- I suggest caution. I strongly suspect that this Mr "Godot" may be an imposter. We should question him closely to determine the truth. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 11:54, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
You wait. Usually, you'll find a Rhinosourus comes before you've finished your waiting. But that's another story all together.--WaitingforGodot 12:54, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- You can't: no-one has ever met him. ContribsTalk 12:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Liquid threats is awful and I won't use it
Could I please get demoted? –Inquisitor Sasha 18:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! –Inquisitor Sasha 19:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|New sig for ya||2||17:47, 20 April 2012|
|Mound builders||3||05:06, 17 April 2012|
|Please explain||5||02:17, 17 April 2012|
|Creationist abuse... of Native American myths||1||16:54, 16 April 2012|
|Why women vote Republican||13||05:08, 13 April 2012|
|whats the green text say>||1||02:46, 10 April 2012|
|Two requests||3||06:27, 8 April 2012|
|Puritans||1||23:35, 6 April 2012|
|You believe in "religion"?||4||04:39, 3 April 2012|
|de Saussure (linguistics question for ya)||2||23:16, 31 March 2012|
|Announcement||1||21:39, 31 March 2012|
|Chomsky under fire||6||19:40, 29 March 2012|
|Caught in the act!||6||16:53, 28 March 2012|
|Language and Ph.D. programs||14||20:12, 24 March 2012|
|Sources||8||19:59, 24 March 2012|
|conservative government||4||01:43, 22 March 2012|
|Abortion cola||1||17:15, 21 March 2012|
|Christian economics||24||18:55, 20 March 2012|
|Downtown||31||17:56, 20 March 2012|
|Evangelicalism||0||10:50, 19 March 2012|
"I wish I could be in charge of all the chocolate, but, of course, I cannot because of my atheism." (From this cute little flick.)
I've been meaning to write an article on this for a while. Found a great source on it recently: http://pseudoarchaeology.org/a04-saundershastings.html
Wondered if you were familiar with this as a piece of Native American woo. And if you weren't, now you know (and that's half the battle).
Sounds vaguely naughty. Pics would be awesome whenever I get around to making the article. If they're SFW that is.
I'd never seen this history so interestingly analyzed. I'd only read the 'red v. white' previsionist histories in the context of "debunked fiction", but honestly, stupid as it is, never wondered why those stories were about.
As I was saying on an earlier thread, the biggest (and generally lost) battle being played out in indian studies is to filter what's likely "real" myth, from the created myth: "Mother Earth", and "great spirit" and "all religion all the time", but also the stories that find themselves scripted as near Greek epic stories of humanized gods and goddesses entwined in lovers trysts.
And a third comment is that the newest way of seeing the mound builders is still just as sterotypical and Othered. The idea that these people were uber violent cannibals who in effect defeated themselves cause they weren't smart enough to see where their civilization was going. Can't have an indian be just anyother group of people trying to live their lives, no no.
big dicked, little black samboo like boy? just an annoying as all fuck pic. I could just avoid Brx's page, of course. but the drama is so much fun.
Ummmm, the pic was a photo taken by me at Moyo restaurant in South Africa. Moyo is one of the best know African themed restaurants and the photo is a picture of the woodcarving on the bathroom door. I highly doubt, considering the circumstances, you coud consider it "racist" because there is no intent.
Oh for god's sake. or Wakan Tanka's sake, anyhow. Academically speaking, there is no description of what Wakinyan would have looked like, much less any real idea that they were "reptiles" and not birds or more likely "spiritual beings". These are a people with no written history and **even if** the world were only 6000 years old, you are claiming that a group of nomadic people could have "remembered" encounters that happened before the flood (again, going on the whole Creation Ministries theory here) and not beeen forgoten or changed in 4000 years? We have proof that the oral legends from so-called "first contact" changed within the 200 years before publication. Back to Wakinyan specifically. In lakota, it means "thunder". The very day to day thunder that bangs around our heads. It is also the word, pluralized, for so-called "thunder beings". But the context in which we know of thunderbeings is limited, and much influenced by western culture - like most religious concepts in Native Culture.
