Louis Jarvis

[bmadccp]

Having a guest on the show never means I'm selling the guest. If they appear to have something interesting to say, they will be considered, but I will never validate any guest as being a source for truth. There are far too many opinions out there, and it's a good thing to hear many of them, so you listeners can decide what to believe or disbelieve.

Gene, I don't want you to get the impression that I am calling you a "sellout" or even stating that you support Jarvis' theories by the nature of putting him on your show. My point was a literal one, you are "selling" the show to advertisers. The show MUST go on, regardless of the guest. It was obvious that you weren't in agreement with Jarvis but you remained respectful and didn't freak out on him as someone else might have in the past. I respect that. We don't all have to agree, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil and respectful to one another. This was my main point in the first place. It's not fair for others to call Jarvis a "nut" based on his beliefs. But then I've probably made that point abundantly clear by now.

PS

Sorry for the length of my last series of posts, I couldn't make it fit into a single post. I would imagine that there is a character limit or something. I truly enjoy the show these days and hope you keep it up for a long, long time.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well Angelo, that was rather "smarmy" wasn't it? I thought he made one hell of a great argument.

Decker

Oh, I was being sarcastic. Geez.

 

[bmadccp]

Well that went out the window when you stretched your reply across several posts...

Good point. Conceded.

Let me redact and say: I don't want to CONTINUE a lengthy debate. But I can't stand by and be insulted either, so we'll see. I'm all for civil debate, but I tend to get passionate about some things...if you couldn't tell.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Sorry for the length of my last series of posts, I couldn't make it fit into a single post. I would imagine that there is a character limit or something. I truly enjoy the show these days and hope you keep it up for a long, long time.

Despite what Don said, I was kidding about the length of your post. You guys are having a decent debate.

 

[Decker]

Oh, I was being sarcastic. Geez.

Oh, well without the "smiley-face" ... u know, kind of threw me.

Decker

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Oh, well without the "smiley-face" ... u know, kind of threw me.

Decker

I guess the smiley is more clear than the three dots.

 

[stphrz]

stphrz

Imagine my surprise that you fired back a volley of condescending barbs. I wasn’t expecting that at all from you. Is it sarcasm, or not? One never can tell in this type of communication.
<O
First off, thanks for the Critical Thinking 101 refresher professor, but as you were pointing out logical fallacies in MY response, I think you conveniently forgot one of your own. An Ad Hominem fallacy is when you attack the messenger rather than (or in addition to) the message. This thread has been filled with attacks on Jarvis like “He’s nuts”, etc. And little quips like “Am I arguing with a child?” or “Reason is not your enemy” or even “Why do you not understand this?” all sort of fit the mold too. This being said let me try one more time to make my point civilly.


Of course I forgive you. I'm not even slightly offended when someone calls bullshit on me. I rather like it because it gives me a wonderful chance to state my case. Again.
In this case you are using a common reduction into absurdity fallacy.
My claim is I have no sacred cows. Your argument derives that I do have sacred cows based on the claim that I do not have sacred cows. Then you maintain that I do on the basis of your own argument. Yet to do this you have to accept my intial claim that I do not (have sacred cows).
Whew, that was tiring and pendantic I know but it illustrates the short circuit in your thought process.
Let's continue.

Yes, lets...<O</O
<O</O

Reduction into absurdity? My point is that some people’s sacred cow (belief system, in this case) IS that they subscribe to no one belief system. This is the reduction into absurdity mon frer. It’s an awfully safe place from which to launch an offensive against another person’s belief system as well, isn’t it? Agnosticism, is in itself a sort of a belief system. When people attack Jarvis for his “absurd” beliefs in things like Christianity (for one), they are displaying their own bias against the belief system. This, in itself, is a belief system. That was the point, perhaps I could have worded it better in my previous posts. As for YOUR belief system, I can’t answer to what they might be, but it’s (in my mind) absurd of one to suggest that he/she doesn’t have sacred cows. You are a human. Human’s have sacred cows. Even Einstein had sacred cows. It’s not an insult, it’s a rational observation and I’d argue (obviously) that it’s a fact. And finally, I agree with something you wrote, your focus on perceived fallacy and not substance is pedantic. <O</O

What? I didn't miss the message. I dismissed it as an irrational screed, just as I'm doing to this message. Point by point rebuttal is a good way to expose errors. I normally don't do that sort of thing. In fact your post was the first. It was the first one on this forum I read that had a major fallacy in every damned paragraph. A feat unmatched by anyone else on this forum. You broke a record! Also, I'm always awake at 1:30 am. Due to my work schedule I usually go to sleep at five or six in the morning. On my days off it varies a bit but whatever. Why bring up such an unimportant detail? Why complain about the length of my rebuttal when your original post was quite long? Am I arguing with a child?


You obviously haven’t dismissed anything. Had you dismissed it as irrational, we wouldn’t be having this exchange. Your comments suggesting that you “dismissed it as an irrational screed” and “You broke a record” are nothing more than an attempt to posture in front of your friends, sort of like giving me a “wedgie” on the playground in front of the girls. It serves no purpose except to poke at me. But it seems to be the unwritten rule on so many of these forums doesn’t it? And that’s fine, poke away, but at least be honest about your intentions. I wasn’t complaining about the length of your rebuttal, I was using it as an example that you have obviously invested yourself into this fruitless exchange, as it seems (unfortunately) I have too. And now we are both reticent to let it go because egos have been brought into the fight. In other words, it’s become personal. <O</O

to be continued...</O

Continue if you want. You can have the last word. I'm tired. My last remark on this issue is this.

