You're a moron if you believe the Amityville story... - My Amityville Horror (2012) Discussion

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

You are a bigger moron for coming here just to complain about this. Lol

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

You're a moron if you believe the Amityville story... And this documentary proves it.

It proves absolutely nothing, only that you want to believe that it supports your own assertions.

And only a moron would call other people 'morons' for refusing to step in line with their own personal beliefs. But since your posting was clearly designed to do nothing more than rattle cages - congratulations, it worked!

http://www.the3drevolution.com/3dlist.html (3-D Filmography: 1893 - Present Day)

reply

[–] kurt-2000 10 years ago

You're a moron if you believe...

You moron. The documentary creators were siding with Daniel Lutz the whole time and you're too blind to see it. The film ends with the former local news team reaching the conclusion that some form of paranormal haunting occurring in the Amityville house.

No one suggested that Daniel remembered everything clearly, due to his trauma. The question raised was whether some degree of haunting existed or not. And the people that created the documentary WENT TO THE TROUBLE OF DOING SO, because they believed a haunting did occur.

Interesting that the OP also disregarded the recent claims made by Daniel's brother Christopher Lutz. Uumm yeah, now two of the Lutz kids have come out to state the house was haunted. Now I wait for the sister to make her statements to the public.

reply

[–] disinter 10 years ago

The documentary creators were siding with Daniel Lutz the whole time and you're too blind to see it.

Oh yeah they never butted heads like when he was asked to take a lie detector test. No decent documentary creators in the world would go into something like this bringing their own biases and personal agendas into it (which is why Micheal Moore is not an honest film maker). It's been awhile since I've seen this but I believe Daniel argued more than a few times with the film makers.

reply

[–] UpperEastSider 10 years ago

You're a moron if you don't believe it.

So there.

Be the type of person you want to meet

reply

[–] Villings 10 years ago

You're a moron for calling people morons on some thread in the internet.

Grow the *beep* up.

Signature must be fewer than 100 characters in length

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

Come on guys, there is a line for someone being a moron, it's not some mythical state. By your logic I can't call someone that if they tell me 2+2=123...

"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

Come on guys, there is a line for someone being a moron, it's not some mythical state. By your logic I can't call someone that if they tell me 2+2=123...

There's a difference between putting someone down for stating what is demonstrably wrong (ie. 2+2=123) and doing the same thing for someone who claims a belief in something that is still under debate (and the subject IS under debate, no matter how much closed-minded skeptics want to claim otherwise).

Besides, calling someone a 'moron' for ANY reason says more about the person delivering the insult than it does about the person they're insulting.

http://www.the3drevolution.com/3dlist.html (3-D Filmography: 1893 - Present Day)

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

There's a difference between putting someone down for stating what is demonstrably wrong

Besides, calling someone a 'moron' for ANY reason says more about the person delivering the insult than it does about the person they're insulting.

-So you start off by saying there are reasons, then say there's really not? I suppose it's under review in the same way that santa and the easter bunny are too, since they haven't been proven to NOT exist technically...

"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

-So you start off by saying there are reasons, then say there's really not?

No part of my posting condones insulting someone for the reasons given. What I was saying is that it's bad enough to be called a moron for claiming something that is demonstrably, unequivocally wrong (ie. 2+2=123), but to be called a moron for simply recounting an experience that may - or may not - have been real is beyond the pale. My wording may have tripped me up, but not the intent.

I suppose it's under review in the same way that santa and the easter bunny are too, since they haven't been proven to NOT exist...

The age-old skeptic fall-back: Compare genuine experiences (apparent encounters with ghosts, UFO's, etc.) with things that no reasonable person could be expected to believe as reality (Santa Claus, etc.), thereby lumping all of them under the same umbrella - MUCH easier to ridicule the lot of them in a single dismissive sweep of the hand. It's a feeble ploy that proves absolutely nothing, but top marks for trying.