For what it's worth, i'm HIGHLY dubious of wakinyan being a "being" of sorts. Only one person really makes that claim - James R. Walker, who was informed by a lakota "holy man" (who just happened to have been kicked out of his own tribe) named George Sword. The scholar and linguist Ella Cara Deloria has found no evidence at all of Walker's very greek looking "mythology" of the Sioux. It's all over Wikipedia, but academics on this issue don't ever seem to reflect what real lakota people are saying or more critically - not saying.
Challenging Walker is a fool's task. but it makes no rational sense in context of everything else we know about lakota mythology. No one but this one "scholar" ever says these things; no one has ever found myths of these that do not come from Sword.
sighs... sorry, this is one of the battles I fought endlessly and which sent me out of academics.
I HAVE to know, cause I do not get it. especially this last 5-6 months, and the "war on women". (I have a host of new things I should be updating, but i've been very negligent).
It's about as likely as anything not in the onion. ;-) I do wish it had not been a spoof though. ;-)
"War on Women" is certainly a punch-packing slogan/advertising campaign. We shall see if it gets the Democrats enough female votes.
Slogan? Some it's just some made up reality?
FFS, roughly 5 times more bills that directly effect a woman's access to abortion, birth control or other reproductive choices were initiated last year, than in 2009 when republicans were not in power. The four major candidates had a field day trying to see who was better at removing women's rights. And if you start looking at individual states, and the very real attack on fundamental rights to control our bodies, you will see even higher numbers of bills being presented.
this is not a slogan. it's not some 99% meaningless rhetoric. it's a very real attack on women and our right to access health care and reproductive control.
I would say it is more 99% meaningful rhetoric: replace "and our" with "'s" in the last paragraph and you have a fairly accurate assessment of the situation.
Slogan? Some it's just some made up reality? It is not allowed to use a slogan to describe actual occurrences? The process being followed here is: (1) the Republicans make use of increased opportunity to propose largely the same old women's-rights-infringing legislation that they have always advocated, maybe with a bit of window-dressing swapped around for variety; (2) the less idealistic Democrats see a golden opportunity to court the female vote by infusing their old arguments against this legislation with new life in the form of a creepy-sounding new slogan and a dash of identity politics.
One can gnash one's teeth at the bullshit, of course, but such is politics.
I dont' know why you want to remove the "our" from the sentence. it is OUR rights, not men's rights that are being attacked. Last time I looked, men didn't have to worry about medical birth control being removed from insurance, nor having to undergo ultrasounds to get access to basic medical care - when it's not medically warranted; nor having to prove that you were raped, before you can access basic, legal medical care.
To argue "well, we might have lost coverage of some medical issue if Blunt passed" is really just begging the victim.
In other news, liberals are perpetrating the real "war on women."
One would think that a Republican, at least, would understand that the government's options are somewhat limited when it comes to the market, especially the private-sector job market.
But, as we all know, the State is an omnipontent entity capable of solving all problems only when your opponents are in charge of it; when you get in charge, you whistle a vastly different tune.
Could you rename me to "Radioactive afikomen"? It's Passover, and I'd like my name to reflect the holiday's spirit again for the next week.
Also, your "E-mail this user" button doesn't seem to actually email you :-( I am very sad now.
So that's what "afikomen" means. I wondered about that...
The article on the Puritans says there are unsorced statements. Perhaps since religion is your subject you could have a look and sort the article out.
I'm not sure I understand his point, but I *think* i do, and i think he's crazy. He himself says "cultures may not have a word for synatx but that does not mean their language has no syntax". The same is true about language, about "culture", sometimes even about cultural relationships (though rarely, i know of one native american group that has no word for wife/partner/spouse/etc.) So why is religion different? Yes, it's a new term for a concept - but that doesn't mean teh concept didn't exist.
Let me reread it tomorrow, when i'm not as confused, cause i really think i'm just being dense. or didn't read carefully - which often happens near the end of the day. ;-)
He's being a smart-ass but making an important point -- the basic cognitive elements of religious practice are not limited in any way to religion.
