Bells
Staff member
Baron Max banned again?
- Thread starter mordea
- Start date
This is a rather poor argument. Apart from it being a single example to prove a rule, of course it will be on the rarer side when some breakthrough was made, but there is a lack of humility when facing new things here. There is a kind of ahistorical stance, as if we are in final knowledge, to the way certain ideas are responded to.
And the discussion around novel ideas that do not pan out can be a rewarding one.
Bells
Staff member
Bells
Staff member
I am not a believer in dream interpretation for example, or more to the point, what we now classify as pseudoscience.
My comments to Tiassa dealt with pure para-psychology and pseudoscience, or what is classified as pure parapsychology and pseudoscience. And that I believe such discussions do belong in those particular forums. I know, I know, I'm an idiot, if your constant snide little comments are to be believed, but I believe I made myself quite clear.
A matter of what's important
Perhaps it's a symbiotic process.
Who can tell me the name of the person who first came up with the idea of drinking melted human fat in order to fly?
Anyone? Anyone?
Now, who can tell me the name of the person who first identified the basic nature of the gravitational force in the Universe?
This is an easy one, right?
For an encore, who can tell me about Descartes and the pineal gland?
Let us consider all three of these people.
The first person who came up with the idea of drinking melted human fat in order to fly is unknown, to say the least. Of course, anyone of modern sensibilities who looks at the recipe for flying ointment will be able to explain two things about it: the flight is figurative, and it's the hashish, not the fat, that does the trick.
Flying ointment? Didn't work.
Now, Sir Isaac Newton is, of course, the man generally credited with the "discovery" of gravity.
He was also an alchemist and Rosicrucian.
Descartes and the pineal gland? He couldn't have been more wrong. Of course, I don't think another spliff would have helped him with the Cartesian Circle, either.
Yet somehow he is considered important to both anatomy and philosophy. Imagine that: One can fuck up colossally and still be of some value to humanity.
Oh ... and Galen? Lokhorst notes that Galen, a second- and third-century doctor and philosopher devised a system that "dominated medical thinkng until the seventeenth century". That's also the Galen who explained that psychiatric problems in women were a disease caused by a sexual deprivation. I mean, it's not the worst theory, but at least the suffocated and dried up womb, or the wandering uterus (e.g., prolapse) didn't involve shooting water cannons at women's genitalia (nineteenth century) or rape. Well, actually, they did; the phrase "hysterical paroxysm" is one of the great stupidities of history. But Galen's outlook persisted into Freud's day. One of Freud's associates at the time allegedly explained that the only prescription for a nervous woman was to get laid, repeatedly. To the other, as screwed up as that sounds, it was, according to some, influential in Freud's development of psychosexual theories. And those theories were more or less revolutionary.
As one who has chased ghosts before, of course I discount the standard nut jobs. But your point lacks certain useful dimensions. First, as I suggested, nobody really remembers who the first moron was that decided to melt human fat in order to fly. If gems were so common among stones, it would be the stones and not the gems that were valuable to people.
Secondly, as Steel pointed out of Newton:
Look, I've seen some pretty freaky stuff in my search for spirits, but nothing to convince me that I was actually seeing ghosts. Not everyone is so fortunate as I, however. But I find there is a certain and important difference between saying that something has yet to be demonstrated and claiming it is impossible. There is plenty in the figurative and speculative world that is valuable to humanity, but compared to vulgar expression, these are fairly obscure issues. Even should there come a day that some sort of spiritual dimension is scientifically proven, people like Gingergirl will still be considered fruitcakes. (Incidentally, what she is describing is a common visual phenomenon that people traditionally wrote off as ghosts and such.) But, to the other, if we build a ghetto and herd only a certain class of people there, it does us no good to suggest that there is a reason it is so populated. Well, of course it is. That's what the civic planners wanted.
