|
|
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating.
|
Nobody told Niel that arabic numerals are actually Hindu?
|
On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating.
No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it.
Just to chime in and correct that.
On November 12 2012 10:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nobody told Niel that arabic numerals are actually Hindu?
Correction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system
It's the arabic/hindu system. He put greater emphasis on Arabic since they got the naming rights (his point) and they dove deepest into the realm of zero more so than anyone at the time.
You may be thinking of Brahmi numerals
|
On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that.
I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you can naturalize everything that religion has to offer.
|
On November 12 2012 10:32 farvacola wrote:So is writing 
And then printing as was the first document ever mass produced was the bible during the reformation so that all people could learn to be better Christians by reading the bible themselves. Its hard to see the rise of knowledge in Europe and the rest of the world if it wasn't used as a weapon for power by the early church.
|
On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation.
The clip is also.. really obvious. three people getting along, they start stabbing when religion is introduced. Sure that might imply satire, add that into the fact countless religious jabs are put into most family guy episodes (like the palistinian alarm clock etc) and it's quite obvious it's intent. Also the writer is an atheist himself who often insinuates similar things and outright voices his opinion. It was definitely directly implying religion, but I suppose that could be confusing if you don't watch family guy.
|
On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nobody told Niel that arabic numerals are actually Hindu? Correction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–Arabic_numeral_systemIt's the arabic/hindu system. He put greater emphasis on Arabic since they got the naming rights (his point) and they dove deepest into the realm of zero more so than anyone at the time. You may be thinking of Brahmi numerals
Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search. I'll give you props for that. I'll also say that you have, in a way, very cogently advanced the argument that blind faith in an ideology stunts intellectual growth and curiosity. It's just probably not the way you intended.
|
On November 12 2012 10:43 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. On November 12 2012 10:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nobody told Niel that arabic numerals are actually Hindu? Correction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–Arabic_numeral_systemIt's the arabic/hindu system. He put greater emphasis on Arabic since they got the naming rights (his point) and they dove deepest into the realm of zero more so than anyone at the time. You may be thinking of Brahmi numerals Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search. I'll give you props for that. I'll also say that you have, in a way, very cogently advanced the argument that blind faith in an ideology stunts intellectual growth and curiosity. It's just probably not the way you intended.
Frantic wikipedia search? Why is it always changed from the argument to the search, was my findings incorrect? No, in fact your assertion was incorrect and I just provided some data to explain why your claim was incorrect, seems simple in nature no? I don't have all my notes from Comperative World Religions attached to my thigh at a moments notice that I can start sourcing data. The internet is good for that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation.
u really overestimate family guy.
|
On November 12 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation. u really overestimate family guy.
On November 12 2012 10:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation. The clip is also.. really obvious. three people getting along, they start stabbing when religion is introduced. Sure that might imply satire, add that into the fact countless religious jabs are put into most family guy episodes (like the palistinian alarm clock etc) and it's quite obvious it's intent. Also the writer is an atheist himself who often insinuates similar things and outright voices his opinion. It was definitely directly implying religion, but I suppose that could be confusing if you don't watch family guy.
I hope you guys are wrong. My version of it is at least almost funny.
|
On November 12 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation. u really overestimate family guy.
Or perhaps is pulling a Karl Rove and just denying it on principle that such a thing could occur : P haha.
|
On November 12 2012 10:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:43 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. On November 12 2012 10:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nobody told Niel that arabic numerals are actually Hindu? Correction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–Arabic_numeral_systemIt's the arabic/hindu system. He put greater emphasis on Arabic since they got the naming rights (his point) and they dove deepest into the realm of zero more so than anyone at the time. You may be thinking of Brahmi numerals Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search. I'll give you props for that. I'll also say that you have, in a way, very cogently advanced the argument that blind faith in an ideology stunts intellectual growth and curiosity. It's just probably not the way you intended. Frantic wikipedia search? Why is it always changed from the argument to the search, was my findings incorrect? No, in fact your assertion was incorrect and I just provided some data to explain why your claim was incorrect, seems simple in nature no? I don't have all my notes from Comperative World Religions attached to my thigh at a moments notice that I can start sourcing data. The internet is good for that.
