> On 7 nov, 15:28, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 11:57 am, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7 nov, 07:00, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 10:27 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > But pretty much the same thing can be said for the Holy Bible. If you > > > > > want to live the Old Testament, you'll find a lot of folks with their > > > > > eyes plucked out and with no hands.
> > > > True, but you seem to forget that the passages in the Old Testament > > > > were written more than 2000 years ago. Mainstream Judaism and > > > > Christianity have evolved considerably. Islam is much younger and has > > > > not evolved as much. Indeed, under the Taliban and the Ayatollahs in > > > > Iraq as well as other parts of the world, one could argue it has not > > > > evolved at all.
> > > But you're taking just the most extreme examples. Most Muslims do NOT > > > agree with the Talibans. They have huge problems with them. They > > > keep doing terroist attacks in Muslim coiuntries and killing hundreds > > > of people.
> > > In any case, are you saying then that the problem with Islam is how > > > young (comparatevely speaking) of a religion is, and not really the > > > religion itself?
> > IMO it is both things. IMO Islam in it's purest and most > > fundamentalist form can be oppressive and aggressive. We see examples > > all around us . . . Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, Iran, etc.
> > Right now there is a fundamentalist movement afoot in Islam to make it > > even more Medieval and dictatorial. Of course, there are some > > moderate Muslims who resist such changes. IMO these voices have to be > > heard, but the problem is when these moderates speak up, they risk > > arrest and even death.
> I the fundamentalist movement you're refering to is the Taliban, I'm > pretty sure it's not just some moderate Muslims who oposse them, but > most Muslims.
> Oh good, a conservative advocacy organization presenting an unbiased > view, right. Sorry, I'm not buying into your agenda here.
> I'll leave you with something to think about, however. In the first of > those articles, a question is posed to a Muslim author, which I'll alter > to fit your circumstances.
> In the hypothetical event of a war between the US and Israel, for which > community would you be prepared to die?- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>> >> Islam teaches that if a person commits adultery, stone him to death.
>> >Which is what Moses taught as well. Judaism is an evil religion.
>> Some psychotic overtones. Circumcision is rather barbaric. If it >> were genuinely performed for hygienic reasons, then females ought to >> have it done, too. With their complex physiology, it would seem to be >> even more necessary.
>Er, last time I checked, males and females are not the same down >there.
Females have a much more complicated physiology of their genitals with folds, flaps, lips and orfices. If males are circumsized to keep the heads of their penises clean, then surely females ought to be as well.
>BTW, some studies suggest a connection between not being circumsized >and certain cancers. i.e. women who have sex with uncircumsized men >are much more likely to get cervical cancer.
>> It's a perpetuated myth.
>> "Ahhhhh, a new baby boy. We love you so much, and the first thing >> we're going to do is chop of the end of your.........."
>Well, during a bris the mohel does not chop off the end of the penis. >He removes the foreskin. It's not pretty, and it does make me squirm >to see. However, from what I've seen, the area is not as sensitive in >a little baby as an adult male might think. If done right, the baby >cries for about 2 or 3 minutes (at most). I've been to brises where >the baby didn't cry or hardly cried at all.
Of course not. I was trying to be humorous. The foreskin is removed to keep the penis clean. So what about the complex physiology of females? Far more places associated with female genitalia to get dirty than just under the foreskin.
FGM (female genital mutilation) is a serious issue associated with the Middle East. It's generally condemned except by those who practice the custom.
Why isn't it "Male genital mutilation"? The need for it is a myth.
>Among Jews as you may know, the bris is supposed to be done when the >baby is 8 days old. It is my understanding that in some other >cultures, the circumcision is done when the child is much older, and >hence it is bloodier and more painful.
How long have you been on Usenet? Do a Google Groups search on the terms, Darrin, circumcision.
Don't know if he's still around, but Darrin was a NYC Jew who trolled newsgroups spreading the virtues of circumcision, NYC and Jews.
> >> >> >> >> > > >Oh...you're going to have a lot of fun here. :-)
> >> >> >> >> > > I've been killfiled before because of my opinions; actually, I'm the > >> >> >> >> > > resident troll in one group.