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

Again, I don't have to prove anything. The person making the claim has to. Otherwise I could say someone robbed me and when they say prove it I say 'prove they didnt'. I would be laughed at and called a buffoon, why does that not apply to the paranormal as well? You just keep changing the subject when shown your error in logic.

yes they are all lumped together because they are all things that have never been proven to exist. I didn't throw anything random in there, they are all classified under no scientific evidence.

Ps: calling it a genuine paranormal experience means nothing, that's what we're debating. You've already decided its real before any evidence has been presented, and that's why you will always fall for these sorts of things

"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

Again, I don't have to prove anything. The person making the claim has to.

And again, the standard skeptic response. Since we've already established (in the other thread) that 'skeptics' are not engaged in genuine scientific enquiry but the wilful denial of ANY and ALL paranormal claims, this is - quite literally - an impossible task.

yes they are all lumped together because they are all things that have never been proven to exist. I didn't throw anything random in there, they are all classified under no scientific evidence.

But that wasn't your intent, and you know it. Most skeptics are guilty of the same thing: Lump together stupid things with GENUINE experiences (there's that phrase again - see below) in an attempt to belittle the whole field. It's an easy trick, but it doesn't wash.

Ps: calling it a genuine paranormal experience means nothing, that's what we're debating.

I didn't say 'genuine paranormal experiences' - I said 'genuine experiences'. I picked my phrase carefully. The only thing that's under debate is whether the stories told by all those billions of people contain a genuine paranormal component, not whether those experiences occurred in the first place. Excluding obvious fraudsters, it's clear the vast majority of people making these claims have experienced SOMETHING they couldn't explain. I don't believe they were ALL paranormal, but the law of averages dictates that some of them MUST be, given the vast numbers reported since the dawn of history.

You've already decided its real before any evidence has been presented, and that's why you will always fall for these sorts of things

I'm sorry, but the irony of this statement made me laugh out loud. In rebuttal, I'll just paraphrase it a bit, so you can see why it amused me: You've already decided it's false before any evidence has been presented, and that's why you will always plow a denialist furrow.

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

Otherwise I could say someone robbed me and when they say prove it I say 'prove they didnt'. I would be laughed at and called a buffoon, why does that not apply to the paranormal as well? You just keep changing the subject when shown your error in logic.

This needs to be addressed because it's misleading, mostly because skeptics refuse to clarify what evidence they'll accept, which allows them to say "Prove they didn't!" (your phrase), no matter WHAT is presented to them. It's true that anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute proof per se, but it DOES constitute the foundations of enquiry in certain circumstances.

As an example of what I mean, let's rework your scenario another way: You're in a beach resort, shopping in a crowded marketplace, and someone rushes up the street shouting: "Run! A tsunami is coming!" Before you drop everything and rush away to higher ground, you'll probably want a bit more evidence than the say-so of a single individual, so you might dismiss it altogether. If you're open-minded, you may even investigate the claim for yourself. Fair enough. But if a THOUSAND people come rushing up the street shouting the same thing, you'll probably give them a greater deal of credence and start running. Their evidence is no less 'anecdotal' than that of an individual doomsayer, but the numbers carry a great deal more weight. At the very least, you'll know that Something Very Bad is on its way.

The point being: Whether you believe in the paranormal or not, the sheer volume of 'anecdotal' evidence tells us that something strange appears to have touched the lives of countless individuals in ways we are - as yet - unable to comprehend. Some are lying, that much cannot be denied. Some are deluded. But not ALL of them. Not when the numbers are SO high, spread out over centuries and millennia. To say otherwise is ridiculous, wilful and - sometimes - downright malicious.

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

Except that a tsunami AT A BEACH RESORT is totally feasible and factually possible. If we were in the desert and 100 people ran up saying tsunami, that would be different. I'm pretty tired of the 'but so many people say it!' comment to be honest, i've literally seen it from you 20 times on these boards. It means nothing, it adds nothing to the conversation, and is possibly the biggest logical fallacy i've ever seen. I can go to a mental institution and get 1000 people that say the government is after them, I guess I should believe it, look how many people said it!