Of course, the flip side is that someone who believed in the possibility of fringe and pseudosciences founded this website. But, you know how it goes. They all look the same, don't they? Which is why there is no difference between Dave and Gingergirl, right? Sure, one can't write a literate sentence, and the other can program widely-used applications—in addition to writing literate sentences—but it doesn't matter because they all look the same.
Of course, I'm an American, and that sort of thing is what they used to say about black people. And hispanics. And Asians. Apparently the only people who ever in history looked different from one another despite their common attributes were white. Of course, maybe there's something to that. I have to admit there is no way in hell I would mistake Charlie Bucket for Augustus Gloop, but I couldn't tell you the difference between Jay Z and Ray J.
So, hey. We're just the same, too. Generalizations are fun, aren't they?
In our quest for purity, Bells, we've sabotaged certain subfora. What the hell is the Religion subforum these days? We could have changed it to Theology and demanded some real discussion at any point in the last few years, but it would have fucked up the logistics for the Atheist Hatemongers' Pep Rally. We could have treated the psychospiritual halfwits with the same contempt we show the armchair physicists who think they're smarter than Einstein. It better served our collective psyche, however, to manufacture a ghetto in order to complain about conditions there. Everybody, Bells, likes to feel superior to someone. And that rush can become addictive, as I would expect some of your legal career might suggest. If I don't hang around Pseudoscience and Parapsychology these days, it's because even our rational neighbors aren't worth having the discussion with.
A couple examples. A few years ago, I stumbled across this bizarre alien conspiracy theory that involved, I think, Chaco Canyon. Allegedly, the CIA knew of and had hidden from public view certain alien bases carved deep into the stone. This was the source of our technological leaps, and would lead to a philosophical awakening. There was, of course, more to it, but it's all bullshit, anyway. Still, though, there was reasonable discussion to be had. Hell, if I could find the site today, I would drag it out, because they had a genius idea for exploitation. They sold prints, alleged prints of alien artwork, and jewelry that was supposed to be of some alien design. Actually, it was pretty cool stuff. But I wondered about the psyches of the aliens. I just think that between the Reticulan greys and the Varginha alien, among others, the anthropocentric aspects of the artwork would have looked a little more alien and a little less human.
Or current television shows. I think there's a great drinking game to be played with Ghost Hunters. Just drink whenever someone on the screen is pulling a con. Use beer, though, and not whiskey or wine, or you'll be lips to the floor by the second intermission. Hell, with Psychic Kids, you might not make it past the first.
So find the needle in the haystack. Wouldn't it be great if we could set a filter that simply said, object ≠ hay? Well, we can't. But if we treat the fringe with better respect, we can build certain filters. After all, even if there was hard proof of ghosts or gods or EBEs on the planet right now, nobody would really know. Imagine the two of us sitting at a reception one day, celebrating the person who proved the existence of, say, a ghost. And imagine our conversation:
Wouldn't it suck if holding people in contempt was our greatest contribution to the world? Nobody at Sciforums has to discover God or prove EBEs exist. I mean, it seems rather quite unlikely, right? But by my measure—and who knows? maybe I'm wrong about this—it seems that even if we are standing still, at least we're not walking away from our destination.
Is Sciforums really just a place for holding people in contempt? For some people, sure. But for most of those, that's all life is for, anyway. And we'll do that sort of shit to ourselves and others enough by accident; there's no reason to actually put effort into it.
As with so many things, it comes down to what we want. And I mean what we really want, not what we merely say we want. At some point, that involves treating ourselves—to speak nothing of other people–as something more than two-dimensional characters in a bad cartoon.
Then again, cartoons can be fun. Well, except for Veggie Tales. And most of Qubo, but that's beside the point.
People don't have to be brilliant to deserve respect. And that's probably for the best, all things considered.
____________________
Notes:
Steel, Mark. "Isaac Newton". The Mark Steel Lectures. British Broadcasting Corporation. BBC4, London. October 14, 2003.