> >> >> >> >> > > It's as T.S. Elliot said, " Humankind cannot bear very much reality." > >> >> >> >> > > -- > >> >> >> >> > > mad
> >> >> >> >> > I like that saying very much . . . "Human kind cannot bear very much > >> >> >> >> > reality."
> >> >> >> >> > The reality is that there are 1 billion Muslims in the world.
> >> >> >> >> > The reality is that Islam teaches that the way of Allah is with the > >> >> >> >> > sword and that Islam is a very intolerant religion.
> >> >> >> >> > The reality is that Islam is an aggressive religion that over the > >> >> >> >> > centuries has conquored, killed and enslaved millions of people and > >> >> >> >> > taken over vast areas of land including the entire Middle East and > >> >> >> >> > significant parts of Africa, Asia and Europe.
> >> >> >> >> > The reality is that while not all Muslims are violent and while not > >> >> >> >> > all Muslims believe that "the way of Allah is with the sword" even if > >> >> >> >> > 10% believe it, that's 100 million people.
> >> >> >> >> The reality is you are a bigot.- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >> >> - Show quoted text -
> >> >> >> >Here is an article on the Arab slave trade. Do you think > >> >> >> >that these Arabs were bigots?
> >> >> >> How about the American slave trade? > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> mad-
> >> >> >Well, of course, that was horrid, disgusting, awful, etc. and the > >> >> >people who engaged in it were racist, evil, disgusting, etc.
> >> >> Maybe.
> >> >> Slavery was an accepted practice at the time - and had been for > >> >> thousands of years. By today's standards, though, we would call it > >> >> "evil" as it was based on the permise that some people were not > >> >> "human" - they were "property".
> >> >> Thomas Jefferson was a kind slave owner as were many others in > >> >> Colonial America. > >> >> -- > >> >> mad- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> >> >> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
> >> >Slavery was as evil then as it is now. The only differens social > >> >standards make is in relation to how responsible can we consider > >> >people involved in it.
> >> If you lived back then, you would might not have considered slavery > >> evil. You are giving me a post-hoc argument that doesn't float.
> >I might have, or I might have not. My point is that people are NOT > >completely conditioned by the system or by social norms or what is > >considered morally acceptable or not.
> >You cannot just take the responsability out from them and say that > >what they were doing was nooot evil. It was.
> It was by our standards today. There may have been many who thought > it was an evil practice back then, but it was an accaptable social > custom - especially in the South. Plantation owners certainly didn't > consder it evil; it was their right under the law. Slaves weren't > even considered complete human beings when the Constitution was > penned.
> >> It was once perfectly acceptable to hang a person until he was not > >> quite dead, bring him down from the gallows, cut his genitals off, rip > >> him open, slowly pull his entrails out before his eyes -including a > >> still-nbeating hear and decapitate him
> >> This was evil by our standards, not by theirs.
> >Morality is not merely an issue of social convention. If it was, then > >slavery was perfectly fine then and the people saying it wasn't were > >wrong. Is that what you're saying?.
> Yes. Morality is an expression of social conscience. There was an > unwritten law of the jungle at one time or another: kill or be killed. > Was it evil to kill? Is it evil to kill in self defense? Is it evil > to kill in war? Is war, itself, evil?
> >> >If slavery it's only considered evil now because of society's > >> >standards, then no one wouls have noticed how wrong it was then, and > >> >it wouldn't have changed...
> >> "The times, they are a changing" We still have many who think the > >> death penalty and corporal punishment are acceptable. Many others, > >> including myself, think the practices are evil and barbaric.
> >So you think slavery was abolished because the times change?. Things > >don't just change on their own. They change because there's people > >willing to make it change...
> See my sentence below.
> >> It's a matter of opinions and social norms.
> >> >About Thomas Jefferson... he knew very well how wrong slavery was. > >> >I'm pretty sure he wrote baout it in the "draft" of the US > >> >constitution (someone correct me if I'm wrong). He couldn't get the > >> >support for his oposition to slavery, but the fact that he continued > >> >owing slaves, and didn't even free them at his death, but let them be > >> >sold in auction, speaks badly of the person he was.