I woudln't doubt that. I always figured religion stems from something biological - but something that is there in our brains helping us live day to day. Pehaps (and this is totally pulled out of my ass) a child sees mom as capible of fixing everything, and therefore trusts mom implicitly to get that child everything, which is a biological necessity for survival, but also allows someone (or thing) to manipulate trust and "create" gods. or perhaps humans necessarily see all objects as "alive" as children, and as "helpful" or "un" in a very binary. (this one *is* pretty much proven - what it means, is anyone's guess, though). So those kids have this built in function to see all things as somehow able to help them or harm them - therefore lighting is "helpful" or "harmful" therefore it's got a will therefore it's god. or some such.
As for why we all see white when we get near dying; or why we hear voices, or sense peace after long exertions that aer otherwise called "mystical", i don't think any good Religious Scholar (karen Armstrong not included there) would say that it is in any way exclusive to religion, but rather that religion takes or uses natural biological reactions and says "see... that proves (it)".
How much of this is true? The section looks like what they call "original research."
When you take linguistics 101, you will not really hear the name Saussure, simply because what he said that is valuable has been so absorbed into linguistics it becomes the very way we talk about languages and their study. Sign (signifier and signified) are how we talk about units of speech/language, though today, we often add referents. The challenge to this idea, when we really start looking at how humans use language, is that our world is not so direct or simple. we can "fill in the black" of both signified and signifier without hesitation, change their referent from something literal and direct to something uniques and abstract with a single glance, gesture, tone of voice, etc. But it's still critical at a 101 level.
I'm not sure if that answered it. Yes, his good stuff has been absorber, his bad stuff discarded, and you won't really hear about him till you say "ok, i'm ready to study this field" and start in on the history of the field itself.
I'm not a big fan of Evertte - i think he makes fundimental mistakes when looking at so called "ancient" languages and so-called "primative" people. That aside, I had heard that Chomsky (well, his universal grammar) is right at teh cusp of "ummm not so fast". That's fine with me, if only cause it presupposes things that I find odd now that i'm more fully versed in ASL and signed languages.
But on the other hand, what "universal grammar" is, can be so damn vague "we have a sense of language" type vague, that it loses some meaning to me. When UV becomes "humans are driven to interpret their world via language" I don't think you can challenge it. But the new stuff you showed me about a month ago, that was really dealing with "language first? or language as a bi product" was far more compelling and might better explain what language is. and what, if anything a UV would be.
In other words, get over my bias against evertte and read the "juicy" stuff, as this author says.
I never heard of Everett until now. Chomsky does have a bad habit of backpedaling to a vaguer form of UG whenever it's challenged, though. Believe it or not, I would put my money on Pinker's idea of a "language instinct," in some general form. I don't have the linguistic chops to evaluate Chomsky or Pinker's specific claims about language, but I think they got some of the basic ideas right from the psychological end of things. The evidence for poverty of the stimulus is compelling, along with the fact that Broca's area homologues have been observed in other primates. (, )
I think that was teh article you showed me. about language instinct, which i actually liked. It was similar, but different to/from universal Grammar. It wasn't by pinker, but someone discussing the two theories and brinking in a third.
You mean this one? Personally, I like to watch the linguistic types duke it out as a sort of spectator sport. My background is in memory and perception, where animal models are plentiful and definitions are much less fuzzy. Does it have eyes? Good enough! (While I'm linkspamming John Hawks, he has a great lecture on eyes and vision.)
Of neuroessentialism, that is, on this page. Now, if we scanned people's brains while they read a biology textbook, we would obviously see activity of some sort. That wouldn't prove that evolution is just brain chemistry. Back to neuroscience 101 for you! Consider yourself properly "tsk tsk'ed." (By the way, I tried praying to Joe Pesci, but it didn't work.)
