|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 4, 2018 0:58:28 GMT
He once linked an article off a satire site "Hard Dawn" (say it out loud). Check it out (the banner is just .... so... manly) harddawn.com/ . They do conspiracy type parodies, he thought it was real, brought it to IMDB. A couple of people pointed out the article and site were actually satire, not a real claim at all. You would have thought it ended there with an "Ah, my bad." Hell, I've fallen for The Borowoitz Report multiple times. Instead all we got was "BUT CAN ANYONE PROVE IT WRONG?!?!". Bruised ego is a helluvadrug. It makes a sort of perverse sense, though... what mentality could more comfortably fit the conspiracy mindset than the notion of the burden being to prove the negative rather that support the assertion. Ah, gotcha. Though in Duvall's case it's more sad than funny.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 4, 2018 15:11:30 GMT
He once linked an article off a satire site "Hard Dawn" (say it out loud). Check it out (the banner is just .... so... manly) harddawn.com/ . They do conspiracy type parodies, he thought it was real, brought it to IMDB. A couple of people pointed out the article and site were actually satire, not a real claim at all. You would have thought it ended there with an "Ah, my bad." Hell, I've fallen for The Borowoitz Report multiple times. Instead all we got was "BUT CAN ANYONE PROVE IT WRONG?!?!". Bruised ego is a helluvadrug. It makes a sort of perverse sense, though... what mentality could more comfortably fit the conspiracy mindset than the notion of the burden being to prove the negative rather that support the assertion. Ah, gotcha. Though in Duvall's case it's more sad than funny. Watching the behind the scenes stuff from "The Shining" had me thinking there's been a lot going on with Duvall for years.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Apr 5, 2018 8:53:13 GMT
I've been a tad busy. 😇
Stuff I seen her in:
The Shining Popeye Time Bandits Suburban Commando
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 5, 2018 9:21:52 GMT
I've been a tad busy. 😇 Stuff I seen her in: The Shining Popeye Time Bandits Suburban Commando Forgot all about "Time Bandits." That must have been the only time I saw her on the big screen instead of the small screen.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 5, 2018 12:04:14 GMT
Consider the case of Akiane Kramarik, the women who at about age four began painting with a skill as advanced as legendary master painters. I think you have raised this before. A quick look at Google images shows just how far off 'legendary master painting' is/was her talent. Assuming that the black and white pencil work is the earliest then while, yes, it shows remarkable artistic control it is nothing miraculous in the sense that artistic talent, and the ranges of it on an individual basis, is well understood by natural law and previous examples. But just by raising the question of a 'hoax' you are disingenuous, through implying that no other explanation other than miracle or deception could be considered, when this is not the case. Her later stuff btw, imho, seems very kitsch and commercial, even if technically proficient. In my view is shows that her talent was always of the mechanical variety (i.e. of technical skill) rather than of the inspirational variety www.bing.com/images/search?q=Akiane%20Kramarik%20age%204%20painting&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=akiane%20kramarik%20age%204%20painting&sc=0-30&sk=&cvid=A4656FEC9DD249979EC1703D51137B16 It is just this sort of argument which makes the cynical even more suspicious. I have Elvis living in my spare bedroom by the way, but I am not about to show evidence any time soon since I know I will just be laughed at.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 5, 2018 21:34:53 GMT
[ child prodigies no big deal]
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 5, 2018 21:41:51 GMT
[child prodigies no big deal] I suppose I can agree that child prodigies fall short of "miraculous," especially considering Mozart whose work at any age never impressed me at any age. Other types of spiritual phenomena do approach being quite impossible in natural conditions. If you know very well you were the only person there, no others, no cameras, no microphones, and nevertheless someone can describe your experience with you never asking them to describe it, that does approach authentic clairvoyance.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 5, 2018 21:47:05 GMT
[child prodigies no big deal] I suppose I can agree that child prodigies fall short of "miraculous," especially considering Mozart whose work at any age never impressed me at any age. Other types of spiritual phenomena do approach being quite impossible in natural conditions. If you know very well you were the only person there, no others, no cameras, no microphones, and nevertheless someone can describe your experience with you never asking them to describe it, that does approach authentic clairvoyance. IMHO there is no such thing as a miracle. Some things may seem inexplicable to the human mind at times butt I believe there is no such thing as 'spiritual phenomena'.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 5, 2018 21:57:46 GMT
