Again not even close. You don’t get to move goal posts or concoct burdens or standards for the rest of us.

Kiwi could help Ideeho out as he would not make this mistake. Moving goalposts is a fallacy one commits with their own arguments. It doesn't make any sense to say that Gemli is "moving goal posts" for the apologists.

Not only that, it's telling that bringing up the idea of evidence is considered to be 'concocting a burden.'

[Gadianton]

I admit I rarely tire of Gemli. There is some truth to the accusation that he's playing a single note. But that note on a Stradivarius with variations in vibrato and feeling is soothing for me.

It's also important to point out the context of their endless war. Gemli is tolerated, specifically because he avoids playing the game on their terms. Everyone knows that the Proprietor of the blog doesn't do substance. I learned that years ago on ZLMB. As long as somebody showed up like Gemli, he posted tirelessly. As soon as somebody stepped it up a notch, he had a flight to catch.

Now when I say "step it up a notch" do I mean that Gemli is somehow inadequate? Not really. For the arguments that he makes, he's generally spot on. The apologists, in my view, never really try to answer him. What they do have though is a list of sources they've read that presumably save them. For instance, Midgley is fond of dropping Karl Popper's name. (Hugh Nibley also dropped Karl Popper's name frequently, as a way to reinforce the idea that science is vulnerable). As soon as Gemli says "science", Midgley is getting ready to rattle off the fact he used to lecture on Popper, so there. At that point, what I'd do is go re-read Popper, and then reframe everything I'd been saying with what Popper said, and show Midgley that he has no clue about Popper. But Gemli is never going to do that. He doesn't care. He's going to continue making the points his way. And that largely explains his success at avoiding getting banned, because his way doesn't feel threatening to them because they assume their sources; Karl Popper, Huston Smith etc., prove them right.

[Kishkumen]

Fair enough, Dean Robbers. I am not opposed to gemli. At the same time, for me the whole thing is like watching a pseudo-debate that is doomed to go nowhere by design. At a certain point, the redundant quality limits its appeal FOR ME. Others undoubtedly see things differently and see different things in it all.

[Gadianton]

Fair enough, Dean Robbers. I am not opposed to gemli. At the same time, for me the whole thing is like watching a pseudo-debate that is doomed to go nowhere by design. At a certain point, the redundant quality limits its appeal FOR ME. Others undoubtedly see things differently and see different things in it all.

The great thing about Cassius is that we can disagree and still move forward. It's not like the FAIR email list Kerry talked about on RFM where disagreement resulted in shunning.

[Lem]

I admit I rarely tire of Gemli. There is some truth to the accusation that he's playing a single note. But that note on a Stradivarius with variations in vibrato and feeling is soothing for me.

It's also important to point out the context of their endless war. Gemli is tolerated, specifically because he avoids playing the game on their terms. Everyone knows that the Proprietor of the blog doesn't do substance. I learned that years ago on ZLMB. As long as somebody showed up like Gemli, he posted tirelessly. As soon as somebody stepped it up a notch, he had a flight to catch.

Now when I say "step it up a notch" do I mean that Gemli is somehow inadequate? Not really. For the arguments that he makes, he's generally spot on. The apologists, in my view, never really try to answer him….

No, they never do. They typically devolve into some type of attack on him personally, which he either ignores or laughs off, to his credit. I don’t tire of him either; I admire his ability to be consistent with his comments, while ignoring the slurs. in my opinion it’s an extremely valuable skill to have when you are commenting in a place where you feel you have a right to be, even though there are a few others there that seem to take pleasure in regularly pointing out that you really don’t fit in.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

EDIT: That old site is still there!

That was awesome.



- Doc

[Lem]

Gemli has made a handful of posts that are relevant to the discussion re: bayes, evidence, claims, etc:

gemli DanielPeterson 10 hours ago

If a belief can't be falsified, it can't be asserted to be true. All theologies rely on this simple fact. Make a claim of literally any angel, god, demon, afterlife, heaven, hell, whatever, and you'll never have to worry about anyone disproving your claim.


-------
gemli Zzyzx Zybisco 10 hours ago

Epistemology doesn't work that way. Claims must be falsifiable if they're to be considered factual. But there is no way to falsify gods, angels, devils, afterlives, etc., etc. If there is literally no way to show that a claim is wrong, then the claim is neither right nor wrong, but useless.


-----
gemli DanielPeterson 10 hours ago

The "you don't know enough" mantra is getting a bit old. I can't think of a false statement that couldn't be defended with this hollow response. But when there's no proof for one's claims, I can understand why one must throw shade.


----------
gemli DanielPeterson 10 hours ago

None of your responses are anything more than claims, or claims of claims.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 5444655311

[DrStakhanovite]

The great thing about Cassius is that we can disagree and still move forward. It's not like the FAIR email list Kerry talked about on RFM where disagreement resulted in shunning.

That is because we're adults.

That said, I like to think of Gemli as a Tityus/Prometheus figure. With every blogpost his liver gets torn out of him by the beaks of Daniel and Louis, only for it to regenerate in time for the next cycle. What the punishment is for, I dare not speculate.


(Painting by Peter Paul Reubens)

[Physics Guy]

I like to think of Gemli as a Tityus/Prometheus figure. With every blogpost his liver gets torn out of him by the beaks of Daniel and Louis, only for it to regenerate in time for the next cycle.

I think it's more like, With every blogpost he gets Ni'd by the Knights Who Say, "Ni!"