Meh, bugger it. The actual proof was from an article in JAAR about the altered state of mind(s) in Tibetan monks over a 2 year study, showing the growth and changes within the hippo campus over that year, then doing the same for people with depression. They showed (on a much less drastic level) similar changes. As you know, the hippocampus will also regrow or just grow in people who have been on anti depressants form more than 5 years, literally changing the brain's biology to something slightly more "normal". You will further note that it's long been known, but not understood, that the hippocampus is (with a strong statistical correlation) smaller in people with long term, chronic depression. :P
but all that said, if it's worth changing, it's worth changing. heheheheheh
True, though that doesn't prove that god doesn't exist.
hum... did i said that. my bad. I meant to say "prayer is not bs". I was a bit annoywed when i wrote that part, at the anti religion, prayer is stupid, nothign good comes from it lines.
my heart sometimes does not converse with my head, when both are annoyed. ;-)
There's an interesting discussion happening here on when it's appropriate for Ph.D. students to learn a second language. I thought you'd be interested in it. (And it's Lawyers, Guns, and Money Blog, so the comments are also fairly intelligent, too!)
Wow thanks! i can't believe this is even a discussion. second langauges are critical aspects to learning about other people and the world.
Wow, I'm shocked how few people care about, or think it's important to have quality exposure to other languages. I don't know if it's generational, but in my biased view, when you only speak English, you limit your world knowledge and reinforce the idea that English is god. Several of those articles articulate the fact that "all the relevant journals are in English", which is perhaps my point. that you do not know how to communicate with others, and expect them to communicate with you is a sad place, indeed.
And suddenly I feel very sheepish for agreeing with him.
HAH.. to each their own. I think on the experts I know (mostly from TV) Lawrence Krauss, marcus De Savouy, even deGrasse Tyson all talk about learning other languages to at least communicate in those languages. And our immediate forefathers were very fluent in multiple languages. Often writing in latin and French even if they were german or english. Language opens up ways of looking at teh world, and seems integral to being a rounded person.
BUT, maybe I can agree that if it's not your cup of tea, so be it. one *should* learn, but then again I *should* have learned to spell better and to know numbers better.
But I also agree that phd programs are simply not as rigorous as they were when say, my father got his degree. I know about what he knew as a MASTERS. oh well. :-)
Having said that, i do STRONGLY agree that it's dumb to think you will be good enough in a language to read articles or original source material. Experts who spend their lives studying the art of translation will be far better at translating a work than I. and while it was fun to read Foucault in French, i got WAY WAY more from reading it in english.
Actually, the biggest language barrier I've faced isn't between languages but between American English and English English. So much terminology is standardised internationally that with any European research group, for example a paper I read in French, reads exactly like the English but with prepositions changed and funny accents added.
Funny, I totally agree with the original article. I had to take Latin and French back in my high school days. The only thing that they've given me is the ability to use obscure abbreviations and phrases and to understand a few Eddie Izzard skits. Programming languages have been far more useful because of the relation to computational cognitive models. I imagine literature written in C would be pretty terrible, though.
I used the source, The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine in the article, Trinity. Is it a good source?
Godot is the ultimate source on everything here, so it's good you asked her.
I am, dear Nihilistic one. Bow before me! :-)
PC - depends on what you want to do with it. It is a truly valid examination of where the trinity comes from? not at all, really. Far too much agenda there. We don't know where teh trinity came from; it's a new invention that is found no where else in the jewish faith, or so far as I know, any other religion. BUT if what you are saying is "this dude thinks..." then it's a good sources.
Sources are not good or bad for what they say, but how you use them, and only you know what you intend to say about it.
I always find the drive to prove that everything in Christianity was lifted from paganism rather amusing. (cough cough) Surely there was quite a bit of the ol' copy-paste going on, but not quite that much.
I suspect in religions there is always a serious measure of copy-pasting, but i'm pretty sure it's never deliberate. "oh, they have a stud god, let's copy it", more rather over time, your story includes things that are more interesting.
I mean christianity is by and large, judaism seen through a zoroastrain lens, or zoroastrianism seen through a jewish lens. but it was nearly 300 years in the making, and it just sorta (I think) happens, rather than anyone saying "let's copy".
