Woony

[Jeff Corey]

Calling the skeptically impaired "woos" always struck me as somehow inelegant or not quite "bright" enough. Hows abouts the portmanteau word "Woony", for loony woos?
There is also a back reference to Moonies.

[buzz lightyear]

Calling the skeptically impaired "woos" always struck me as somehow inelegant or not quite "bright" enough. Hows abouts the portmanteau word "Woony", for loony woos?
There is also a back reference to Moonies.

Good idea Jeff.
We do a similar thing in this part of the world, in that we refer to Yanks as "septics".
This is because the word Yank rhymes with "septic tank" and we just shorten it to 'septic'. It is also because they are full of the same contents as the tank.
So perhaps we should call skeptics , septics, as a back reference to their contents.

[Slimething]

Calling the skeptically impaired "woos" always struck me as somehow inelegant or not quite "bright" enough. Hows abouts the portmanteau word "Woony", for loony woos?
There is also a back reference to Moonies.

Great idea. My son has been laughing his ass off reading the $1 Million Challenge subforum. If only the applicants could have seen and heard him! :jaw-dropp

Good idea Jeff.
We do a similar thing in this part of the world, in that we refer to Yanks as "septics".
This is because the word Yank rhymes with "septic tank" and we just shorten it to 'septic'. It is also because they are full of the same contents as the tank.
So perhaps we should call skeptics , septics, as a back reference to their contents.

This is so sad. I guess this is what passes for wit in buzz's world. Be very afraid! :eek:

[Lianad]

Personally I've been using "Loony Toon/Tune" for awhile now, always seems to get a chuckle when mentioned in a conversation.

[Soapy Sam]

Woonys?
Are you twying to make fun of people with wisps? And Owientals?
Siwwy wyming swang.
"Woo" is fine.

[Slimething]

Are you twying to make fun of people with wisps? And Owientals?

Wike this?

aXtLntrqyxk

[Soapy Sam]

Pwecisewy!

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Pwecisewy!

Thwtike him, thentuwion. Thwtike him woughly!

[Jeff Corey]

Good idea Jeff.
We do a similar thing in this part of the world, in that we refer to Yanks as "septics".
This is because the word Yank rhymes with "septic tank" and we just shorten it to 'septic'. It is also because they are full of the same contents as the tank.
So perhaps we should call skeptics , septics, as a back reference to their contents.
Smashing, Buzz! In this part of the world we say "Buzz off." This is the polite form of "Bug off", which was derived from a somewhat less polite "Bugger off".
So, Buzz off.

[buzz lightyear]

Smashing, Buzz! In this part of the world we say "Buzz off." This is the polite form of "Bug off", which was derived from a somewhat less polite "Bugger off".
So, Buzz off.

Whats up Jeff??
I thought you liked a bit of friendly name calling.
Don't you remember when you chuckled to yourself as you came up with "woony"?
Not so much fun when you are on the recieving end,... hey, old son.
It never has been the mark of a great man to belittle others through the use of derogative terms. I suppose this explains why good old Jimmy does it so oftern.

[Dr B]

In his book on consciousness, Jeffrey Gray uses the term "Mysterian" for those that have a far from scientific view of consciousness and place it in a box marked special.

I think the term is useful....though it does sound like an enemy from Star-Trek.

[Jeff Corey]

Whats up Jeff??
I thought you liked a bit of friendly name calling.
Don't you remember when you chuckled to yourself as you came up with "woony"?
Not so much fun when you are on the recieving end,... hey, old son.
It never has been the mark of a great man to belittle others through the use of derogative terms. I suppose this explains why good old Jimmy does it so oftern.

Learn how to spell.

[Jeff Corey]

In his book on consciousness, Jeffrey Gray uses the term "Mysterian" for those that have a far from scientific view of consciousness and place it in a box marked special.

I think the term is useful....though it does sound like an enemy from Star-Trek.
Thanks for the reference. I have the review of Gray (2004) Consciousness:Creeping up on the Hard Problem and want to read it. The problem is that "mysterian" has been used before to refer to people who say that there are problems that we just are not smart enough to solve, like consciousness.