> >> He dipped his quill many times in Sally's ink well. He was a > >> benevolent slave owner.
> >Not sure what you mean.
> He fathered offspring with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings.
> >In any case, "he was a benevolent slave owner" is not a good defense. > >What he did was wrong. And what's probably worse, he knew it and he > >kept on doing it.
> He had some misgivings about slavery but continued the practice. I > think Britain had abolished slavery by then - I could be wrong and am > too lazy to Google it.
> Jefferson would not have thought of himself as evil. He would not > have thought of slavery as evil, either. He may have had misgivings > about it -as many do today about capital punishment.
I don't know about this. Differing opinions, I guess. But, yes, England had outlawed slavery in 1772. I tend to agree with Crisstti on Jefferson. He was a man of many contradictions, but if he were to really live up to his convictions, he would have overcome his debts and freed his slaves. George Washington was somewhat immoral imo because he knew slavery would be abolished in America eventually, so in his will he arranged to have his slaves freed AFTER the death of his wife. His wife feared for her life and released the slaves. I find it hard to believe that George could not have afforded to let his slaves free in his lifetime.
Slavery in the U.S. was established as a compromise with the southern states. And it greatly compromised the principles of what the new nation stood for. That is one of the reasons that I think The French Revolution was truly more important than the American Revolution. It was more progressive. It abolished slavery at it's inception.
With the enlightenment thinkers: Voltaire, Rousseau... Slavery indeed became immoral. But America lagged behind in many ways. The blacks and slavery, and the practical genocide of native americans. Greed got the best of our ideals.
> >> Islam teaches that if a person commits adultery, stone him to death.
> >Which is what Moses taught as well. Judaism is an evil religion.
> Some psychotic overtones. Circumcision is rather barbaric. If it > were genuinely performed for hygienic reasons, then females ought to > have it done, too. With their complex physiology, it would seem to be > even more necessary.
> It's a perpetuated myth.
> "Ahhhhh, a new baby boy. We love you so much, and the first thing > we're going to do is chop of the end of your.........."
> -- > mad
It should be illegal to do that to a child. If someone wants, when they're an adult, have a circumcision, then it'd be their bussiness.
Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 2:48 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Islam teaches that if a person commits adultery, stone him to death.
>> Which is what Moses taught as well. Judaism is an evil religion.
> You are being even sillier than usual.
I'm trying to make a point which, as usual, goes over your head. Do you dispute that in the days of Moses, stoning was considered the appropriate punishment for adultery and that Moses gave his full support to that?
To me it's no sillier to conclude that "Judaism is an evil religion" from that than it is for you to claim it from your selective Koran quotations.
You're on much more sane grounds when you state that both Christianity and Judaism have evolved beyond their former, primitive states. Yet that hypothesis doesn't lead logically to "Islam is an evil religion", does it? It's just like the others, but not as mature (and actually, most of Islam has evolved past that point, something that you refuse to acknowledge).
> > > What we do know is this fellow was devout Muslim, was scheduled to be > > > deployed to a Muslim country, and he was very unhappy about it.
> > > I'll try to keep an open mind.
> > Right, but that doesn't mean he was motivated by "radical Islam".
> As I said, I'll try to keep an open mind.
> > Interesting though, in cases where a guy who flips his wig and murders a > > bunch of people happens to be a Christian, no one uses that as a > > "motive".
> It depends on the facts. In NYC there have been occasional ugly > incidents where a bunch of whites chase and attack a black person. In > those situations, when the incident is reported and when/if arrests > are made, the race of the criminals and the race of the victim is > relevant and it is reported and discussed in the media. In NYC, if a > crime is based on race, religion, sexuality, etc. it is classified as > a hate crime. Commiting a hate crime carries its own penalties and > charges independent of any other crimes.
> So, for example, if an angry teenager vandalizes a car it may be a > crime of vandalism. But if he vandalizes the car and there is > evidence that the act is motivated by racism/bigotry, it is my > understanding that may be an additional and serious charge.
