Something I've noticed a lot lately while browsing around the Unexplained-Mysteries forums: so-called skeptics constantly asking the same question over, and over, and over despite receiving dozens of answers. Now, it's true that the act of questioning "Well, how come?" is the most important aspect of critical thought and discovery. You can't possibly expect to learn more if you don't have any questions you want to answer. The problem is that these "skeptics" are not acknowledging the answers they're given. In particular note are questions about "Why do you believe?" where a person's personal belief is apparently not allowed to composed of anecdotal situations and evidence, and "What have Cryptozoologists done? What is a Cryptid?" or some variation of a snide insult towards Cryptozoology.
So I'm going to set the record straight: Cryptids aren't real.
Now wait, hang on a second. I'm not saying there aren't animals not yet recognized by science, because that would be stupid. Even the scientists know they don't know everything. I'm saying the term "cryptid" and "cryptozoologist" and "cryptobotanist"--"Crypto"--isn't a word. It's a nothing. It's nonsense. It's a derogatory remark that somehow got picked up by wild sensationalists with crazy hair who've gone around spouting it as a profession.
The problem is, once you wipe away all the pop-culture shmuck and stupidly asinine assumptions, you are left with one solid definition for what on Earth "Crypto" means. That definition is this:
"Something which is not yet known to science."
"Crypto" does not mean "Magical fire-breathing bearmanpig." That's the fault of them crazy-haired folk. When people mention that the gorilla was once not known to science (or the okapi) they are shot down. "That can't be representative of a real cryptid because the gorilla is real! It was known about by the locals, but not by science!"
Riddle me this, oh so genius skeptic-man: If something like, say, the Yeti were to be discovered, wouldn't it have been a creature known by the locals but not accepted by science? Then it wouldn't be a cryptid, would it.
From the perspective of most people, the actual definition of Cryptid is this:
"Something that isn't real."
Which is wrong. That is wrong. And the skeptics don't want to admit to how wrong that is, because if they do they've lost the nothing war that they created. See, the problem with that definition, is that its sole purpose is to discredit "cryptozoologists." Skeptics love to start discussions, wholly believing this definition and understanding no other, titled something akin to: "How Come So Many Believe In Cryptids When None Have Ever Been Found?"
And there's a very simple answer: If something is discovered, that means it's real. By the definition subscribed to by the majority of skeptics, something being real cannot be a cryptid. So in their mind the discovery of a real animal is not the discovery or "proof" of a cryptid. As such, the discovery of any sought-after yet scientifically undocumented animal will never be enough "proof" for them, because the fact that it's real means it is not a cryptid, or "not-real."
There is no winning. I'm not sure if they know it. They probably do. Although some of them are genuinely stupid enough not to understand this very simply logical fallacy.
Unfortunately for these proud people, they are not "skeptics." They, like the most assish of atheists (which I'm getting to) are actually as dazed by an ignorant belief system as the "believers" they fight so hard to beat down.
You see, skeptics are subscribers to science. They accept new information, and they allow thoughts of the unkown--of "What if?"--to penetrate their fragile perceptions of reality. Then, they explore those possibilities with all logical faculties. These people, being the logical men and women that they are, understand the logical death-trap of the term "Crypto." They understand its abstractness, and they discard it. Because it is nothing more than propaganda.
However, most people who claim to be skeptics or atheists fight very hard to assert their personal and unwavering understanding of the universe they live in. Which is unfortunate, because "unwavering" is the opposite of "not a belief system." The fact that you have a solid set of ideas which do not waver in the face of opinions, information, and answers means you are just as stubbornly locked in your own ignorant belief system as the Christian, Crypto-Believer, Agnostic, Jew, Baptist, Buddhist, Ancient Greek Pantheon Hold-Overist that you are arguing with.
You are not a true skeptic until you learn to release your unwavering attitude.
