ZEFRANK.COM - message board

ZEFRANK.COM - message board (http://www.zefrank.com/bulletin_new/index.php)
-   FAST CHAT (http://www.zefrank.com/bulletin_new/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   question of the day ? (http://www.zefrank.com/bulletin_new/showthread.php?t=12191)

brightpearl 09-12-2011 04:58 PM

That's what I meant by asking whether it mattered. We paid so much for the opportunity to understand what it all means, and a lot of people missed it. It really compounded the sadness for me.

A lot of other people, though, never made that awful jump. The Daily Show, among other things, helped me maintain a sense of sanity by highlighting how nuts it was.

I still don't feel I can say what society will ultimately take away from it, how future generations will change, but I hope for some progress.

Stephi_B 09-12-2011 05:39 PM

also the sh!t that happended caused, or better said, accelerated change on a global scope. let's see how this will all turn out.

hopefully more multipolar, less divergent into extremes and less neo(-liberal, -conservative, -dumbassed) than the world has turned out in the last decade or some years more.

Brynn 09-13-2011 04:09 AM

That was a day when I talked to strangers I had never talked to before in my neighborhood. I lost a big fear of talking to strangers in general that day, as a matter of fact. It's just not a problem for me anymore.
As the buildings collapsed on live TV - and I can't believe that I am the only idiot on earth to admit this out loud - my mind involuntarily flashed on the Death Star pulverizing Alderon, then I immediately felt ashamed for thinking of Star Wars. But a vacuum open up inside me and I felt like something in me was being crushed lifeless too. It's the closest thing to true horror I have ever felt.
I hadn't equated the years-long depression I felt that followed with 9/11 per se, but I do find it strange to realize how much lighter I finally feel this year, the same year that Osama bin Laden was captured and killed. And I don't know what to think about that - feeling better that someone is dead now.

Stephi_B 09-13-2011 04:03 PM

the OBL thing was totally surreal to me, whereas 9/11 felt very real, despite the geographical distance and the cineastic live pictures (that made me deeply think about emmerich's "independence day", the scene where the white house gets kawoomed by the starship... hearing about a plane also hitting pentagon gave me the shivers in connection with my very initial thought about that very film)

MoJoRiSin 09-14-2011 02:55 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (18 POSTS BACK)
I have been paying attention and the truth is I do NOT cry
on a daily basis, sometimes music or poetry makes my eyes
water a little but that is about it...yesterday a friend died and i didn't cry but when I laid down to go to sleep and i felt tears started rolling down the sides of my face but not really with grief, my husband sort of felt it and tried to cheer me up by telling me that when he was searching the internet for "iron head" which apparently is some sort of Harley Davidson Motorcycle he stumbled onto a story about some Iron Head Monks and then i laughed and said "yea if you have a young son that is rather crazy you could just drop him by there... or threaten such and he replied that when he was a little boy he would have definitely run away to join such a group.... Lukku I sure hope you are laughing and not crying.... Please check in and let us know you are
doing fine...
ox Love, Mo

Coffee 09-26-2011 02:54 PM

Qotd: 9/25/11.
Which is nuttier?
Believing one sees ghosts, or believing in ghosts despite zero evidence they exist.

brightpearl 09-26-2011 07:54 PM

Well, perhaps having the feeling that there are ghosts, even in the absence of thinking you see something, is a kind of evidence.

I'm of two minds about the whole thing. Part of me is a hardnosed skeptic, but I have a couple of friends and family members that have had odd things happen, and I've had the occasional odd thing myself. So the other part of me doesn't think either option is nutty.

In general, however, I think basing belief on one's own observations of anything is the better strategy, so seeing would be slightly less nutty. :D

MoJoRiSin 09-27-2011 02:26 AM

double meaning....
neither is sillier to the other in my opinion

xfox 09-27-2011 10:49 AM

Methinks ghosts exist in dreams and, hence, in life.

Coffee 09-27-2011 12:04 PM

I think both positions are nutty (obviously based on my clearly biased question of the day) :P .