"Governments gotta be small, small enough to fit in the average bedroom if not a womans womb!" ~ somebody here
yup. there's some great "art" going round facebook about that very idea. My favorite has a tiny elephant inside a drawing of a womb. "Government needs to be small, so it can fit inside your vagina" or something.
and why is it always from "aborted fetesus". I think I would happily give my child to science, the way i'd give my own body to science. there are stem cells from the umbilical chords, and from zygotes used for in vetro.
stupid xians. trix are for kids!
Do you have ambitious plans to develop the article on Christian economics and write better stuff than I wrote?
I have no idea. If something catches my eye, I work on it. But the fact that so much of this stuff is just "trite", and stereotypical, and strawman, means it needs cleaned up. Christian economics is a very complex topic. If you are planing on treating it that way, I'll stay out. If your goal is just to write something from a sorta tossed together mess of something you glem without any research...
Right this very moment, I will be working on writing 3 election ballots, so I'm not going to tackle any major topic.
- I've got a feeling if you use that source you'll insist that it's a good source.
- I've got a feeling if I use that source you'll insist that i'm writing poorly sourced Strawman arguments.
Proxima, it's not the sources you use, it's the way you paint the entirety of a religion with one source you find, instead of carefully putting things into context.
It's the fact that you say "Christians think", or worse "some Christians think", rather than being specific about who or what group is "thinking", how prevalent that thought is, and how it is viewed by other Christians. It's the fact that your first goal seems to be to dismiss religion and Christianity, and make them big bad and evil, even when you have to exaggerate to do so.
It's that fact that your "research" looks like something out of a middle schooler's attempts. Superficial, single sources, little indepth analysis.
You don't (to me) appear to really think about each contribution you are making, but just slap up the first thought that comes into your head.
I am not a very good writer, as far as style and word choice - everyone around here knows that. But I make sure what I add 1) at least makes sense, and 2) is factually, and intellectually sound and 3) I reread what I write to make sure I'm not leaving up something people will say "huh?" to, even if they say "learn to spell" or "it sounds better in 3rd person".
The very article you are citing to "Economics of Xian Right" has depth that you simply ignore by saying "If the bible says it's bad, but they want to do it, they ignore it". and? Why do they do that? What prompts them to do that? What is their conviction that allows them to do that? How does that play into the Protestant work ethic, and why is the PWE one of the most damaging concepts for America we have? Do other countries have such a stick with this "christian economics?" How about africa - and how it's playing a very new version of teh same thing, tied into a very scary anti-human perspective?
Your article doesn't really even talk about when this began, and who is doing it.
I'm sorry if it feels like i have "different rules" on sources, but it's not what the source is, it's how its used in the overall context.
In just under a month it should be Easter, then you won't have college work to do and you should have time to do that wonderful article written to post graduate research standard that you want.
If you require that standard of everyone you'll drive people away. Why are you picking on me?
Yeah. Just for the heck of it. :-) I'm generally down town Tuesdays and Thursdays, if that is every a place you hang out. Today, however, I'm home. sorta "sick" sorta "sick of work". :-)
Tuesdays and Thursdays are Discounts for Cabal Members days :-)
LOL NEVER !!!! actually, i was in bed sick all last week, and am trying to catch up this week. Next week is slow again. I'm downtown Tues and Thrus as I said. or atleast my train takes me down town.
Sounds good. I'm only available Tuesday this week anyway, and I'm not sure I'm gonna want to drink, will probably work out instead. Next Thursday (the 8th) at Rock Bottom is their Fire Chief Ale tapping (free from 6 to 6:30 pm), and supposedly there will be lots of Denver firefighters there collecting for charity (at least, they did last year).
Ahhh, my favorite men, Denver FPD (akkk). hehe
(Oh my god, I'm sitting at a coffee shop working, and a sarah palin look alike just walked in. knee jerk reaction is to spill coffee on her. )
So you gonna go see the firefighters tomorrow and drink a little Fire Chief Ale?