> > He probably did feel conflicted by being an Arab and a US citizen and > > being put in a situation where he had to go and fight others of > > middle-eastern descent.
> Sure, but I hope you can see that some Americans may see Muslims in > the military as a potential fifth column.
> BTW, this fellow Hasan worked for the military as a psychiatrist. > Based on the news he was supposed to be deployed overseas, but I don't > know the capacity. For all we know maybe he was being sent over as a > doctor to care for sick American soliders.
> > Consider the unlikely scenario where the US is at war with Israel, and > > you were put in a position to go and fight. How would you feel?
> I'd be upset, of course. However, being upset is not the same as > going to a local store, buying enough guns and ammo to kill 100 or > more people, and then firing on a packed crowd. This was the most > deadly attack on an American base in US history. It was mass murder, > plain and simple.
> We should also keep in mind that Hassan enlisted. He wasn't drafted. > And if he enlisted recently, then he had to know that the US had been > at war with Muslim entities for years.
Then maybe the stories about him being upset about it are not true?. How factual is that information?.
On Nov 7, 2:46 pm, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In any case, that someone could write the way he did against slavery > and yet hold on to his slaves is... the level of hypocresy and of > failure to live up to his own stardards, is very clear, to say the > least.
Yes, that's true. I'm not denying that he wasn't hypocritical on the matter or that he was terrible with money, I'm putting it in context. My point was that had he sold Monticello and all his belongings he still would have been in debt, and so the people would have been sold and simply had their bondage transferred. He inherited much of his debt from his father-in-law at 32-yrs-old. I don't know if he could have refused the inheritance, but his refusal still wouldn't have freed anyone. I do know you couldn't declare bankruptcy in those days.
An apothecary bought Monticello and the extensive acreage after he died for less than $4500. He died $100,000 in debt. If he had sold it earlier the creditors would have had legal rights to collect, so what's better? Keeping Monticello going or rolling the dice with someone new? Freedom wasn't on the menu with the legal system that was in place.
And I think he did know it was evil:
**** God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between slave and master is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate that these people are to be free. Establish the law for educating the common people. This is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan.
***
Those aren't mere reservations expressed. That's a pretty strong condemnation.
To another point in the greater thread, it was William Wilberforce who led the campaign against slavery in England. The Act passed three days before his death in 1833. Jefferson died in 1826 at 80-something years old with slavery still legal in the Southern US as well as the British Empire.
From monticello.org:
Jefferson freed two slaves in his lifetime and five in his will. Three others ran away and were not pursued. (Still others successfully ran away despite pursuit.)
All nine freed with Jefferson's consent were members of the Hemings family; the seven he officially freed were all skilled tradesmen. About 130 Monticello slaves were sold at estate sales after Jefferson's death.
On Nov 7, 7:06 pm, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All nine freed with Jefferson's consent were members of the Hemings > family; the seven he officially freed were all skilled tradesmen. > About 130 Monticello slaves were sold at estate sales after > Jefferson's death.
One more relevant note: Sally Hemings was quite possibly his wife's half-sister, so the Hemings clan were family in more ways than one.
>**** >God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be >secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the >gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God >is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between slave >and master is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book >of fate that these people are to be free. Establish the law for >educating the common people. This is the business of the state to >effect and on a general plan.
>***
>Those aren't mere reservations expressed. That's a pretty strong >condemnation.
Here is a debate by two Pulitzer Prize winners going to the heart of the matter.
On Nov 7, 10:06 pm, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To another point in the greater thread, it was William Wilberforce who > led the campaign against slavery in England. The Act passed three days > before his death in 1833. Jefferson died in 1826 at 80-something > years old with slavery still legal in the Southern US as well as the > British Empire.
Wilberforce ended the slave "trade". Slavery in England ended in 1772.