Again, and this is probably the last time i'll say this, the number of people saying something means absolutely nothing. I've pointed out the error of this thinking as well (more people have said flat earth than round), only to have it ignored or rebutted with 'but then science figured out...' only to have you ignore the science of the paranormal because it goes against your thinking. You can't use science to back up why people don't say crazy things anymore, then ignore it when it doesn't help your cause later.

Now the question of what KIND of proof would be considered valid is a much better conversation to have. Because that is the hard part, I totally admit. Audio and video/photo can be manipulated, and people have been able to so for decades now, it's just even easier in this day and age.

Usually when something needs to be proven we wait for multiple scientific studies, done by well known people/places (universities for example), to say yes, we have confirmed X claim. I believe there's an annual competition for $1,000,000 to have anything paranormal scientifically proven - nobody has ever claimed the prize. But hey, go tell them your 'but so many people have said it!' reasoning, and see what they say ;)

"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

Except that a tsunami AT A BEACH RESORT is totally feasible and factually possible.

Which misses the point entirely - why am I not surprised?! I understand what you're saying re: tsunamis being more 'feasible' than the paranormal, but that doesn't invalidate my logic, no matter how much you stamp your foot and say otherwise. My scenario isn't about the tsunami, it's about how you might react to one person's reportage of an impending disaster, as opposed to a THOUSAND people saying the same thing. With one person you might hesitate, with a thousand you would accept that something is in the wind, even though what they're claiming remains hearsay until you can see the tsunami for yourself. You would give a thousand people more credence than an individual.

I'm pretty tired of the 'but so many people say it!' comment to be honest, i've literally seen it from you 20 times on these boards. It means nothing, it adds nothing to the conversation, and is possibly the biggest logical fallacy i've ever seen. I can go to a mental institution and get 1000 people that say the government is after them, I guess I should believe it, look how many people said it!

And I'm pretty tired of you claiming my logic is flawed, as if repetition will somehow make it 'true'. Especially when your basic argument is: "I don't believe in the paranormal because the evidence doesn't meet an IMPOSSIBLE DEGREE of 'scientific' criteria, therefore everyone who's ever reported an encounter with unexplained phenomena since the dawn of history is either lying or deluded. Every single one of them. Without exception. In other words, I'm right and they're wrong. The law of averages does not apply in this case. And those who disagree with me are clearly no better than patients in a mental institution..."

In fact, you appear to have fallen for that age-old skeptic scam: They claim there's no scientific proof of the paranormal (none that meets their 'criteria', as mentioned earlier), so it isn't worth investigating (by which I mean a GENUINE open-minded investigation, designed to find the truth, not a one-sided contrivance with a predetermined outcome). But without investigation, there can be no chance of FINDING any proof... it's a self-defeating approach, endorsed by closed minds, and calculated to stifle genuine enquiry into this area of the human experience. Like I said, a scam.

WHY are people making these claims in such vast, incalculable numbers? We're not talking about a fixed belief, such as the sun is a god or the earth is flat (an easy conflation, used by skeptics to skew the debate), but a range of experiences from sightings of ghosts and UFO's, precognitive dreams, NDE's and so on and so forth - the whole gamut. Some of these claims ARE due to fraud and deception, that much is certain. But to claim they're ALL rubbish because they haven't met that aforementioned impossible criteria set by skeptics is just... well, delusional is the only word to describe it. The vast majority of claimants are rational, thinking people, some of whom were either rendered believers by their experiences, or who still refuse to believe in the paranormal even though they're at a loss to explain what has happened to them.

Bottom line: I'm not claiming these experiences are proof of the kind someone like you would accept - I'm saying the numbers are such that they warrant GENUINE investigation, not arbitrary dismissal.

I'll ask you for the last time: Do you believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those countless billions of individual experiences are the result of fraud or delusion? Have any of your friends and/or family seen/heard something they couldn't explain? If so, are THEY lying? Your answers will be instructive, to say the least. And lack of an answer equally so.

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

I never ignored your numbers theory, I pointed out holes in it only to have them ignored, then the theory shouted out again later. How can I refute something like 'but so many people have said it?' It's a baseless claim, so I have no base to refute. There's no fact to be spoken of, just you believing other people and asking me to prove why you shouldn't. It's like me saying 'there's cheese on the moon' and you laugh and say of course theres not. I say but look how many people have said it, and then say to you 'prove it's not real based on what I just said.' It's beyond silly.

