Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Harry i agree wifh all you said. A lot more could have been lost if notfor the Arabs or Muslims.
But did they have and use the scientific method or did their work just become most of the foundation for it? From what i have read it was the latter. I would hate to think of qhere we would be today if not for the contributions of mostly the Greeks and those who did save thsir work. And wonder on what remains still lost.
Yes, they developed ideas such as deductive reasoning and empiricism, which would then become the foundation of our modern science.
I have problem agreeing with all that. I will elaborate on your example with the same caveat that it is not perfect.
The swastika has not lost it is true meaning in a places where it originated. Indians, even non-Hindus, know what it means and they are still used in daily life. They would not even recognize the Nazi symbol as the swastika of benevolence and health as the word Swasti means, because it is inverted and has no context.
The reason I am saying this is while CD is American, we are all also global citizens. One cannot have an intelligent dialog if we so narrowly view our world, words and concepts. Well, one can, but you also loose so much. That matters if you truly strive to understand your world.
Words always have an inherent meaning and etymology. They dont lose it just because some other emotions are attached to them, such as your words that I have bolded indicate. It may be natural to do that but not if you are interested in an honest understanding. So you can choose - honest dialog or emotionally charged circus. The second is always easy.
That’s fine. I have no emotion attached to any of this (but can understand why some do), and am all for understanding and cultural awareness. I am simply acknowledging that there are some areas in life where our philosophical aspirations collide with practical realities, and this is one of them. The practical reality is that the Nazis, white supremacists, and creationists have “ruined it for the rest of us.” (And no, I did not just equate those three groups, except in the narrowest sense of co-opting a concept or symbol that others might like to use for their own purposes).
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 07-25-2021 at 01:12 PM..
That’s fine. I have no emotion attached to any of this (but can understand why some do), and am all for understanding and cultural awareness. I am simply acknowledging that there are some areas in life where our philosophical aspirations collide with practical realities, and this is one of them. The practical reality is that the Nazis, white supremacists, and creationists have “ruined it for the rest of us.” (And no, I did not just equate those three groups, except in the narrowest sense of co-opting a concept or symbol that others might like to use for their own purposes).
regarding first claim in bold above, yes there is clearly emotion attached, as evidenced by second claim in bold.
and yes grouping the three groups together is deliberate and purposeful, revealing a specific intention and yes emotion that is transparent.
what might your reaction be to hearing the statement "gays have ruined it for the rest of us" by co-opting the word gay? do you feel, agree, and believe that "gays have ruined it for the rest of us" ?
would it flow as easily from you to state (since view above purports to "have no emotion attached to any of this") to state "Nazis, white supremacists and gays have ruined it for the rest of us"
just so you are aware of how it sounds.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-25-2021 at 02:05 PM..
That’s fine. I have no emotion attached to any of this (but can understand why some do), and am all for understanding and cultural awareness. I am simply acknowledging that there are some areas in life where our philosophical aspirations collide with practical realities, and this is one of them. The practical reality is that the Nazis, white supremacists, and creationists have “ruined it for the rest of us.” (And no, I did not just equate those three groups, except in the narrowest sense of co-opting a concept or symbol that others might like to use for their own purposes).
Just because certain people think political correctness is silly and offensive and use it like a dirty word does not mean my philosophical aspirations of awareness and kindness need to remove the actual meaning of those words and what they mean out of my vocabulary. How silly is that, that I should submit to close minded people and learn to use the terms as they do, in quotes because it is what, practical? To make whom happy?
Intelligent design can just mean that there is an order in the universe and everything is not random. It works for me.
regarding first claim in bold above, yes there is clearly emotion attached, as evidenced by second claim in bold.
and yes grouping the three groups together is deliberate and purposeful, revealing a specific intention and yes emotion that is transparent.
what might your reaction be to hearing the statement "gays have ruined it for the rest of us" by co-opting the word gay?
would it flow as easily from you to state (since view above purports to "have no emotion attached to any of this") to state "Nazis, white supremacists and gays have ruined it for the rest of us"
just so you are aware of how it sounds.
Wow, you really are presumptuous (a word that will no doubt come back in quotes), seeing so deep inside my soul. Just so you are aware of how it sounds.