I have already explained to this board how the burden of proof actually works. The party (or parties) supporting the status quo has (have) no burden of proof. The those challenging the status quo do have the burden of proof. A common mistake and yours is to assume that the status quo means some "original" state. In your case your assumption is that "no" heaven or hell qualifies as the "original" state. You have no such privilege. "Status quo" means the state of things as they are, not were. Religion is "established." Being established it might claim status quo privileges in debate, but usually does not. It's generous that way. It is no less established though. There is considerable testimony regarding quite much in religion, including the existence of heaven and hell. Literally millions of people accept or at least consider noteworthy much of that testimony. You have no right to dismiss all that with your twisted views of logic. Actually, I have every right to dismiss them (and you) after that ridiculous line of reasoning, based on this: Argumentum ad populum Argumentum ad populum is not always "fallacious reasoning" and Wikipedia is wrong to leave the impression it is always wrong. Many, not all of course but many, things in life and especially democratic republics are decided by majority vote. Most legal matters must pass a test of majority vote at some point. You can dismiss rules if you don't want to play by them, but you don't get to make them up for others who disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 5, 2018 22:01:47 GMT
Consider the case of Akiane Kramarik, the women who at about age four began painting with a skill as advanced as legendary master painters. I think you have raised this before. A quick look at Google images shows just how far off 'legendary master painting' is/was her talent. Assuming that the black and white pencil work is the earliest then while, yes, it shows remarkable artistic control it is nothing miraculous in the sense that artistic talent, and the ranges of it on an individual basis, is well understood by natural law and previous examples. But just by raising the question of a 'hoax' you are disingenuous, through implying that no other explanation other than miracle or deception could be considered, when this is not the case. Her later stuff btw, imho, seems very kitsch and commercial, even if technically proficient. In my view is shows that her talent was always of the mechanical variety (i.e. of technical skill) rather than of the inspirational variety www.bing.com/images/search?q=Akiane%20Kramarik%20age%204%20painting&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=akiane%20kramarik%20age%204%20painting&sc=0-30&sk=&cvid=A4656FEC9DD249979EC1703D51137B16 It is just this sort of argument which makes the cynical even more suspicious. I have Elvis living in my spare bedroom by the way, but I am not about to show evidence any time soon since I know I will just be laughed at. I don't believe Mozart was a genius. I don't count Elvis as a "musical" genius, although his music was not completely intolerable. Different things impress different people apparently.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 5, 2018 22:11:08 GMT
I suppose I can agree that child prodigies fall short of "miraculous," especially considering Mozart whose work at any age never impressed me at any age. Other types of spiritual phenomena do approach being quite impossible in natural conditions. If you know very well you were the only person there, no others, no cameras, no microphones, and nevertheless someone can describe your experience with you never asking them to describe it, that does approach authentic clairvoyance. IMHO there is no such thing as a miracle. Some things may seem inexplicable to the human mind at times butt I believe there is no such thing as 'spiritual phenomena'. What about your "pilgrimage" or whatever it was?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 6, 2018 1:15:59 GMT
[child prodigies no big deal] I suppose I can agree that child prodigies fall short of "miraculous," especially considering Mozart whose work at any age never impressed me at any age. I think the biggest miracle yet is that you could find the work of Mozart unimpressive. Like or dislike is one thing, but nobody who knows what they're hearing can listen to the finale of the Jupiter symphony without being impressed. I'm that way with JS Bach in that I find much of his work mightily impressive, but often dull as clockwork. Of the baroque composers, give me Handel any day.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 6, 2018 4:13:13 GMT
IMHO there is no such thing as a miracle. Some things may seem inexplicable to the human mind at times butt I believe there is no such thing as 'spiritual phenomena'. What about your "pilgrimage" or whatever it was? What about it? I was ( and still am) an atheist walking on a wonderful traditional journey enjoying the sights food culture and beauty of Spain, in a very close and meaningful way. My respect for history art architecture and cultural beliefs overcame my dislike of current Catholicism and all that it stands for.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 6, 2018 9:42:58 GMT
I suppose I can agree that child prodigies fall short of "miraculous," especially considering Mozart whose work at any age never impressed me at any age. I think the biggest miracle yet is that you could find the work of Mozart unimpressive. Like or dislike is one thing, but nobody who knows what they're hearing can listen to the finale of the Jupiter symphony without being impressed. I'm that way with JS Bach in that I find much of his work mightily impressive, but often dull as clockwork. Of the baroque composers, give me Handel any day. To my point of view Mozart's piano concerto #21 is his most impressive work. He was 29 years old when he wrote it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 6, 2018 10:04:37 GMT