I'll ask you for the last time: Do you believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those countless billions of individual experiences are the result of fraud or delusion?

-Yes

Have any of your friends and/or family seen/heard something they couldn't explain?

-No. My friends/family are all college educated people who critically evaluate what they hear. They would NEVER believe something simply because 'a lot of people have said it.' They would literally laugh at something like that, as would anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size...

"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

I never ignored your numbers theory, I pointed out holes in it only to have them ignored, then the theory shouted out again later.

I didn't ignore anything, either. You asserted there were holes in my 'theory' and I said the weight of evidence suggests otherwise. You seem to believe that asserting something is the same as it being true. It isn't.

And before you go accusing me of making similarly unsubstantiated assertions: The sheer weight of numbers (of people claiming experiences with unexplained phenomena) is NOT an assertion but an unassailable fact. It doesn't 'prove' anything, but it DOES provide an impetus for those with enquiring minds.

Moreover, 'proof' is derived from an examination of the evidence, but you seem to want proof before you'll even consider the evidence! And I'M the one who's supposed to be peddling 'logical fallacies'...

How can I refute something like 'but so many people have said it?' It's a baseless claim, so I have no base to refute. There's no fact to be spoken of, just you believing other people and asking me to prove why you shouldn't.

You keep confusing evidence with proof and using it as a stick to beat me, as though deliberately avoiding the point I've made repeatedly in these threads (that the number of stories and anecdotes recounted over millennia constitutes evidence which requires investigation, NOT arbitrary dismissal). Constantly claiming that my 'theory' is baseless and that I'm ignoring your rebuttals doesn't make it so. But keep repeating it, if you think it makes your argument any stronger.

I'll ask you for the last time: Do you believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those countless billions of individual experiences are the result of fraud or delusion?

-Yes

Then you are wilfully deluded. I don't say this to be rude or confrontational, I say it because your closed-minded attitude is typical of skeptics everywhere. You claim the 'other side of the debate' is irrational, and yet you have the gall to make an astonishing claim such as THIS...

-No. My friends/family are all college educated people who critically evaluate what they hear. They would NEVER believe something simply because 'a lot of people have said it.' They would literally laugh at something like that, as would anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size...

And, of course, there isn't a single college-educated person in the entire world who's ever experienced anything even remotely strange or unexplained...

I have to say, I've never experienced class-based pseudo-skeptical bigotry before! To infer that everyone who's ever had an encounter with something they couldn't explain is either poorly-educated or too stupid to know the difference between fantasy and reality is quite a feat of logic! Are you really claiming intellectual superiority over us lesser, 'gullible' mortals?

Frankly, I don't believe your assertion that you know of NO ONE who has ever seen/heard/felt something inexplicable, regardless of their personal beliefs. And if you're just going to lie to me, how on earth can you expect anyone to take your argument seriously?

reply

[–] johnm-dalton 10 years ago

You're an idiot.

This man is emotionally disturbed. The house was not haunted. I know this because ghosts and hauntings don't exist. Try thinking critically for once in your life.

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

You're an idiot.

Another denialist. Easily spotted because of the ugly rhetoric they spew instead of engaging sensibly with the subject.

I know this because ghosts and hauntings don't exist.

Sez you.

Try thinking critically for once in your life.

If by 'thinking critically' you mean closing my mind to the evidence, adhering to a strictly materialist world-view and being rude to the point of stupidity with anyone who has the gall to disagree with me, then no thanks. I doubt you'd know what 'critical thinking' was if it tripped you up in the street.

A question: Why the hell are denialists so bloody ANGRY all the time? Why can't you simply debate the issue without throwing your weight around like spoiled schoolchildren? It can't be because you're angry about gullible people being scammed by 'frauds', since you have as much contempt for the 'gullible' as you do for the 'fraudsters'!

If you're tempted to shoot back with even more unpleasant swill, then don't bother.

