Jim Corr on Today FM now

profitius

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Funny how what is going on in my head seems obvious to you. I know my head better than you.

Simply pointing out that the media supports the notion that a lot of them are lunatics does not mean they are not. There are good reasons not connected to the media to think many of them in fact are.

However you would do well to read my post again as this reply does not actually relate to what I am saying. I am saying the opposite of calling them lunatics. I am in fact saying that there are very strong reasons why they get the impressions that they do. Complex systems can often give the impression that there exists intent where there in fact is none. If you go looking for evidence of that intent you will likely find things to support your impressions.

The “evidence” on offer simply is not supportive of the conclusion presented however. This is nothing to do with the relative sanity of people like Corr and so the fact that it is "obvious" to you that I think so is strange given it is entirely baseless. You are assigning opinions to me I do not really hold. I do this his conclusions are a bit "mad" and I do happily use such terms, but at the end of the day an idea being "mad" does not mean the holder of the idea is "mad".

Mad people are mad because of their mad thoughts. If you think his thoughts are mad you must think he is, thats where I got my conclusions from.

I also said you think people like Jim Corr are a "bit" mad. I think thats accurate if you think they have some mad ideas.

nozzferrahhtoo

False. The definition of mad is a lot different to this, but it has become a catch all term for any kind of deviant behaviour.

Mad people are not mad because of mad thoughts, they are mad because of the underlying conditions that cause the mad thoughts. If, for example, a mad person goes into a coma and is having no thoughts at all, they still have the conditions that cause them and would still be “mad”.

It is, however, entirely possible for a perfectly sane person to be led into having a mad, crazy or highly erroneous idea. This does not make them mad themselves. It is an attribute of the idea, not the person who holds it. Isaac Newton for example would be recognised as one of our clearest thinking minds ever yet he held ideas we now consider “mad” such as alchemy, astrology and more.

One need only look at religion and the belief in the existence of a non-human creative intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe. There is quite literally no evidence, argument, data or reasons forthcoming to even begin to lend an iota of credence to these claims and yet the majority of our species believe it any way. Beleiving anything that there is literally no reasons on offer to believe is “mad” in my view and yet some of our clearest sanest minds subscribe to it anyway.

So no, I am afraid your attempt to say that I am calling these people mad is ultimately a failure and you are attacking a straw man of me that does not exist. Contrary to your ideas of what my ideas as, I have no personal opinion on the sanity of Jim Corr. I just find he has no evidence for the claims he is making and I find also that the impression of design he has behind the events he views is a very easy one to get from any complex system of interactions.

So maybe it would be better if you limit your replies to what I AM saying instead of inventing for me a position I never espoused and attacking that instead?

--Kaiser--

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have no personal opinion on the sanity of Jim Corr. I just find he has no evidence for the claims he is making and I find also that the impression of design he has behind the events he views is a very easy one to get from any complex system of interactions.

Nail on head.
Espousing outlandish notions without any evidence whatsoever (and usually a great deal of evidence to the contrary) is just the sort of behavior which get's you labeled as a 'nutjob'.

profitius

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

False. The definition of mad is a lot different to this, but it has become a catch all term for any kind of deviant behaviour.

Mad people are not mad because of mad thoughts, they are mad because of the underlying conditions that cause the mad thoughts. If, for example, a mad person goes into a coma and is having no thoughts at all, they still have the conditions that cause them and would still be “mad”.

It can work both way. Sometime an underlying condition makes somebody mad, other times their own thoughts drive them mad.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

So no, I am afraid your attempt to say that I am calling these people mad is ultimately a failure and you are attacking a straw man of me that does not exist. Contrary to your ideas of what my ideas as, I have no personal opinion on the sanity of Jim Corr. I just find he has no evidence for the claims he is making and I find also that the impression of design he has behind the events he views is a very easy one to get from any complex system of interactions.

So maybe it would be better if you limit your replies to what I AM saying instead of inventing for me a position I never espoused and attacking that instead?

I wasn't attacking you I was just making a point.

nozzferrahhtoo

Pedantry gets us nowhere. Whether you call it "attacking" or "making a point" my response is the same.... that it helps not at all to make your attack/points about things I never even espoused. If you do then I am speaking to you, and you are speaking back to an imaginary me over my shoulder that has never existed. This helps no one.

Sonnenblumen

My name is URL wrote: »

He may talk a load of bollix for the most part, but at least he does talk. He could just as easily keep his mouth shut and stop damaging his own reputation and putting himself in the line of fire for attacks on his character. If for nothing else; I respect him for speaking his mind, and I believe his heart is in the right place.

This sounds like the confession of a disillusioned Fianna Fail speech writer?

Terry

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

This sounds like the confession of a disillusioned Fianna Fail speech writer?

That reads like a statement, but has a question mark at the end.

--Kaiser--

Terry wrote: »

That reads like a statement, but has a question mark at the end.

Maybe he's Australian? Upward inflection and all that?