Wiki:
The last known form of enforced servitude of adults (villeinage) had disappeared in Britain at the beginning of the seventeenth century. But by the eighteenth century, traders began to import African and Indian and East Asian slaves to London and Edinburgh to work as personal servants. They were not bought or sold, and their legal status was unclear until 1772, when the case of a runaway slave named James Somersett forced a legal decision. The owner, Charles Steuart, had attempted to abduct him and send him to Jamaica to work on the sugar plantations. While in London, Somersett had been baptised and his godparents issued a writ of habeas corpus. As a result Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Court of the King's Bench, had to judge whether the abduction was legal or not under English Common Law, as there was no legislation for slavery in England.
"In his judgment of 22 June 1772, Mansfield declared: "Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." Although the exact legal implications of the judgement are actually unclear when analysed by lawyers, it was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England. This judgment emancipated the ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England, who were mostly domestic servants. It also laid down the principle that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the American colonies) could not be enforced in England."
On Nov 7, 7:55 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 10:06 pm, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To another point in the greater thread, it was William Wilberforce who > > led the campaign against slavery in England. The Act passed three days > > before his death in 1833. Jefferson died in 1826 at 80-something > > years old with slavery still legal in the Southern US as well as the > > British Empire.
> Wilberforce ended the slave "trade". Slavery in England ended in > 1772.
I could have been more clear about England/British Empire distinction. I didn't know England proper ever had slavery.
I said the British Empire (not England) with the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 -although even then there were some territorial exceptions. Trade involvement was ended (with Wilberforce again as a main activist) even earlier. If the movie "Amazing Grace" wasn't using poetic license, it was ended by trickery. I'd wiki, but I hope it's true and don't want to be divested of my happy illusions. :-)
On Nov 7, 11:21 pm, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I said the British Empire (not England) with the Slavery Abolition Act > of 1833 -although even then there were some territorial exceptions. > Trade involvement was ended (with Wilberforce again as a main > activist) even earlier. If the movie "Amazing Grace" wasn't using > poetic license, it was ended by trickery. I'd wiki, but I hope it's > true and don't want to be divested of my happy illusions. :-)
What you said was:
"To another point in the greater thread, it was William Wilberforce who led the campaign against slavery in England. The Act passed three days before his death in 1833. Jefferson died in 1826 at 80-something years old with slavery still legal in the Southern US as well as the British Empire."
> > > > What we do know is this fellow was devout Muslim, was scheduled to be > > > > deployed to a Muslim country, and he was very unhappy about it.
> > > > I'll try to keep an open mind.
> > > Right, but that doesn't mean he was motivated by "radical Islam".
> > As I said, I'll try to keep an open mind.
> > > Interesting though, in cases where a guy who flips his wig and murders a > > > bunch of people happens to be a Christian, no one uses that as a > > > "motive".
> > It depends on the facts. In NYC there have been occasional ugly > > incidents where a bunch of whites chase and attack a black person. In > > those situations, when the incident is reported and when/if arrests > > are made, the race of the criminals and the race of the victim is > > relevant and it is reported and discussed in the media. In NYC, if a > > crime is based on race, religion, sexuality, etc. it is classified as > > a hate crime. Commiting a hate crime carries its own penalties and > > charges independent of any other crimes.
> > So, for example, if an angry teenager vandalizes a car it may be a > > crime of vandalism. But if he vandalizes the car and there is > > evidence that the act is motivated by racism/bigotry, it is my > > understanding that may be an additional and serious charge.
> > > He probably did feel conflicted by being an Arab and a US citizen and > > > being put in a situation where he had to go and fight others of > > > middle-eastern descent.
> > Sure, but I hope you can see that some Americans may see Muslims in > > the military as a potential fifth column.
> > BTW, this fellow Hasan worked for the military as a psychiatrist. > > Based on the news he was supposed to be deployed overseas, but I don't > > know the capacity. For all we know maybe he was being sent over as a > > doctor to care for sick American soliders.
> > > Consider the unlikely scenario where the US is at war with Israel, and > > > you were put in a position to go and fight. How would you feel?
> > I'd be upset, of course. However, being upset is not the same as > > going to a local store, buying enough guns and ammo to kill 100 or > > more people, and then firing on a packed crowd. This was the most > > deadly attack on an American base in US history. It was mass murder, > > plain and simple.