[RayG]

As someone who frequents the JREF, I'm always disappointed when I see people tossing out group labels in an attempt to disparage those who have an alternate viewpoint. That's playground behavior, and it does nothing to further the discussion, plain and simple.

Speaking of playground, here are some recent football scores...

Washington Woonies 14 Tennesse Trolls 6
Green Bay Gullibies 13 Pittsburg Pattycakes 9
Cleveland Creduloids 16 Kanas City Kooks 12
Seattle Septics 24 Sand Diego Scoftics 16

Tonight the Philadelphia Fanatics square off against the Baltimore Bleeevers.

Whenever I see the use of labels to describe those that engage in a differing viewpoint I'm reminded of the quote by Elbert Hubbard --

"If you can't answer a man's arguments all is not lost; you can still call him names." :D

Ray 'Poopy pants' G

[Big Les]

I'm always disappointed when I see people getting all relativist and using phrases like "alternate viewpoint". This suggests that said the views of woos are somehow legitimate or correct. If disparaging insults are good enough for Randi, they're good enough for me.

"Woonies" is good, but I doubt it'll stick. "Woos" is in limited enough usage as it is, and already needs explanation to non sceptics.

[RayG]

I'm always disappointed when I see people getting all relativist and using phrases like "alternate viewpoint". This suggests that said the views of woos are somehow legitimate or correct.
.
Nope, wasn't suggesting that an alternate viewpoint was correct, merely that it differs from mine (or yours). That's how we have debate or argument -- there are two sides to an issue, opinion, or point of view. Evidence is what matters, but it's always easier to call someone names than it is to point out evidence contrary to their viewpoint.

If disparaging insults are good enough for Randi, they're good enough for me..
On that we differ. In my opinion, insults are the refuge of those who have no evidential ammunition, and one of the few things I dislike about Randi. There is no logical reason for using insults. Frustration is no excuse.

"Woonies" is good, but I doubt it'll stick. "Woos" is in limited enough usage as it is, and already needs explanation to non sceptics..
Personally, I find those childish, and an attempt to insult instead of debate. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the term "proponent".

RayG

[arthwollipot]

Funny, I've always had a similar problem with the term "bright". As if everyone who wasn't a "bright" was a "dim".

[Big Les]

.
Nope, wasn't suggesting that an alternate viewpoint was correct, merely that it differs from mine (or yours). That's how we have debate or argument -- there are two sides to an issue, opinion, or point of view. Evidence is what matters, but it's always easier to call someone names than it is to point out evidence contrary to their viewpoint.

Yes it is. When actually conversing with a "woo" online I do my best to avoid using such terms, or even insulting them at all. In real life, I avoid it entirely. When discussing "proponents" with sceptics and cynics, I am more than happy to use "woo", "creduloid" and the like. I am expressing my disdain for their ignorance.


On that we differ. In my opinion, insults are the refuge of those who have no evidential ammunition, and one of the few things I dislike about Randi. There is no logical reason for using insults. Frustration is no excuse.

Of course you are correct on the point of logic, but you seem also to describe a false dichotomy. Insults can be that refuge, but if you also happen to have said evidential ammo, then surely you are not taking refuge, you are emphasising your position. But again, I try hard not to involve insults in actual debate or argument. I am guilty of falling victim to frustration online and resorting to insults; I'm not some Zen-like sceptical Spock able to simply smile benignly in the face of wilful ignorance.


Personally, I find those childish, and an attempt to insult instead of debate. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the term "proponent".

I don't see what's so childish about insults per se. Adults make regular and effective use of them, especially when they simultaneously construct an argument that's backed by evidence or is on safe ground refutation-wise (null-hypothesis etc). But once more, I do recognise that they are not conducive to effective debate, and avoid them one-to-one. Of course forum posts are open for everyone to read, but I would rather be honest about my feelings on a subject than disguise them and condescend - I also try to avoid condescention as far as possible (though I may fail at this also).