Lokhorst, Gert-Jan. "Descartes and the Pineal Gland". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Plato.Stanford.edu. February 2, 2010. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/
Bells said:
My point is that there is a reason why they are "realms for the damned".
Perhaps it's a symbiotic process.
Who can tell me the name of the person who first came up with the idea of drinking melted human fat in order to fly?
Anyone? Anyone?
Now, who can tell me the name of the person who first identified the basic nature of the gravitational force in the Universe?
This is an easy one, right?
For an encore, who can tell me about Descartes and the pineal gland?
Let us consider all three of these people.
The first person who came up with the idea of drinking melted human fat in order to fly is unknown, to say the least. Of course, anyone of modern sensibilities who looks at the recipe for flying ointment will be able to explain two things about it: the flight is figurative, and it's the hashish, not the fat, that does the trick.
Flying ointment? Didn't work.
Now, Sir Isaac Newton is, of course, the man generally credited with the "discovery" of gravity.
He was also an alchemist and Rosicrucian.
Using the Book of Ezekiel, Newton tried to work out the date of the Second Coming. He thought it would be in 1948, but he also worked out that, because the number of people who believed in Jesus was diminishing, He'd have to come back before the year 3150, as by then there'd only be one person left who believed in him at all.
And he was also a keen follower of the Rosicrucians, who believed they could converse with angels to make themselves invisible. The great thing about being a member of them was that you'd never have to go to the meetings.
Newton was also motivated by a deeply held belief that in ancient times, a man called Hermes Trismegestus was visited by gods who revealed to him the secrets of alchemy.
Newton had made a friend, Robert Boyle, and they worked on the theory that they could achieve their aims by mixing an impure iron, another metal—usually either lead or mercury—and some citric acid. It was then heated and left to simmer for ten days, and the whole thing had to be done in moonlight, or with light reflected by mirrors ....
.... Newton's favorite book was The Chemical Wedding, which gave advice such as:
(Mark Steel)
And he was also a keen follower of the Rosicrucians, who believed they could converse with angels to make themselves invisible. The great thing about being a member of them was that you'd never have to go to the meetings.
Newton was also motivated by a deeply held belief that in ancient times, a man called Hermes Trismegestus was visited by gods who revealed to him the secrets of alchemy.
Newton had made a friend, Robert Boyle, and they worked on the theory that they could achieve their aims by mixing an impure iron, another metal—usually either lead or mercury—and some citric acid. It was then heated and left to simmer for ten days, and the whole thing had to be done in moonlight, or with light reflected by mirrors ....
.... Newton's favorite book was The Chemical Wedding, which gave advice such as:
Build a temple of one stone, with no beginning or end in its construction. A serpent sleeps at the entrance; seize him and make a step of him. Climb up and enter. You will meet a priest who has changed the color of nature and become a man of silver.
(Mark Steel)
Descartes and the pineal gland? He couldn't have been more wrong. Of course, I don't think another spliff would have helped him with the Cartesian Circle, either.