In the context of this discussion a "sacred cow" is a belief that cannot be altered even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the belief is false. Yes I do have beliefs. And yes I am willing to alter all of them if the facts warrant it.

You can choose to take me at my word or not.

Peace.

Edit: Oh I see you did continue.

 

[trainedobserver]

.At the end of the day, the Paracast isn’t a purveyor of fact and reason, it’s ultimately an mode of entertainment. The consumers have every right to voice their opinions if the entertainment isn’t “entertaining” but no one (in my opinion) has the right to personally attack the guest after he was good enough to accept an invitation and discuss his beliefs. Attack the material all you want, but don’t call the man “bat-shit crazy” because of it. That would be fallacious.

Thinking about this, I have to agree with you totally on this point. It's just rude and "bad business" to attack the folks who have agreed to come on and discuss their non-conventional experiences and viewpoints. Number one, the show is "about" such things and it should be expected that some "bat-guano irrationality" is going to ensue at some point. Number two, who wants to go onto a show that has no respect for its guests? Do we want to hear more guests or more scary appeals to buy food in bulk?

The information can be questioned, requests for clarification and evidence can be made, but for someone to hurl personal insults at guests for "entertaining" us on a radio show doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll have to say though that some of the Paranormal Divas seem to want to bristle at anything but mute acceptance of their tales and that isn't all that rational a response from them either.

I think the discussion about any guest, no matter how "out there" they might come across, can be framed in such a manner that doesn't intentionally alienate them from the forum discussion or future shows.

In relation to what Mr. Jarvis had to say: My thinking about "prophecy" is that it cannot be separated from its context and plopped down somewhere else and arbitrarily interpreted. Garabandal is wholly a Catholic occurrence in both context and content. It is meaningless outside of the Catholic faith. A call to be better Catholics or face the consequences has nothing to say to those of us who aren't Catholic. You can try to shoe-horn it into some sort of cross-religious universal Armageddon/Ragnarök but it doesn't work like that.

 

[bmadccp]

Thinking about this, I have to agree with you totally on this point. It's just rude and "bad business" to attack the folks who have agreed to come on and discuss their non-conventional experiences and viewpoints. Number one, the show is "about" such things and it should be expected that some "bat-guano irrationality" is going to ensue at some point. Number two, who wants to go onto a show that has no respect for its guests? Do we want to hear more guests or more scary appeals to buy food in bulk?

The information can be questioned, requests for clarification and evidence can be made, but for someone to hurl personal insults at guests for "entertaining" us on a radio show doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll have to say though that some of the Paranormal Divas seem to want to bristle at anything but mute acceptance of their tales and that isn't all that rational a response from them either.

I think the discussion about any guest, no matter how "out there" they might come across, can be framed in such a manner that doesn't intentionally alienate them from the forum discussion or future shows.

In relation to what Mr. Jarvis had to say: My thinking about "prophecy" is that it cannot be separated from its context and plopped down somewhere else and arbitrarily interpreted. Garabandal is wholly a Catholic occurrence in both context and content. It is meaningless outside of the Catholic faith. A call to be better Catholics or face the consequences has nothing to say to those of us who aren't Catholic. You can try to shoe-horn it into some sort of cross-religious universal Armageddon/Ragnarök but it doesn't work like that.

Very well put, IMO.

 

[BillyAlpha]

I checked out at about the halfway mark on this one. Mr. Jarvis really didn't make much sense, and was aloud to drone on and on. Mr. O'Brien mentioned he doesn't give many interviews...I could tell. On a positive note..the sound quality of this episode seemed greatly improved.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I checked out at about the halfway mark on this one. Mr. Jarvis really didn't make much sense, and was aloud to drone on and on. Mr. O'Brien mentioned he doesn't give many interviews...I could tell. On a positive note..the sound quality of this episode seemed greatly improved.

Yes, we were able to get a streaming feed with higher audio resolution from the network.

 

[Michael Allen]

I am afraid that credibility assessments in this forum have turned into pissing contests. It is easy to doubt the credibility of extraordinary claims, even easier to doubt others who consider debunkery as a means to expand their own egos. I find threads as these more tiring than the actual interview.

 

[Mark Kendrick]

Just downloaded and listened to this episode. Although there's plenty of interestingly controversial material here, Jarvis was all over the place, and unfortunately it seemed that poor Gene and Chris had trouble nailing the guy down to answering any question properly before he went flying off in another direction. i think that was the real problem with this episode, in that it lacked a structure which in part I believe was due to the frenetic nature of Mr. Jarvis’s patter. Big thanks to Gene and Chris for being brave enough for trying out the guy on the show though, as at least this gives the show another angle and not just the usual ruminations over the ETH vs Cryptoterrestrial vs Inter dimensional alien show of late. Although that said, bring on those alien discussions... ;-)