BadgerJelly » March 16th, 2019, 1:57 am wrote:Someguy -
That made me chuckle! A great thing to see on forums is two people going at each other. Usually some genuine concern is being expressed and sometimes we even get lucky enough to see one or both get some better idea of why the other thinks they way they do.
I have to admit I’m finding it very hard to understand what it is Nick thinks or why he thinks it. I’m not entirely convinced he’s here to preach, yet some of his words have been just as tainted with venom as davidm’s.
It would be more productive, I believe, if Nick stuck to one point at a time rather than weaving some vague notion of something together and insinuating x,y or z whlist diverting from any particular item of investigation. On the one hand he seems to be arguing about some law that doesn’t exist and on the other he’s questioning the difference between scientific definitions of “life” and equating it with human consciousness. More precise and focus on the latter area may yield some common ground if they’re willing to work it out rather than sling poop at each other.
Anyway, I think conflict is good stuff for the “soul” as long as it can be worked past at some point.
Note: fully aware of how patrionizing I’m being. Just hoping it will stop any possible looming “ban”. It does seem Nick is coming here from a philosophical stance so he may not realise this is primarily a “science” site and so attitudes here will reflect that.
I have to admit I’m finding it very hard to understand what it is Nick thinks or why he thinks it. I’m not entirely convinced he’s here to preach, yet some of his words have been just as tainted with venom as davidm’s.
I appreciate people who have both a spiritual and scientific mind. Those like Jacob Needleman, Simone Wei;l, amd Basarab Nicolescu are and were all that way. We need these people and those striving to have that same intellectual and emotionall freedom
Perhaps you are reacting to the expression "super c_nts" I used in describing cultuarl influences on young girls. This isn't preaching but a psychological question we shouldn't be afraid to confront. why pussy foot around a serious question. Even laid back NPR has written on this cultural influence without saying anything.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... d=94288145
As students head back to school, teachers can find themselves face to face with teenagers clinging to their summer styles. Commentator Annmarie Kelly Harbaugh knows — thanks to an experience with a student a few years ago — that the boundary between what is and is not appropriate school clothing can be a bit blurry.
The bottom line is it cannot be discussed. Institutions just pass the buck and hide behind the word appropriate which is meaningless. What does modern culture want these girls to look like? Is there a better description than mine? Why do we want them to look like that? These are questions that should be discussed. What do parents want young girls in school to look like? Should they be featuring their head and heart or just their their behinds? The sad thing is that this question cannot be discussed intelligently without first beginning with what respect for life and its cycles mean. So who suffers; it is the young ones who need to feel meaning but are surrounded by people who have forgotten what it is to "feel" so argue what "appropriate" means. Since this is our cultural situation it is obvious how far we are from objective conscience being accepted as a cultural goal. It isn't appropriate.