But I find it odder that society in general thinks it is nuttier to believe one has actually seen (or talked to or talked with) a ghost than to simply believe in them based on "hearsay"/third party accounts/fuzzy indistinct photos (which are notoriously easy to make indistinct even without trying).

I agree with Brynn's last sentance actually, that in general it is more reliable to believe based on personal observation than upon hearsay...yet most people that believe in ghosts have never seen one. Even direct observation however isn't perfectly reliable due to clearly documented cases of people with mental disorders clearly seeing things/people/imaginary pink elephants/whatever.

And, if the question wasn't obviously seen as a repetitive coffee theme, the situation is of course a metaphor for belief in any metaphysical entity without direct observation/conversation with said entity...which perhaps 90% of the human population is prone to do.

Of course you are all bright people and see that the question is actually "Is it nuttier to believe in god because he apeared to you in a flaming bush? or is it nuttier to believe in him based on an old nutter coming down from a hill with a bunch of new laws supposed dictated to him by a burning bush."

90% of humans, and most of this board are prone to believing an old nutbag with an agenda...that bothers me.

Coffee 09-27-2011 12:33 PM

since the board won't let me edit let me clarify....and that last sentance of mine sounded negatively judgemental upon rereading it...not my intent.

the reason it bothers me that u all are also prone to beliving in ghosts/gods/ufos/whever is that you are all brilliant people.

It bothers me that brilliant people are capable of believing in fantastic stuff based on hearsay and unexplainable (ie. IDK) incidents even from people who have clear agendas...Kings, Clergy, paranormal reality shows, psychics, astrologers...etc.
It makes disproving those things harder than it should be because we all have 9 friends out of 10 who believe at least some of your fantastic beliefs...whatever they might be.

Coffee 09-27-2011 12:35 PM

*Pearlies sentance, not Brynn's...im having hard/tard typing day...sorry.

brightpearl 09-27-2011 04:49 PM

Well, I don't know what is fantastic any more. Everyday life has gotten a bit spooky. Radio waves would probably have sounded pretty out there to Galileo, for instance. And the purist viewpoint would argue that there is as little evidence disproving life after death as there is proving it.

There's actually not much truly objective proof of consciousness arising in the brain, actually. I mean, we have printouts of electrical activity of brains, but how do those prove consciousness outside of our own subjective experience of awareness? Someone from another planet might be skeptical -- maybe we only appear to think and perceive, or maybe our consciousness exists but is housed in extra dimensions, rolled up in superstrings, and is just transmitted through the brain.

That's all moot, though, because so much of human thinking is influenced by emotions regardless of any proof. And as my two minds reflect, most of us are perfectly capable of maintaining separate and contradictory viewpoints without much trouble. We have a strong need to rationalize our contradictions and mitigate our fears in order to lead pleasant lives and get things done for one another. This seems natural to me -- even healthy in many cases, when it leads to compassion and comfort -- and so it is okay whether it is supported by objective evidence or not.

I share your frustrations, however, when beliefs are used to limit or hurt other people. That response is so insidious, and so common.

Frieda 09-29-2011 03:28 PM

new QOTD:

i attended a gender diversity meeting at work today, apparently there's only 18% women in middle management and 3% in higher management.

IT has always been a thing for men so i never thought of it as weird to be the only woman around in a department, but apparently this is also a trend in management regions. i'm not sure how i feel about recruiting people to join a company based on their genitals instead of their skills.

how gender diverse is the company you're with? do they have any gender diversity plans or goals? how do you feel about the gender thing? issue or not?

brightpearl 09-30-2011 11:02 AM

There are more women than men working in health care, but the different jobs in the industry are dominated by either men or women -- most nurses and family practice docs are women, most surgeons are men. So, the higher the pay, the more likely it is that there are more men. I think this is only okay if it's the pattern that results from a lot of individuals choosing what they think is best for them -- if it happens because more women happen to feel happier working in nursing or family practice than they would as surgeons, it's fine, but if it happens because there are subtle forces like discrimination or negative expectations preventing women from considering higher-paying positions, it's not so good.

Probably there are still problems, but they are slowly getting better.

All times are GMT -3. The time now is 06:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.