> > We should also keep in mind that Hassan enlisted. He wasn't drafted. > > And if he enlisted recently, then he had to know that the US had been > > at war with Muslim entities for years.
> Then maybe the stories about him being upset about it are not true?. > How factual is that information?.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
How factual is that information? As factual as news reported in the US TV and press and/or on the internet can get.
> > >> Islam teaches that if a person commits adultery, stone him to death.
> > >Which is what Moses taught as well. Judaism is an evil religion.
> > Some psychotic overtones. Circumcision is rather barbaric. If it > > were genuinely performed for hygienic reasons, then females ought to > > have it done, too. With their complex physiology, it would seem to be > > even more necessary.
> > It's a perpetuated myth.
> > "Ahhhhh, a new baby boy. We love you so much, and the first thing > > we're going to do is chop of the end of your.........."
> > -- > > mad
> It should be illegal to do that to a child. If someone wants, when > they're an adult, have a circumcision, then it'd be their bussiness.
> On Nov 7, 11:21 pm, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I said the British Empire (not England) with the Slavery Abolition Act > > of 1833 -although even then there were some territorial exceptions. > > Trade involvement was ended (with Wilberforce again as a main > > activist) even earlier. If the movie "Amazing Grace" wasn't using > > poetic license, it was ended by trickery. I'd wiki, but I hope it's > > true and don't want to be divested of my happy illusions. :-)
> What you said was:
> "To another point in the greater thread, it was William Wilberforce > who > led the campaign against slavery in England. The Act passed three days > before his death in 1833. Jefferson died in 1826 at 80-something > years old with slavery still legal in the Southern US as well as the > British Empire."
> So you did say England.
You're right. Bad sentence construction. My fault. (He was _in England_ when he led the campaign against slavery. That's where the decision makers were and so that's where the campaign was waged. )
"Finnell said he did just that during a year of study in which Hasan made a presentation "that justified suicide bombing" and spewed "anti- American propaganda" as he argued the war on terror was "a war against Islam." Finnell said he and at least one other student complained about Hasan, surprised that someone with "this type of vile ideology" would be allowed to wear an officer's uniform. "
So far it sounds as if he were a one man 5th column. His support for Islam was greater than his support of the US.
>> > >> Islam teaches that if a person commits adultery, stone him to death.
>> > >Which is what Moses taught as well. Judaism is an evil religion.
>> > Some psychotic overtones. Circumcision is rather barbaric. If it >> > were genuinely performed for hygienic reasons, then females ought to >> > have it done, too. With their complex physiology, it would seem to be >> > even more necessary.
>> > It's a perpetuated myth.
>> > "Ahhhhh, a new baby boy. We love you so much, and the first thing >> > we're going to do is chop of the end of your.........."
>> > -- >> > mad
>> It should be illegal to do that to a child. If someone wants, when >> they're an adult, have a circumcision, then it'd be their bussiness.
>Circumcision of babies is quite common in the US.
There is research and evidence that circumcision traumatizes newborn babies and effectively dulls the libido later in life.
Seems to be a large radical faction in the U.S. that urges the practice based on hygiene, but the cleanliness factor is one big myth.
>They were psychotic individuals. Shrewed and genius - but psychotic >nonetheless.
Dude, the word is spelled 'shrewd'. To be shrewed one would have to be speared to death by a very large number of birds.
'The Bicameral Mind' is great on theory, but poor in anatomy. I'm not thinking the corpus callosum suddenly appeared in any magical fashion. The brain, especially the brain of a newborn, is so plastic that even with an entire lobe missing a person can develop into a normal human being, whatever 'normal' means. There is more to brain physiology and mystery than that unappetizing grey goo in our skulls. Yes, there are many things that are hard-wired--for instance, a right cerebral lobe injury can cause people to lost the entire concept of 'left'. I remember one right-hemi stroke patient, who had let her left arm dangling over her wheelchair. When I asked 'Where's your left arm, Mary?' she thought perhaps she had left in it physical therapy and didn't particularly care where it was, or if it was. Not a very good strategy for evolution, I'm thinking.