Descartes' short remarks about a small gland in the middle of the brain which is of paramount importance apparently generated a lot of interest. In 1640, Descartes wrote several letters to answer a number of questions that various persons had raised. In these letters, he not only identified the small gland as the conarion or pineal gland (29 January 1640, AT III:19, CSMK 143), but also added some interesting points to the Treatise of man. First, he explained why he regarded it as the principal seat of the rational soul (a point that he had not yet addressed in the Treatise of man): “My view is that this gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed. The reason I believe this is that I cannot find any part of the brain, except this, which is not double. Since we see only one thing with two eyes, and hear only one voice with two ears, and in short have never more than one thought at a time, it must necessarily be the case that the impressions which enter by the two eyes or by the two ears, and so on, unite with each other in some part of the body before being considered by the soul. Now it is impossible to find any such place in the whole head except this gland; moreover it is situated in the most suitable possible place for this purpose, in the middle of all the concavities; and it is supported and surrounded by the little branches of the carotid arteries which bring the spirits into the brain” (29 January 1640, AT III:19-20, CSMK 143). And as he wrote later that year: “Since it is the only solid part in the whole brain which is single, it must necessarily be the seat of the common sense, i.e., of thought, and consequently of the soul; for one cannot be separated from the other. The only alternative is to say that the soul is not joined immediately to any solid part of the body, but only to the animal spirits which are in its concavities, and which enter it and leave it continually like the water of river. That would certainly be thought too absurd” (24 December 1640, AT III:264, CSMK 162). Another important property of the pineal gland, in Descartes' eyes, is that it is small, light and easily movable (29 January 1640, AT III:20, CSMK 143). The pituitary gland is, though small, undivided and located in the midline, not the seat of the soul because it is outside the brain and entirely immobile (24 December 1640, AT III:263, CSMK 162). The processus vermiformis of the cerebellum (as Descartes called the appendage which Galen had discussed) is not a suitable candidate because it is divisible into two halves (30 July 1640, AT III:124, not in CSMK).
(Lokhorst)
(Lokhorst)
Yet somehow he is considered important to both anatomy and philosophy. Imagine that: One can fuck up colossally and still be of some value to humanity.
Oh ... and Galen? Lokhorst notes that Galen, a second- and third-century doctor and philosopher devised a system that "dominated medical thinkng until the seventeenth century". That's also the Galen who explained that psychiatric problems in women were a disease caused by a sexual deprivation. I mean, it's not the worst theory, but at least the suffocated and dried up womb, or the wandering uterus (e.g., prolapse) didn't involve shooting water cannons at women's genitalia (nineteenth century) or rape. Well, actually, they did; the phrase "hysterical paroxysm" is one of the great stupidities of history. But Galen's outlook persisted into Freud's day. One of Freud's associates at the time allegedly explained that the only prescription for a nervous woman was to get laid, repeatedly. To the other, as screwed up as that sounds, it was, according to some, influential in Freud's development of psychosexual theories. And those theories were more or less revolutionary.
As one who has chased ghosts before, of course I discount the standard nut jobs. But your point lacks certain useful dimensions. First, as I suggested, nobody really remembers who the first moron was that decided to melt human fat in order to fly. If gems were so common among stones, it would be the stones and not the gems that were valuable to people.
Secondly, as Steel pointed out of Newton:
To most people at the time, concocting theories about invisible forces pulling the planets was no more nutty than trying to change one metal into another using some sort of magic potion. They were both an attempt to interfere with God's will. It was an irony of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that as science emerged, there was a boom in astrology and magic, as well.
Back then, these things were the prototype of science. It was one of the first times that people had considered the possibility of changing nature to suit human society. Attempting to predict the future through charting the stars was a way of asserting that humans didn't have to accept that everything was God's will, and beyond our understanding.
Back then, these things were the prototype of science. It was one of the first times that people had considered the possibility of changing nature to suit human society. Attempting to predict the future through charting the stars was a way of asserting that humans didn't have to accept that everything was God's will, and beyond our understanding.
Look, I've seen some pretty freaky stuff in my search for spirits, but nothing to convince me that I was actually seeing ghosts. Not everyone is so fortunate as I, however. But I find there is a certain and important difference between saying that something has yet to be demonstrated and claiming it is impossible. There is plenty in the figurative and speculative world that is valuable to humanity, but compared to vulgar expression, these are fairly obscure issues. Even should there come a day that some sort of spiritual dimension is scientifically proven, people like Gingergirl will still be considered fruitcakes. (Incidentally, what she is describing is a common visual phenomenon that people traditionally wrote off as ghosts and such.) But, to the other, if we build a ghetto and herd only a certain class of people there, it does us no good to suggest that there is a reason it is so populated. Well, of course it is. That's what the civic planners wanted.
