...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Christ had hair like lamb's wool?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [QB] [QUOTE] Originally posted by Explorer This is your evidence that everyone on the board agrees with everything all the time? [/QUOTE]Come on now, Explorer, you’re AGAIN implying something I didn’t say. Nor did I imply or say my ‘’proof’’ was meant to prove this, which is clearly visible when I said that StTigray agrees with me. [QUOTE] Originally posted by Kalonji Notice how StTigray who is hasn’t been here too long agrees with me.. [/QUOTE]On the other hand it did ‘’prove’’ something that is a perfectly normal phenomenon that occurs in any discussion, but some people still seem to have a problem with it. Again, read the statement and try to understand what it implies [QUOTE] just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes. [/QUOTE]This doesn’t imply none of these things you’ve previously said it implies -Everyone thinks similar on this forum -I was talking specifically about people ‘’here’’ If I knew this would happen I would’ve never made such a statement, I didn’t know this was a forum where you had to walk on your toes because certain people might twist your words and quote you wrong. Normally you, especially you Explorer, dissect papers and I’ve never seen you do this with scholars, why now when I’m talking you are assigning these untruths to my words and are continuing doing so even though I’ve explained myself thoroughly? [QUOTE] Surely, you have something more solid, and that you were basing your unsubstantiated opinionated personal feelings on prior to people calling you out for said unsubstantiated claims, which you now run off with as "evidence" for your material-free personal feelings. [/QUOTE]To be honest, I didn’t have something more solid before you were ‘’calling me out’’ but that doesn’t matter, you know why? I was making a general statement about the way I believe a forums/discussion functions, and because of this, certain external characters might be useful because of the tendency some people might have to only allow pro African papers into this forum. You may or may not agree about the usefulness of characters like Dirk8, but that is just my own opinion and possible one you spite me for, I don’t care. If anything, you explorer in the process of you debunking people, should have already noticed that people have the tendency to block information from coming in as they for example do when they only selectively register information in their minds from a study and conveniently read over the things that debunk their own theories. You say we don’t need characters like Dirk because this forum as been doing fine without them and that is fine, but don’t ask me for evidence on things you have already find out to be true like: -The usefulness of the word ‘’similar’’ in anthropology -The tendency people have to only cite things they agree with -The fact that gene flow by way of genes that accompany mtdna CAN cause intermediate types, again, I didn’t say a specific mtdna haplogroup is associated with a feature, but the fact is that admixture with non African types can and will produce intermediate types, whether it in reality happened or not. Can you see what I’m saying? So in reality, my example was valid, as even in the example I didn’t say elongated features are the result of non Africans, even if they DID carry 75% mtdna. I argued that certain individuals with strong persuasive skills could convince certain people that it did. I was arguing from the devils perspective. You don’t have to take my word for it, go back and see. You still searched for reasons to attack these points instead of try to see how it can also be true that people who have certain believes would be vulnerable to that. I would definitely have been at some point in my life when I was starting out. Even if the amount of people would not include you or any other veterans, it still demonstrates my point that it could baffle people. A simple belief structure like say: Elongated features in Tutsi are African so all people who have them are fully Africans would get shattered. Just as simple as that. [QUOTE] Tell me what is similar about the content of my follow up to your "example", to that of MikeIII and MindoverMatter. That aside, I know that MindoverMatter and I agreed with one another that your "example" was predicated on *underlying* assumption that was flawed; the onus is on you to show that is in fact not the case. [/QUOTE]I’m not going to, as you’ve on several occasions have demonstrated that you (at least in discussions with me) repeatedly show you don’t grasp the full meaning of the word similar. Why should I again show you something similar? Only so you can try to imply I said Identical again as you did with the crania strawmen and the part where you argue for variation in beliefs? No thanks, the statements of you and others aren’t going nowhere and are there, clear for everyone to see. [QUOTE] In order for you to show that "elongated features" is caused by "non-African" gene flow, you'll have to first establish that so-called "elongated features" is non-African to begin with. Can you? [/QUOTE]Notice how you try to steer this discussion further and further in a direction that isn’t leading nowhere useful. We’re now light-years away from the topic I, brada and Astenb were friendly discussing and it was going quite well, even when you came I enjoyed it because I was learning, for example when you gave me that link. Then you had to engaged in the ‘’disruptive’’ behavior you accuse other people of, by quoting me wrong and other behaviors I described in my previous posts. Even IF my assumption was flawed, It was still useful in demonstrating a point, which is: that if there is a consensus or anything