I don't know why you're being so peevish. I was applauding your development as a researcher.
|
On November 12 2012 10:50 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:43 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. On November 12 2012 10:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nobody told Niel that arabic numerals are actually Hindu? Correction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–Arabic_numeral_systemIt's the arabic/hindu system. He put greater emphasis on Arabic since they got the naming rights (his point) and they dove deepest into the realm of zero more so than anyone at the time. You may be thinking of Brahmi numerals Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search. I'll give you props for that. I'll also say that you have, in a way, very cogently advanced the argument that blind faith in an ideology stunts intellectual growth and curiosity. It's just probably not the way you intended. Frantic wikipedia search? Why is it always changed from the argument to the search, was my findings incorrect? No, in fact your assertion was incorrect and I just provided some data to explain why your claim was incorrect, seems simple in nature no? I don't have all my notes from Comperative World Religions attached to my thigh at a moments notice that I can start sourcing data. The internet is good for that. I don't know why you're being so peevish. I was applauding your development as a researcher.
They grow up so fast.......
|
On November 12 2012 10:50 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:43 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. On November 12 2012 10:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nobody told Niel that arabic numerals are actually Hindu? Correction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–Arabic_numeral_systemIt's the arabic/hindu system. He put greater emphasis on Arabic since they got the naming rights (his point) and they dove deepest into the realm of zero more so than anyone at the time. You may be thinking of Brahmi numerals Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search. I'll give you props for that. I'll also say that you have, in a way, very cogently advanced the argument that blind faith in an ideology stunts intellectual growth and curiosity. It's just probably not the way you intended. Frantic wikipedia search? Why is it always changed from the argument to the search, was my findings incorrect? No, in fact your assertion was incorrect and I just provided some data to explain why your claim was incorrect, seems simple in nature no? I don't have all my notes from Comperative World Religions attached to my thigh at a moments notice that I can start sourcing data. The internet is good for that. I don't know why you're being so peevish. I was applauding your development as a researcher.
Well at least you're moving up in the great chain of sources from Family Guy episode to frantic Wikipedia search
Facetious positions are common when making users make inaccurate claims. You can continue to be sarcastic, doesn't change you're making a non-valid point. You're also making the assumption I was trying to be a "researcher" while I was simply citing other researchers who dispelled your original statement. Just stop now and this will be forgotten in a page at most, no need to keep continuing your implication.
Let's move on.
|
On November 12 2012 10:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation. u really overestimate family guy. Or perhaps is pulling a Karl Rove and just denying it on principle that such a thing could occur : P haha.
According to Karl Rove, Romney still has a fighting chance.
|
but his point was that they get "naming rights" because they were better at it... but that's wrong because the only reason we call them "arabic" numerals is that they were introduced to Europe through the Arabs.
I'm not trying to downplay the influence the Arabs had on mathematics, but... IDK, seems like he's kind of reaching with some of his points.
|
On November 12 2012 10:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation. u really overestimate family guy. Or perhaps is pulling a Karl Rove and just denying it on principle that such a thing could occur : P haha.
I've been taught to interpret arguments as charitably as possible. That goes for jokes too.
|
On November 12 2012 10:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
but his point was that they get "naming rights" because they were better at it... but that's wrong because the only reason we call them "arabic" numerals is that they were introduced to Europe through the Arabs.
I'm not trying to downplay the influence the Arabs had on mathematics, but... IDK, seems like he's kind of reaching with some of his points.
Like which ones? He was arguing that those who do it best get the rights, like the Internet which wasn't invented in America but was Invented in Britain just done BETTER in America such that they get .com where every other country has to specifically name (.ca/.ru) their country.
On November 12 2012 10:55 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation. u really overestimate family guy. Or perhaps is pulling a Karl Rove and just denying it on principle that such a thing could occur : P haha. I've been taught to interpret arguments as charitably as possible. That goes for jokes too.
Well, all teaechings can come up wrong eventually, it wasn't satire :D
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 12 2012 10:55 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 10:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 12 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote:On November 12 2012 10:37 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 10:34 frogrubdown wrote:
Even worse (and not to encourage the use of Family Guy clips in arguments), I'm nearly positive that at least the first of them is actually satirizing the view nemesis is advocating. No it's implying everyone got along (obviously not true, but it's a joke) until religion was introduced and people argued faith : P it caught a lot of flack when it was aired for it. Just to chime in and correct that. I know what it looks like (that's why it would be satire were I right about its intent). Typically, when something is that over the top, it's satirizing a simplistic understanding of some phenomenon (e.g., your understanding of religion's influence on progress). If your only reason for believing it isn't satire is that some people complained about it as though it weren't, then I stand by my original interpretation. u really overestimate family guy. Or perhaps is pulling a Karl Rove and just denying it on principle that such a thing could occur : P haha. I've been taught to interpret arguments as charitably as possible. That goes for jokes too.
need to get you on some hateorade, go through hate camp, etc. for ideological combat training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