What about your "pilgrimage" or whatever it was? What about it? I was ( and still am) an atheist walking on a wonderful traditional journey enjoying the sights food culture and beauty of Spain, in a very close and meaningful way. My respect for history art architecture and cultural beliefs overcame my dislike of current Catholicism and all that it stands for. If you agree that baseball exists, why can't you agree that the subject of architecture more impressive than baseball exists?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 6, 2018 10:45:17 GMT
I don't believe Mozart was a genius. By what musical standard? I am sure that, if still alive, he would be grateful to be recognised by you at all. Or, to put it another way, there is no accounting for taste.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 6, 2018 11:01:14 GMT
I suppose I can agree that child prodigies fall short of "miraculous," especially considering Mozart whose work at any age never impressed me at any age. I think the biggest miracle yet is that you could find the work of Mozart unimpressive. Like or dislike is one thing, but nobody who knows what they're hearing can listen to the finale of the Jupiter symphony without being impressed. Especially impressive is the fact that Mozart's No.41, judged by many (including myself) as the greatest symphony of that century, was the third of three symphonies that were written over a period of just a few weeks. During that same summer of 1788 he wrote at least a half-dozen other works.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 6, 2018 16:15:42 GMT
Actually, I have every right to dismiss them (and you) after that ridiculous line of reasoning, based on this: Argumentum ad populum Argumentum ad populum is not always "fallacious reasoning" and Wikipedia is wrong to leave the impression it is always wrong. Many, not all of course but many, things in life and especially democratic republics are decided by majority vote. Most legal matters must pass a test of majority vote at some point. You can dismiss rules if you don't want to play by them, but you don't get to make them up for others who disagree. When it comes to the examples you just gave you are correct. Legal matters and even public perception of morality is ultimately determined by what the majority believes. However FACTS are not determined by what the majority believes. Reality exists independently of what anyone believes (whether its one person or a majority). Because many people believe something to be true does not make it true. And to assume that something is a fact merely because many people believe it to be true IS fallacious logic!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 6, 2018 21:48:27 GMT
What about it? I was ( and still am) an atheist walking on a wonderful traditional journey enjoying the sights food culture and beauty of Spain, in a very close and meaningful way. My respect for history art architecture and cultural beliefs overcame my dislike of current Catholicism and all that it stands for. If you agree that baseball exists, why can't you agree that the subject of architecture more impressive than baseball exists? Huh? If you made any sense and had a point here, I would be delighted to answer.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 6, 2018 23:33:42 GMT
Argumentum ad populum is not always "fallacious reasoning" and Wikipedia is wrong to leave the impression it is always wrong. Many, not all of course but many, things in life and especially democratic republics are decided by majority vote. Most legal matters must pass a test of majority vote at some point. You can dismiss rules if you don't want to play by them, but you don't get to make them up for others who disagree. When it comes to the examples you just gave you are correct. Legal matters and even public perception of morality is ultimately determined by what the majority believes. However FACTS are not determined by what the majority believes. Reality exists independently of what anyone believes (whether its one person or a majority). Because many people believe something to be true does not make it true. And to assume that something is a fact merely because many people believe it to be true IS fallacious logic! The issue is whether you have the "right" to require your opponents in debate to prove their case while failing to prove yours. Because you have the mind of a small child and cannot see anything from other points of view and you fail to recognize that they have the same rights you do. Which party has any burden in debate must therefore be determined in a political process, not you or your absurd notions of privilege or "fact." Sensible adults have already recognized the status quo as having less burden in debate than challenges to it. You would do well to understand how that works. It is easier to apply than "the person making the claim" is because "claims" on casual computer discussions arise in ways that can be difficult to trace. The discussion is often carried on by people not present for the "original" claim. People who hold opinions not supported by any status quo often believe they have some privilege in debate anyway.
|
|