Would it have made it better for you (less “emotional “) if I had used a smiley face after “…ruined it for the rest of us?” As stated, I was merely pointing out the practical difficulties of using terms or symbols that have become so closely associated with a cause or movement that they will inevitably be seen that way by a majority of those with whom one is communicating. Nothing more, nothing less.
So yes, if someone insisted on describing their happy child as “gay,” in a setting where the majority of readers might well assume they were talking about sexual orientation (and therefore leading to confusion)… the same point could be made.
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 07-25-2021 at 03:39 PM..
Wow, you really are presumptuous (a word that will no doubt come back in quotes), seeing so deep inside my soul. Just so you are aware of how it sounds.
Would it have made it better for you (less “emotional “) if I had used a smiley face after “…ruined it for the rest of us?” As stated, I was merely pointing out the practical difficulties of using terms or symbols that have became so closely associated with a cause or movement that they will inevitably be seen that way by a majority of those with whom one is communicating. Nothing more, nothing less.
So yes, if someone insisted on describing their happy child as “gay,” in a setting where the majority of readers might well assume they were talking about sexual orientation (and therefore leading to confusion)… the same point could be made.
that's not what i asked.
i asked if you feel and believe and agree that "gay people have ruined it for the rest of us."
i asked if you would freely and easily state "nazis, white supremacists and gays have ruined it for the rest of us."
would that flow trippingly off your pen as one of your signature statements?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-25-2021 at 02:57 PM..
Intelligent design can just mean that there is an order in the universe and everything is not random. It works for me.
Yes, of course...
Intelligent Design is a term and concept that is not owned by creationists or anyone else for that matter and can be argued/nuanced/interpreted/theorized by anyone for any reason on an individual basis or part of a group. You don't even need a college degree, or a high school one for that matter, to do so.
"Universally accepted" outlook by academics and/or scientists? Between power and influence, legacies, graft and corruption, bribes and payoffs what value do even Ivy League degrees have nowadays. Remember that George Bush Junior, Chris Cuomo, etc. graduated Yale... Your next academic "expert" could be the son or daughter of an "Operation Varsity Blues" bribe scandal...
Think and theorize for yourselves folks before it's too late, stop name, face, place and institution dropping. Sometimes there's "nobody home" at the so called top...
Last edited by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?; 07-25-2021 at 07:08 PM..
Reason: Added Some Thoughts
Intelligent Design is a term and concept that is not owned by creationists or anyone else for that matter and can be argued/nuanced/interpreted/theorized by anyone for any reason on an individual basis or part of a group. You don't even need a college degree, or a high school one for that matter, to do so.
"Universally accepted" outlook by academics and/or scientists? Between power and influence, legacies, graft and corruption, bribes and payoffs what value do even Ivy League degrees have nowadays. Remember that George Bush Junior, Chris Cuomo, etc. graduated Yale... Your next academic "expert" could be the son or daughter of an "Operation Varsity Blues" bribe scandal...
Think and theorize for yourselves folks before it's too late, stop name, face, place and institution dropping. Sometimes there's "nobody home" at the so called top...
Oh my. Conspiracy thinking whenever one doesn't like what is generally accepted.
Oh my. Conspiracy thinking whenever one doesn't like what is generally accepted.
Wasn't it once generally accepted that the world was flat and getting out the bad humors/blood with leeches the "go to" medical practice for the ill?
If independent thinking, not necessarily accepting the "general acceptance" or at least taking it with a critical grain of salt is conspiracy paranoia I guess I'm guilty...
Although if you could spell out the thought process steps you took in more detail of how your mind came to formulate your above post it may help in figuring out how you possibly could have arrived there.
Wasn't it once generally accepted that the world was flat and getting out the bad humors/blood with leeches the "go to" medical practice for the ill?
If independent thinking, not necessarily accepting the "general acceptance" or at least taking it with a critical grain of salt is conspiracy paranoia I guess I'm guilty...
Although if you could spell out the thought process steps you took in more detail of how your mind came to formulate your above post it may help in figuring out how you possibly could have arrived there.
But did people in t he past acrually ever believe that.
Probavly nor according to this Wiki page. And a few years ago ibread a book about the history if the flat Earth and that researcher claimed it was a 19th cenrury invensiin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your next academic "expert" could be the son or daughter of an "Operation Varsity Blues" bribe scandal...