Of course, the flip side is that someone who believed in the possibility of fringe and pseudosciences founded this website. But, you know how it goes. They all look the same, don't they? Which is why there is no difference between Dave and Gingergirl, right? Sure, one can't write a literate sentence, and the other can program widely-used applications—in addition to writing literate sentences—but it doesn't matter because they all look the same.
Of course, I'm an American, and that sort of thing is what they used to say about black people. And hispanics. And Asians. Apparently the only people who ever in history looked different from one another despite their common attributes were white. Of course, maybe there's something to that. I have to admit there is no way in hell I would mistake Charlie Bucket for Augustus Gloop, but I couldn't tell you the difference between Jay Z and Ray J.
So, hey. We're just the same, too. Generalizations are fun, aren't they?
In our quest for purity, Bells, we've sabotaged certain subfora. What the hell is the Religion subforum these days? We could have changed it to Theology and demanded some real discussion at any point in the last few years, but it would have fucked up the logistics for the Atheist Hatemongers' Pep Rally. We could have treated the psychospiritual halfwits with the same contempt we show the armchair physicists who think they're smarter than Einstein. It better served our collective psyche, however, to manufacture a ghetto in order to complain about conditions there. Everybody, Bells, likes to feel superior to someone. And that rush can become addictive, as I would expect some of your legal career might suggest. If I don't hang around Pseudoscience and Parapsychology these days, it's because even our rational neighbors aren't worth having the discussion with.
A couple examples. A few years ago, I stumbled across this bizarre alien conspiracy theory that involved, I think, Chaco Canyon. Allegedly, the CIA knew of and had hidden from public view certain alien bases carved deep into the stone. This was the source of our technological leaps, and would lead to a philosophical awakening. There was, of course, more to it, but it's all bullshit, anyway. Still, though, there was reasonable discussion to be had. Hell, if I could find the site today, I would drag it out, because they had a genius idea for exploitation. They sold prints, alleged prints of alien artwork, and jewelry that was supposed to be of some alien design. Actually, it was pretty cool stuff. But I wondered about the psyches of the aliens. I just think that between the Reticulan greys and the Varginha alien, among others, the anthropocentric aspects of the artwork would have looked a little more alien and a little less human.
Or current television shows. I think there's a great drinking game to be played with Ghost Hunters. Just drink whenever someone on the screen is pulling a con. Use beer, though, and not whiskey or wine, or you'll be lips to the floor by the second intermission. Hell, with Psychic Kids, you might not make it past the first.
So find the needle in the haystack. Wouldn't it be great if we could set a filter that simply said, object ≠ hay? Well, we can't. But if we treat the fringe with better respect, we can build certain filters. After all, even if there was hard proof of ghosts or gods or EBEs on the planet right now, nobody would really know. Imagine the two of us sitting at a reception one day, celebrating the person who proved the existence of, say, a ghost. And imagine our conversation:
"What really sucks is we had this evidence sitting right in front of us the whole time and didn't see it."
—How does that happen?
"Well, some people didn't think there would ever be this kind of evidence. Hell, that was only ... what, three months ago?"
—Oh, well. At least I got to hold some idiots in contempt.
—How does that happen?
"Well, some people didn't think there would ever be this kind of evidence. Hell, that was only ... what, three months ago?"
—Oh, well. At least I got to hold some idiots in contempt.
Wouldn't it suck if holding people in contempt was our greatest contribution to the world? Nobody at Sciforums has to discover God or prove EBEs exist. I mean, it seems rather quite unlikely, right? But by my measure—and who knows? maybe I'm wrong about this—it seems that even if we are standing still, at least we're not walking away from our destination.
Is Sciforums really just a place for holding people in contempt? For some people, sure. But for most of those, that's all life is for, anyway. And we'll do that sort of shit to ourselves and others enough by accident; there's no reason to actually put effort into it.
As with so many things, it comes down to what we want. And I mean what we really want, not what we merely say we want. At some point, that involves treating ourselves—to speak nothing of other people–as something more than two-dimensional characters in a bad cartoon.