Sorry, but my hands-on experience with brain injured people plus years of study in neurology disagree with your book.
Lizz 'but what does a nurse know? A hell of a lot more than a doctor, that's for sure' Holmans
--
Whatever happened to linoleum floors, petroleum jelly and two world wars?
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:21:26 -0800 (PST), PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That's the Quran believers' point, not mine. I referred to it >sarcastically because it's typical. It's a point about discernment and/ >or the enlightened state of mind that has been manipulated to deflect >criticism and keep people in chains while often playing to both their >conceit (and underlying insecurity) that they are somehow special for >belonging to a certain cult or religion. It might be a guru making the >point to a devotee who is tired of doing hours and hours of seva >(unpaid work/selfless service) while the guru is riding around in a >limo. Or it might be the Pope who issues an edict from his little >chair about women priests, so it can't be questioned or overturned, or >it could be imams excusing the inexcusable in the Quran because it is >supposedly impenetrable the spiritually opaque (rationalists, or non- >believers).
I know I always listen to the guy on the Quaker Oats box.
Lizz 'Nothing is better for thee than me' Holmans
--
Whatever happened to linoleum floors, petroleum jelly and two world wars?
>'The Bicameral Mind' is great on theory, but poor in anatomy. I'm not >thinking the corpus callosum suddenly appeared in any magical fashion. >The brain, especially the brain of a newborn, is so plastic that even >with an entire lobe missing a person can develop into a normal human >being, whatever 'normal' means. There is more to brain physiology and >mystery than that unappetizing grey goo in our skulls. >Yes, there are many things that are hard-wired--for instance, a right >cerebral lobe injury can cause people to lost the entire concept of >'left'. I remember one right-hemi stroke patient, who had let her left >arm dangling over her wheelchair. When I asked 'Where's your left arm, >Mary?' she thought perhaps she had left in it physical therapy and >didn't particularly care where it was, or if it was. Not a very good >strategy for evolution, I'm thinking.
>Sorry, but my hands-on experience with brain injured people plus years >of study in neurology disagree with your book.
Have you read it? You have a very closed mind if you're criticising without reading it.
Jaynes, a Yale graduate, devotes a great deal in the book to brain anatomy.
>Lizz 'but what does a nurse know? A hell of a lot more than a doctor, >that's for sure' Holmans
On Nov 7, 10:12 pm, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 7:06 pm, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All nine freed with Jefferson's consent were members of the Hemings > > family; the seven he officially freed were all skilled tradesmen. > > About 130 Monticello slaves were sold at estate sales after > > Jefferson's death.
This isn't directly relevant to the subject of Jefferson and slavery, but it is a perfect opportunity to post a link to one of my favorite historical dramatic series ever - Drunk History. Enjoy!:
<mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>Dude, the word is spelled 'shrewd'. To be shrewed one would have to be >>speared to death by a very large number of birds.
>I've been on Usenet for almost fifteen years, and it takes a pretty >desparate individual to go after spelling mistakes or typos, doood.
Deperately fond of correct spelling, yes. Otherwise not desperate about much of anything.
>Have you read it? You have a very closed mind if you're criticising >without reading it
Years ago. Been a lot of research done since 1976.
>Jaynes, a Yale graduate, devotes a great deal in the book to brain >anatomy
My father, a Harvard man, spent a lot of his time flying airplanes in WW2. In mitigation, my favorite neurosurgeon was a Yale man. Still went to a Harvard M.D. though. Got any more arguments from authority for me?
>>Lizz 'but what does a nurse know? A hell of a lot more than a doctor, >>that's for sure' Holmans
>Read it and report back.
Are you my mother? You certainly aren't my teacher, tutor, or alien overlond. I don't take orders from people I know, let alone a stranger with proselytizing on his mind.. What are you going to do if I don't?
Lizz 'Oh, no! It might go on my Permanent Record!' Holmans
--
Whatever happened to linoleum floors, petroleum jelly and two world wars?
|