resembling it, conflicting research can cause people who carry those beliefs to be more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveryies and paradymes. And demonstrating this was the whole point, not being flaw free in the process of doing so. Don’t you know people give metaphors all the time, even made up ones to demonstrate their point? Yet you again fail to grasp this and try to stray the conversation to a place that is neither helpful to your original question, (for proof of how people can be inflexible or vulnerable) nor is it helpful for the current topic which by now seems to be lightyears away thanks to your original accusation which doesn’t even have merit at all. Then why should I by your demand produce evidence of Tutsi elongated features having a non African origin, if I myself don’t even believe the content of the example. Again, the original reason of why I gave this example totally went over your head and either by trickery or some other motive you first ask for an example, and then when I give you one, you try to find flaws in it, while it was meant to demonstrate a point. Should've known better. [QUOTE] If not, then it doesn't matter if ten, a thousand, or even a population of us call you out on the apparent flaw of your personal opinionated feelings; such undertaking would be warranted and grounded on objective thinking, which is why there is agreement in this case between the parties calling you out. [/QUOTE]More and more straying from your original question, and the example I gave in response. [QUOTE] Or are you proposing that people shouldn't call you out, on the account of your accusing them of agreeing [rightfully so, unless proven by you otherwise] with one another [/QUOTE]My observation was a truthful observation, nothing more nothing less. Whatever the content or whether or not the ‘’calling out’’ was appropriate, the observation remains valid. [QUOTE] Should we then interpret this in the sense that you both "share similar dogma", that both of you are "therefore vulnerable to being inflexible to any findings that may obliterate your rigidly-held sectarian dogma", and therefore, both of you require deceitful disruptive personalities to keep "you in check"? LOL. [/QUOTE]I can only speak for myself as STTigray might disagree, but sure, why not? I for one, don’t have a problem with knowing that any of my beliefs are as much as they are helpful, also a restriction that causes me to be vulnerable to whatever finding that proves it wrong. Like for instance when I after observing your source came to the conclusion that my beliefs about Lachish crania clustering with Maghreb, was not based on Lachish as a whole resembling the Maghreb population. I’m down with learning, not trying to be right. Why would I, if I can BE right by learning? NEXT [QUOTE] And we need deceitful, bigoted and reactionary elements to "update" everyone else? Aren't those very characteristics the anti-thesis of progress? If we have folks like Evergreen, as you put forth, posting new publications that come out, is this not then indicative of the normal operation of the board? [/QUOTE]The reason why you may not realize their usefulness perhaps, is because seeing these idiots get debunked wasn’t a big part of your learning process. Like I said in the introducing myself thread, I’ve spend quite some time here on this forum before I actually registered. Maybe the next time you feel irritated when they open another thread, you can realize there are more people reading than you think. Seeing people get debunked provides a much faster learning curve than if you’d have to search for all the information yourself because in a discussion between two opposing parties, there is usually a lot of concepts and studies being thrown back and forth. Another useful aspect of seeing people get debunked is that you get to learn how you can scientifically debunk Dirk8 and his siblings when you encounter them in real life. Yet another reason, is that it keeps the people (newbies) of Egyptsearch on top of their game, and it makes sure that they are able to refute the most recent lies and tactics. Sure there are already discussions taking place because of differences of opinions by the ‘’normal folks’’, but a different topic might require a different approach. Topics for which there is a consensus may not get covered as there can hardly be a difference of opinion about a topic that already has reached a consensus. Here is where the use of Dirk and his siblings comes in. That’s three reasons 4 ya Three reasons why I maintain my opinion that outside input is can be helpful despite objectiveness in situ. But my original argument was twofold 1.The usefulness of Dirk8 and his siblings because of the reasons I explained above -It keeps Egyptsearch members on top of our game and we’re constantly updated when it comes to the most recent lies and tactics -The readers get to speed up their learning curve -The readers get to see how you can effectively and scientifically debunk racists verbally 2.To maintain the internal integrity. Again, you might scoff at this idea, but generally speaking, it’s always good to have people around who you don’t agree with. All great leaders have advisers and all scientific environments have people who interpret data differently. To me, this is absolutely no problem, its wanted, because my intention is to learn. One can easily see this is the case with me when I admitted earlier not only to Explorer, but also to Al Takruri I was wrong in my thinking. Because I see the virtues in having people who you don’t agree with around you, I reasoned this argument would fall in good ground especially because I assumed other people had similar experiences I had (learning from discussions). One thing Explorer doesn’t take into account is the fact that objective