Then again, cartoons can be fun. Well, except for Veggie Tales. And most of Qubo, but that's beside the point.
People don't have to be brilliant to deserve respect. And that's probably for the best, all things considered.
____________________
Notes:
Steel, Mark. "Isaac Newton". The Mark Steel Lectures. British Broadcasting Corporation. BBC4, London. October 14, 2003.
Lokhorst, Gert-Jan. "Descartes and the Pineal Gland". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Plato.Stanford.edu. February 2, 2010. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/
Bells
Staff member
I come from a family which includes some who fall to their knees and put their hands on their TV's and scream prayers at the top of their lungs so a poor individual on said TV can be cured. And when I say at the top of their lungs, I mean that one can hear them from across the road as we found out when we dropped by there recently. Aside from the uncomfortable embarrassment that I felt when I saw some of their neighbours come out into their front yard thinking someone was being abused, I truly do not believe that their 'praising lord Jesus christ' in a suburb on the Gold Coast in Queensland is really going to that little Jimmy can start walking and be cured of cancer in some backwards redneck area of the US. Call me a skeptic, but that's just me. I can say with all certainty that if poor little Jimmy starts walking again and is cured from cancer, it is not because of my idiotic relatives who screamed 'praise Jesus' until their throats were raw.Tiassa said:
As a child, I was privy and dragged to certain rituals, that if it were to happen today, my grandmother and my father's sisters would have been charged with child abuse. As it stood, my parents had barred my father's relatives from having contact with me for many years, due to the things they dragged me to, apparently to keep the evil spirit of childhood asthma away. I saw the local vodou wannabe type individual try to induce me into a higher plane of existence by slitting the throat of a fucking chicken and smearing me with its blood then knocking me hard on the forehead.. Apparently that helps bring in the good spirits that would cure my asthma. Now for a 4-5 year old, that can have a lasting affect on someone. And I was the lucky one. We were all dragged there together when our parents left us to spend the day with grandma, not knowing that grandma was into some god damn fruitcake things. One of my cousins was blood married to the wannabe vodou type when she was 7. I was 5 at the time and sat and watched in terror as they cut her hand and blended her blood with that of the 'priest'. She is the same cousin who many years later suffered a severe depression and became suicidal because she thought the crap that was done to us as children by our aunts had resulted in her being haunted and now screams 'praise Jesus' at her TV and drags her husband along with her.
So you'll excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed parapsychology. You'll excuse me if I don't take dream interpretation seriously. Why? Because I have seen how being obsessed with dreams can turn people into raving lunatics. The cousin I mentioned earlier spent so much time interpreting her dreams of the spirits who would come to visit her that she got to the point where she had forgotten to shower (in the worst part of her depression). Nor do I believe in spirits or ghosts. I have yet to see any evidence of their existence, even though as a child, my aunts plowed their existence into our brains so that we were terrified to go to sleep at night, for fear that the evil spirits that apparently surrounded us would come and take us away. Then I grew up.
Someone may very well come out with valid evidence of ghosts. But until that day comes, we should be free to question and demand evidence from those who claim they exist, nor should it be treated as an exact science in the meantime.
Just as you feel the need to joke and ridicule Republicans, some feel the need to do the same with those who believe in ghosts and spirits.
bells said:
you probably will reach the center of the earth soon, bells
/smirk
"I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than stones fall out of the sky." (jefferson)
"Such self-appointed guardians of scientific truth share many of the traits of religious fanatics - sincerity poisoned by an unshakable belief in an immutable orthodoxy; extreme zealousness in the hot pursuit and punishment of deviant thought and behavior; and an atrophied sense of humor," (Schmicker)
Last edited:
Bells. A very interesting and honest post.
I can see you have had great difficulties in life, and I wish you the best of future happiness.
Have I understood you properly?
Are people practising voodoo in Queensland?
