No, I've been enjoying it this far, the accusations of being racist for using what are genuine opinions (of racists) in irony to try and prove a point annoyed me. I'm not likening you to hittler, I'm saying he held similar beliefs of human essence, of a soul, and he abused and misrepresented these beliefs and managed to murder 6 million people on the back of them. All I'm saying is that they're old fashioned beliefs. I've spent the last half hour looking for a review of a film I once saw, but it wasn't a good one, and australian film scholars tend to forget of it's existence (due to their embarassment of it). It's about an aboriginal girl, taken from her family and placed with a white family who was fine until puberty, and she started getting visions and hearing tribal music, and she tore her clothes off and danced around trees looking for her tribe. The message of the film was that she was aboriginal is essence, and it couldn't be removed. Like I said, they're embarassed of it now. They don't like you mentioning it to them (aussie film scholars) and get all defensive.
bring it in then, just don't snap at comments I make, or I'll do the same back. I am honestly trying to have a rational debate, I admit I use bad examples, but they are valid.
well science is reaching a point where consciousness moves from the realm of philosophy into the labs... which could have far reaching implications unfortunately though.. discoveries in science often throw up more questions than they answer... and i have no doubts that studying the mind/soul will be no different
Well perhaps in my state of astonishment i'm missing something here, but it looks like a case of backpeddling from where i'm standing. You went from discussing in perfectly reasonable terms to getting snippy and slapping on a label of 'crap' as well as throwing in all sorts of OTT examples of what i supposedly think - which is apparently in the direction of the beliefs of Hitler and the KKK. If anyone wants to discuss symbols or whether anything is universal or not in a calm and rational manner with me, please feel free. If anyone wants an opportunity to discuss anything else or angle personal animosity towards me, please start a seperate thread.
Well you may hate me for this, but I have absolutely no argument with that. Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain, scientists are pretty sure about that, so there's no evidence of emotions being the same for everybody. I guess the a real question here, is are the stimulants for these emotions encoded in the DNA or, as I believe, are the stimulants socially formed. Are women (and I'm working on a stereotype here, not a belief) socialy conformed to be more emotional, and cry at soppy films, or is it embedded in their DNA?
I'm not back-peddling at all, I've spent the entire thread arguing against the idea of a pre-defined identity. I'm not arguing for it now, so the example was obviously irony. And I never said you think any of those things, I said the people in those examples (which are real-world examples and thus not OTT, unless you want to argue that the holocaust never really happened, I don't want to) derived their ideas from similar beliefs.
why would i hate you for it?... the problem is that you say that science holds all the answers.. what i am saying is that yes, it answers questions.. but at the same time throws up shitloads more questions to answer.. and for you to align completely with science.. while totally discounting what nursey has said about mysticism, spirituality, symbols etc.. is pretty arrogant to say the least... one day in the future.. science may have all the answers... has it not occurred to you that it might prove both of you right? after all.. you're arguing against pre-defined identity with sprinklings of stereotypes
You may have missed my earlier post, I don't align myself totally with science. Then we can stop debating this, we can deny we have any opinions, all get on the fence, and talk about the current plot lines in Eastenders. You're going to have to clariffy that, are you saying I'm arguing against sterotypes, or employing them while arguing against pre-defined identity. And if the latter, which have I used, except for the examples which (incase you still haven't figured it out) are used in irony.
'Symbols which are universal to us all' = 'pre-defined identity', pre-destined existence, the concept that 'different races are somehow different from me on a humane level', racial stereotyping hearing God speaking to you.... I always thought it was his scientific (Darwinian) beliefs in a 'master race' that was at the root of the holocaust? And anyway, how is some nutters misrepresentation of something constitute a viable arguement against it?
'{So}...Symbols which are universal to us all' = 'pre-defined identity', pre-destined existence, the concept that 'different races are somehow different from me on a humane level', racial stereotyping hearing God speaking to you.... {? :? }
You can fuck right off with that one nursey, seeing as you're incapable of quoting me correctly I'll do it myself. There's no edit feature, I haven't changed it, go back and check it. As for the rest of it, I'm not going to constantly explain my position on every minor detail. If you can't figure out that it is generaly considered a sign of insanity to be hearing voices, then you're not worth debating this with. I know what you're problem is though. You're thinking every little comment I make is a personal attack on you. You must have very low self-esteem if you're scanning every word I say for insults -- they're just examples, GET OVER IT! If I wanted to insult you, I would do it openly. And as for the darwinism, that was taylored by hitler to fit opinions he had already formed on the basis that Jews had no soul and were not human, that he believed them to be animals. Darwin's theories were used as a tool to convince an educated and civil society to allow him to kill other people. I'm out of this, I thought for once you were going to be able to just talk rationaly and not get into your usual, hysterical rut. I should have known better. I won't have my words twisted by you.
Well at least she didn't start off on her usual conspiracy theories of a joint Israel - US plan for world domination. You're qualified Barry, what help does she need?
Ironic. I was bailing out on my first post at the top of this thread (page 4) but only carried on due to your apparent return to calm, rational debate. And i myself had been slightly wary of discussing things with you after the bizarre, hysterical diatribe that you spouted in this thread, but had been quite pleased to see that nothing so bizarre as that outburst had happened in this debate...only to then realise 'here we go again'. Quite an angry little man! I was posting what i believed you were suggesting my beliefs amounted to. There is enough confusion amongst all this without intentionally adding to it, and i have better things to do with my time than twist an already pretty twisted debate. Well i hope so, because it would be pretty pathetic if you took satisfaction from doing so by means of any petty, vindictive little games...
Sorry, I'm on vaction for the week. On a non professional level, I think all Nursey really needs is a new keyboard. The one she has now is registered as a WMD. Nursey ain't all bad. That is about as close to a compliment as I will get for Nursey, because she gets all freaked out if you are "touchy feely" with her. Oh, and PD gets jealous too. Barry