people and even groups of objective people can still be wrong either in their interpretation of data or in the way they collected their data. This becomes obvious when you take notice that I’ve pointed out your flaws in denying certain concepts, reconstructing questions (not including the one where I was wrong) and producing strawmen out. Also, the places where I unintentionally didn’t finish reading his sentences. Furthermore, objective people are STILL subject to the same mental tendency’s I described earlier when Explorer raised his doubts the first time. Therefore, at least for those cases, a regular discussion and pinging of ideas can be useful to make sure current held beliefs evolve with the most recent studies and new interpretations of data. This first one is a lot easier to get, but the second isn’t. Its seems that society agrees with me as there are everywhere you look institutions above institutions to make sure whatever tendencies the human mind has doesn’t happen. Scientist, no matter how big their reputation is, still publish not only their findings, but also how they came to their conclusions. Should an employer leave his employees to their fate because there are honest, standup, objective people present amongst them? Should Americans as citizens rely on their president or their political representatives to make sure all their needs are met and that the president acts in their best interests? Of course not! Whenever we are treated unjustly strike, sue and fight for our cause whenever needed. Why would you EVER rely on someone whether they’re honest or not, to give you information that is conflicting to their beliefs and interests. I sure as hell won’t. That’s why I argued that Dirk8 and his siblings have uses whether there is objectiveness in situ or not. Of course all of these examples aren’t applicable to forums, but I’m just saying, there may be more uses to the Dirks and Mathildas than you suspect. They only can get irritating if you let them so you yourself can not only use them for the benefits cited above, but also control how much they bother you. So why even worry about their presence? You and the readers can have the best of both worlds. [QUOTE] And I will ask you again: Elaborate on how you deem the people here have "similar beliefs", such that they are "vulnerable to being inflexible to any new discoveries and paradymes", to the point that deceitful reactionary personalities are necessary to keep the rest "in check". That is a rather serious charge you are making there. [/QUOTE]By now you've read the man speech I held above [QUOTE] What do you understand by similar "belief", because to me, that term is insinuating that there is unison in dogma that is not grounded on objective thinking, but to the whim or satisfaction of individual members' subjective personal feelings. [/QUOTE]Glad you asked There can be a similarity/difference of beliefs on two levels relevant to this discussion. -The first level is the general similarity of beliefs present on a forum or place. In general, scientific forums or those aspiring to be, have higher similarities of beliefs, and fewer clusters on topics. Either people buy into something or they don’t. Unscientific forums on the other hand such as Stormfront and other opinion based forums, have in general, a much lower similarity of beliefs and numerous clustering or no clustering at all in one topic is not unusual in these forums. These forums are even in disagreement about the things scientist have agreed on for the longest. (doesn’t Mathilda claims OOA didn’t happen?) -The second level is as you might have guessed from what I just said, is the similarity of beliefs on specific topics like for example, the affinities of the ancient Egyptians, the physical traits of the Hebrews The first one is what I originally meant when I said [QUOTE] People who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways [/QUOTE]Notice My original sentence does NOT say: People on this forum tend to think in similar ways Also notice that whether I would've used the higher or the lower level to assess this forum, both ring true and this does NOT by any way shape or form, overlap what you all have been accusing me of. when you read my original statement with the levels in mind. You wanna know why? (drumroll Not only does similar mean identical, as I earlier argued, the bit ‘’who have similar beliefs’’ itself recognizes there is diversity present because people who don’t have that belief aren’t included because they DON’T have similar beliefs Also notice that I was trying to say this the first time, [QUOTE] With that being said, the diversity already present here can just like outside influence have this checking effect too. [/QUOTE]You not only interpreted it wrong and said I was contradicting myself, [QUOTE] I see contradictions in your position; [/QUOTE]You then accused me of saying something I didn’t even say, and put me in a position where I had to defend a viewpoint I didn’t even take in the first place. How could I? I just came out of a discussion where you and King were both arguing with STTigray. [QUOTE] [QUOTE] first it seems that you are insinuating there is some sort of unison in thinking on this board, that we seem to hold some sort of view across the board, which I guess may or may not be scientifically or objectively supported (?), and then, you acknowledge there is indeed diversity of viewpoints [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] It hasn’t even occurred to you, that not only opinions belong to the domain of beliefs, but also facts, as a fact can also be believed. You seems to believe (fact by the way) that a belief is somehow of a lower quality than a fact. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Not so fast buddy. You used the words in a particular context, that together project a certain impression to me, as noted above again. You are being asked to clarify it. Or are you having trouble grasping what the concept of "clarifying" means? [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]The statement Explorer prolly is speaking of: [QUOTE] Just saying that people who have similar beliefs (for example any of the two clusters) and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes. [/QUOTE]Explorer, from what part of this statement, do you extract an underlying insinuation that beliefs of people are opinion based per se? If these believes were in majority opinion based, they wouldn’t need changes in discoveries and paradymes to be debunked in the first place as we would have you, the ultimate evidence man :D . [QUOTE] –noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. [/QUOTE]Yes explorer, everyone knows both facts and opinions belong to the domain of beliefs, as I’ve said earlier. It’s still unclear to me how you made the, as you yourself are fond of saying, ‘’flawed unsubstantiated opinion based’’ jump from me saying believes (clearly not talking about beliefs of lower quality as shown by the research part) to: [QUOTE] Not so fast buddy. You used the words in a particular context, that together project a certain impression to me [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Is this not a forum? Was this not your follow up to a question made of a comment you made about this board needing disruptive characters like Dirk, Afroslaynut, etc? Should this therefore not be understood as applying to this board? Who make up a forum; is it not individuals? If you are not implying that the very individuals who make up the social component of the forum are "semi-isolated", then what else would you be referring to; an empty forum--which btw--also happens to "think" [as you have used that word too]? [/QUOTE]LOL, good one.. but we seem to not be talking about the same thing here. What I was referring to when I said semi isolated places, was not to an isolation of members of this site. It was referring to this site being in semi isolation to the rest of the world compared to other media outlets. Does that make sense? If it doesn’t read on [QUOTE] You can't even read what you just cited, and you are lecturing me on properly citing you? LOL. [/QUOTE]Lol, my bad, what’s the count though? 1-10? :D [QUOTE] So, your comment was tacitly "including" this forum as the subject matter; for your sake, it would have to be the case, unless you are some off-tangent ranting lunatic. Furthermore, you did mention, "who operate in semi isolated places like forums"; [/QUOTE]Explorer, it still doesn’t take away what I was arguing, which is that when you leave out certain de-generalizing parts of the original statement, the full meaning/intention gets lost. My statement wasn’t made abstract for nothing, I did it partly to make it less personal exactly because it wasn’t personal. Notice what would have came out if I wasn’t sensitive about this: just saying that people who have similar beliefs on Egyptsearch tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.. By saying that, it would’ve become personal, just like when I would say for example to a politician: all politicians are liars, so why should I believe in your promises? This is a whole world different from, and will have different consequences than saying: You’re are a liar, so why should I believe in your promises? Even though he too is a politician, the first statement wouldn’t hit as hard as the second. Furthermore, the abstraction prevented the underlying meaning that only Egyptsearch needs ‘’checking’’ or as I've better said elsewhere ''updating new information''. [QUOTE] Why would you say that, unless you are implying that the "social components"--meaning the individual posters of the board--are by extension, "isolated"? Should this be the case either way, your reasoning belies logic. This is the INTERNET. How does one stay "isolated" in the internet? Do you know how the internet works? [/QUOTE]The isolation part refers to the fact that not a lot of people know about this place and so, they aren’t able to share their input. An internet forum is indeed ‘’semi isolated’’ compared to real life public forums and television, magazines etc. Note for comparison that when Zawi Hawass had the world buzzing when he made his statements regarding the nature of the ancient Egyptians. Everyone was able to butt in and share their opinions, he caught heat for saying that. This (a large audience of who can let their opinions be heard) is not the case for internet forums in general and therefore, not in the case of Egyptsearch. [QUOTE] I'm beginning to think that reading is not your strong suit. I did write "certain" newbies, which greatly contrasts your blanket baseless statement. [/QUOTE]Notice the ‘’might’’ and ‘’partly’’ part in my sentence, which may not be equal to ‘’certain’’ to you, but it’s still implying the possibility that it might not always be the case, much like certain newbies does. That would NOT make it: [QUOTE] greatly contrasts your blanket baseless statement. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] From what I can discern, and I could be wrong here [I will not deny the possibility of that on this occasion], the longstanding posters [including myself] here do not see the need for disruptive deceitful reactionary clowns to "keep us in check", as if we need deceitful people to tell us what is presumably accurate, LOL. The logic of that notion itself makes me laugh. [/QUOTE]Maybe you won’t find it as ‘’out of the blue’’ now that I’ve explained myself better. If not, you at least know why I think like I do about the usefulness of Dirk and his family (LOL) Kalonji [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3