I can see you have had great difficulties in life, and I wish you the best of future happiness.
Have I understood you properly?
Are people practising voodoo in Queensland?
Steve Martin did it better
Please excuse me if I am skeptical of your standard that makes Gingergirl an arbiter of what is parapsychology.
And while we're considering your standard, let's think about its implications for a moment.
It's just that I think your standard sucks.
I would think you would have learned enough about psychology in your lifetime to understand what is wrong with that comparison.
People who believe in ghosts and spirits might do and say some stupid, and even brutal things. But greed is the foundation of the American conservative movement and Republican Party. We consider the sorts of delusions you experienced among superstitious relatives deviant. We consider greed and its effects mainstream, and even desirable. Certainly, both conditions mental illness, but not all mental illness is the same.
Oh, and let's look at your example. You have a proposition that uses trendy shorthand, a bogus New Age philosophy, and a popular movie tag line to describe a phenomenon that humans have experienced and failed to understand throughout the vast majority of their existence.
And what is the educated response?
Please excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed intelligence. Or, at the very least, the "intelligence" you are promoting.
Bells said:
Please excuse me if I am skeptical of your standard that makes Gingergirl an arbiter of what is parapsychology.
And while we're considering your standard, let's think about its implications for a moment.
• Pollution, wars, poverty ... please excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed progress.
• Domestic violence, stalking, rape, murder ... please excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed love.
• Failed HIV vaccines, antidepressants that make people suicidal, over 100,000 deaths each year in the U.S. due to prescription errors ... please excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed medicine.
• No child pornography, no practical jokes that make people panic, no threatening the President of the United States ... please excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed freedom.
• Domestic violence, stalking, rape, murder ... please excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed love.
• Failed HIV vaccines, antidepressants that make people suicidal, over 100,000 deaths each year in the U.S. due to prescription errors ... please excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed medicine.
• No child pornography, no practical jokes that make people panic, no threatening the President of the United States ... please excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed freedom.
It's just that I think your standard sucks.
I would think you would have learned enough about psychology in your lifetime to understand what is wrong with that comparison.
People who believe in ghosts and spirits might do and say some stupid, and even brutal things. But greed is the foundation of the American conservative movement and Republican Party. We consider the sorts of delusions you experienced among superstitious relatives deviant. We consider greed and its effects mainstream, and even desirable. Certainly, both conditions mental illness, but not all mental illness is the same.
Oh, and let's look at your example. You have a proposition that uses trendy shorthand, a bogus New Age philosophy, and a popular movie tag line to describe a phenomenon that humans have experienced and failed to understand throughout the vast majority of their existence.
And what is the educated response?
Please excuse me if I am skeptical of what is deemed intelligence. Or, at the very least, the "intelligence" you are promoting.
Bells
Staff member
It was back in the country that I was born. And it isn't called vodou in that country, but 'sorcery'.
But the beliefs are very similar and the practice at times identical.
Of course. I could not expect a former "ghost hunter" to understand that not everyone believes in ghosts.Tiassa said:
Right.
So because I do not believe in ghosts, that is suddenly my standard? The implication of my not believing in ghosts is that? Me thinks your bong needs to be cleaned out dear boy and the weed replaced. Either that or you are just a sanctimonious arsewipe who was itching to say that for a long time.
Do you actually believe that my saying that I do not believe in ghosts or spirits is tantamount to that? Seriously?
Hey, according to you, I am too much of an idiot to understand anything.
Lighten up, gotta lighten up, gotta lighten up right now ... (shine like the sun)
Someone's in a mood.
Methinks you need to take a deep breath. Or a bong rip. Either way.
Nope. Rather, I think your elevation of someone like Gingergirl to such exemplary importance is problematic, to say the least.