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

A question: Why the hell are denialists so bloody ANGRY all the time?

-Because we have to deal with people like you who ask us to DISPROVE what you haven't PROVEN in the first place yet. It's a physical impossibility, and you like that because it makes you feel right.

Then you say the same thing over and over (but a lot of people said it!), and when the error in logic with that is pointed out, it's ignored and the 'but a lot of people said it!' point is thrown out time and time again.

We DO engage with the subjects at the beginning, but how many idiotic things can you from someone before you stop listening to them entirely?

"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

-Because we have to deal with people like you who ask us to DISPROVE what you haven't PROVEN in the first place yet. It's a physical impossibility, and you like that because it makes you feel right.

More lies and self-justification.

1. WHERE in these threads have I claimed 'proof' of the paranormal (ie. proof that people like you would accept)? Point it out and I'll shut up.

2. WHERE in these threads have I asked you - or anyone else - to 'disprove' anything? Point it out and I'll shut up.

But that's not really what's going on here, is it? Nope, not at all...

After my initial run-in with you in these threads, I checked out your responses to other people in the past, and you've been snotty with just about everybody who ever disagreed with your point of view. You haven't 'debated' the issue, you've simply gone on the attack. As an example, see your initial response in the thread "Why do people easily discount this man's story?", which was entirely unprompted (you had every right to respond to the initial posting, but there was no reason for your ugly provocation) and was deliberately calculated to cause offence.

None of this suprises me. Denialists always go on the attack and then deny that's what they're doing. See johnm-dalton's opening salvo in this thread ("You're an idiot"), which was clearly NOT an invitation to inquiry. model101 did the same thing in "People who believe in the paranormal are delusional" (a title which itself speaks volumes about the denialist mind-set).

These people - like yourself - aren't interested in debate. You use the smokescreen of 'science' as an excuse to ridicule, insult and disparage anyone who disagrees with you. Attempting to claim the moral high ground by saying you're only angry because you have to deal with 'idiotic things' (nope, not a biased description at all! ) is completely disproved by the long string of - entirely unprovoked - nasty postings you've made in these forums. Like most denialists, you have no self-awareness at all. You actually think you're one of the 'good guys'!...

Then you say the same thing over and over (but a lot of people said it!), and when the error in logic with that is pointed out, it's ignored and the 'but a lot of people said it!' point is thrown out time and time again.

This again. You keep claiming to have pointed out my 'error in logic', as if repetition of this lie will somehow make it true. It won't. There was no error in logic. I didn't ignore your rebuttals, I simply disagreed with them. BIG difference. But you weren't prepared to accept any explanation I offered, because you arrogantly believe you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Making excuses for your angry, ugly behaviour and blaming others for being too stupid to see your version of the 'truth' is both shameful and cowardly.

Demanding proof of the paranormal before you'll even CONSIDER the evidence is ridiculous and delusional. But just as you aren't interested in debate, nor are you really interested in 'proof'. That's another smokescreen. All you want is an excuse to stick the boot into other people for no other reason than they have a contrary opinion to your own. You prove it with every foot-stamping, fist-shaking post you make on these forums.

So go ahead, do it again. Make my case.

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

Demanding proof of the paranormal before you'll even CONSIDER the evidence is ridiculous and delusional.

-Yeah i'm crazy for wanting proof when asking someone to prove something. Sure. Look at the mental gymnasics you've done to get where you are. You're literally saying it's wrong to ask for proof when you want things proven. I dont even know how to respond to something so insane...

"You're the most highly intelligent person that no one has every achieved"- user PreciousGotFatAgain

reply

[–] Libretio 10 years ago

Yeah i'm crazy for wanting proof when asking someone to prove something. Sure. Look at the mental gymnasics you've done to get where you are. You're literally saying it's wrong to ask for proof when you want things proven. I dont even know how to respond to something so insane...

No more insane than someone who demands proof UP-FRONT before they'll even consider evidence that might lead them to the proof they're pretending to ask for. Most rational people tend to do it the other way round, even (gasp!) scientists.

But 'proof' is the LAST thing on your mind. This posting, er... proves it.