 Originally Posted by Xei
Except in my very first post I actually made the exact same point as Spart and you ignored it.
Actually, I didn't ignore it. I didn't respond to it (and I apologize for that), because I was so disappointed by the inadvertent attack on my rationality that followed. My disappointment was mostly due to the fact that - while I was writing up the OP - I figured that, were you to be one of the first to respond, you would be one of those that could not approach the subject without making the type of comment that you did. To be more specific, your "the world is always changing / I can think of bigger historical events than this" was so vague (and pretty obvious) that it was overshadowed by your insult.
 Originally Posted by Xei
And to be honest if you think that my latter suggestions were less potent then Spart's (and I only made them because Spart had already delineated the obvious older ones) then that's your personal opinion.
Which I rightly acknowledged, by beginning my response with "I believe..."
 Originally Posted by Xei
So what, you think I'm wrong; this doesn't mean I'm trying to derail the thread or I'm attacking you (which you've said about five times now and know better).
Let me give this a little context:
I take a moderate stance on many issues: Paranormality, Metaphysics, Religion, Philosophy, etc. I try to see things from all points of view. I try to see things that the faithful do not see, for lack of logic and critical thinking; I try to see things that the strictly scientific cannot see, for lack of outside-the-box perspective. I try to see things that the strictly 'logical' might not see, for the same reasons. I have been doing this for quite a long time. A problem I very often come across is that those who deem themselves the 'most logical,' are often the least capable of stating their position on such outlandish topics such as this, without being (pardon the expression) douche-bags. I'm tired of it. It adds nothing to the discussion, and it's even more reprehensible when they do it when stating an opinion, rather than a cold, hard fact; not that it's necessary, in that case, either.
Seriously, it's like an illness, and it's an ugly one. I give just as much blame to a theist who says non-believers are blind, arrogant fools who can't see that God obviously exists, as I do to an atheist who says that believers are illogical idiots, who are too stupid to see that there is obviously no God. They are two sides of the same coin, and no-matter how faithful or logical each person thinks they are, they are viciously defending their opinions through ad hominem attacks. It is how FOXNews conducts viewer opinion (i.e.; Bill O'Reilly's Pinheads and Patriots segments), and it has no place in mature, civilized, intelligent discussion. Ironically, it is usually the "intellects" that are most guilty of this. Consider the fact that I anticipated it, in my OP.
So, when you say that "but for any rational person the year 2012 in itself has nothing to do with anything and is not worth discussing," you are blatantly (even if subconsciously) insulting my rationality, seeing as how I am the one who brought up the discussion.
Copy?
 Originally Posted by Xei
When I tried to discuss it you point blank refused to talk to me and said it wasn't relevant to the thread... and now you're saying it is exactly what is relevant to the thread.
I didn't refuse to talk to you. The point (in my opinion) was insignificant, in the way that you presented it. Spart actually gave examples (and made his point without the previously explained insult in tow).
And once again (and even now), I have sufficiently explained the difference between Spart's examples and yours. I believe that those times of extreme violence - on such a grand scale - that he mentioned are more analogous to the 'apocalyptic' interpretations of the theory. Those examples were more about the Good/Evil base of the more fringe/religious interpretations of the theory - while simultaneously touching on the apocalyptic interpretations, etc.
Yes, the 9/11 attacks were a time of great tragedy, but it doesn't necessarily fit the 'world on fire' or 'widespread revolution/destruction/violence' type of interpretations. The invention of the Internet, while significant, doesn't really represent the 'paradigm shift,' as I - and many others - interpret it. There has always been a thirst for knowledge. The Internet simply expedited how easily attainable that knowledge is. In contrast, these current events are more about the worth of the people. Regions that have been oppressed and beaten down by "Evil" (tyranny, heavy-handed dictatorship) are beginning to find a sense of self-worth, and speak together with an empowering realization of unity and self-respect ("Good"). Were this the only relevant factor (remember: relevance and importance/potency are not synonymous) then I wouldn't pay so much attention to it, but it's not. It's that all of the factors of the current events fit so squarely with all of the interpretations (not perfectly, but enough to garner attention from anyone who is interested in the whole 2012 thing) that I find it more relevant than any one of the afore-mentioned examples.
You didn't say "exactly" what Spart said. You said something that - while in the same ballpark - was (at first) much less specific and (later) not quite as relevant (in my opinion) to the theory(s) itself. I have explained why, as best I could. If you don't agree, then I can only respect your opinion and hope that we can get back on track.
[Edit]
Thank you very much, Nina! This is exactly what I was looking to accomplish. Will be looking into some of these, myself. 
And I'm sure there are many more people on DV who have actually followed the whole 2012 thing, so feel free to add your input!
|
|
Bookmarks