Bells, you're out looking for a fight. You have been for over a month. What the hell happened that put you in such a mood, and why the hell is it so hard for you to cope with the fact that if you come in swinging, someone might just swing back? Because—
—I know for a fact you're not an idiot. I just don't get why you're so determined to act like one.
Bells said:
Someone's in a mood.
Methinks you need to take a deep breath. Or a bong rip. Either way.
Nope. Rather, I think your elevation of someone like Gingergirl to such exemplary importance is problematic, to say the least.
Bells, you're out looking for a fight. You have been for over a month. What the hell happened that put you in such a mood, and why the hell is it so hard for you to cope with the fact that if you come in swinging, someone might just swing back? Because—
—I know for a fact you're not an idiot. I just don't get why you're so determined to act like one.
Bells
Staff member
Are the both of you co-ordinating what to say now?
Is that what is portrayed in public is never the reality in public. That is what really annoys the hell out of me. The absolute hypocrisy.
No. Just sick of the bullshit Tiassa.Tiassa said:
It was an example. Her post was an example. I thought that was quite obvious.
Of course, the absolute last person who knows what the issue is, is you. Right?
Do you know what really bugs me Sam?Sam said:
Is that what is portrayed in public is never the reality in public. That is what really annoys the hell out of me. The absolute hypocrisy.
Do you think that it is evil, Bells?
Do you think that sorcery has real effects or is it just in peoples minds?
Last edited:
Endless nameless?
Paranoia will destroy ya.
Are you the only one who's allowed to be?
Yeah, you know, I think I got that part:
She doesn't make a good example to base such a broad generalization on.
It's quite clear you're aiming for emotion more than content, Bells.
Why don't you fill us in, please?
Or are you just trolling?
____________________
Notes:
"exemplary". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Merriam-Webster.com. February 3, 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exemplary
Bells said:
Paranoia will destroy ya.
Are you the only one who's allowed to be?
Yeah, you know, I think I got that part:
Main Entry: ex·em·pla·ry
Pronunciation: \ig-ˈzem-plə-rē\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1507
.... 3 : serving as an example, instance, or illustration
(Merriam-Webster)
Pronunciation: \ig-ˈzem-plə-rē\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1507
.... 3 : serving as an example, instance, or illustration
(Merriam-Webster)
She doesn't make a good example to base such a broad generalization on.
It's quite clear you're aiming for emotion more than content, Bells.
Why don't you fill us in, please?
Or are you just trolling?
____________________
Notes:
"exemplary". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Merriam-Webster.com. February 3, 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exemplary
Bells
Staff member
Evil?
I am an atheist, so descriptions of good or evil don't exactly fall into that kind of category.
I think scaring the crap out of small children so that they are scared to go to sleep at night can have lasting effects. I and several of my cousins got past it. Some did not.
Do I believe in the notion of evil spirits, etc? No I do not.
Bells
Staff member
Like you never do? How quickly you forget your fight for Sam crusade.Tiassa said:
Ah, but if I "fill us in", I would be in breach of the confidence of the mod forum, wouldn't I? How comforting that must be for you.
You forget Tiassa, I know and have seen exactly how you work and how you apply the rules of this site. I know and have seen your demands and accusations against others who dare disagree with you and I have seen how you have treated those individuals in the past. The pattern just keeps on repeating itself. To dare hold different views or opinions to you automatically makes one an enemy, a hypocrit, a liar, incompetent... Same pattern each and every single time. Now we add 'emotional' to the list. What's going to be next? Menstrual?
Accusing me of trolling again is also a known pattern with you. I've seen all this before, only on previous occasions, you would say it to others. I guess it is good to see what it is like on the other side and now I see why so many were so unhappy with your moderation tactics in the past. I am seeing it from their end now and I have to admit, it is not a pretty sight.
Do I have a beef with you? No. I am just tired of the hypocrisy.
You know, I now realise that it really is a shame that the private forums are not made public. But I also realise, looking at it from this end, that it never can be. The respect you demand from others would never be forthcoming if that forum was made public.