Tippaporn

Yes. Same as my fellow alumnus, Noam. Great minds... As they say. Any man who agrees with and shares one's personal beliefs is a Great mind. It's only natural. It's only inevitable. The truth is Zinn and Noam are simply two people of the 8+ billion who have their own beliefs. But how well do their beliefs accurately represent bedrock reality? Hmmm . . . Better not ask. Best to just say, "I like those guys. They think just like me. They're Great minds (like me)"

But everything can be made to be logical when given a certain and limited data set. Don't you know that yet? You mean animals have no consciousness? Consciousness defined as possessing self awareness. What are they then, robots? I suggest you think things through a bit before posting ideas which have little thought put into them, in which case the conclusions reached more than likely will appear as the absurdities they are. The researchers, though, tend to personify all other creatures. A chimp is a chimp living in and experiencing an entirely different reality than that of a human. Man's idea of evolution certainly plays into the tendency to personify as he tends to believe in a straight line evolution of continual progression towards what we are. Because man doesn't understand what reality is he assumes that ultimately all of life is progressing to the same destination. A higher, more advanced intellect - or whatever that destination is supposed to be in the minds of those who subscribe to those ideas. Chimps are chimps and man is man and flowers are flowers and fish are fish and amoeba are amoeba and rocks are rocks why? Because they're different. That's the whole point - which is utterly failed to be understood. The types of consciousness which exist are literally infinite. Why does consciousness want to experience itself in different forms? That's a question which, perhaps, you would have an impossible time to understand. Especially given that you have no interest in asking the question. To think it possible that a chimp could evolve to become a Chomsky is an absurdity. A chimp is here to experience the reality of being a chimp, not of being a man whilst being a chimp. If the consciousness which decided to experience itself as a chimp preferred to experience itself as a man then it would have been born a man and not a chimp. And there you go, GammaGlobulin. Your beliefs are correct and anyone with different beliefs is wrong. Not only are they wrong but stupid as well. You are the smart one. Can't you see through that thinking, GammaGlobulin? Aren't the beliefs apparent to you yet? Or the hypocrisy which inevitably results because there will assuredly be times when your beliefs will be proven false and so the smart one becomes the stupid one that whilst he believes himself smart looks down on the the others as stupid. And continuing with what I just said, you are absolutely spot on. You get to believe what you want to believe and everyone else gets to believe what they want to believe. That's precisely the way this reality works. And then we can all have endless discussions, debates, arguments, fights, wars on God, politics, marriage, work, and every other issue which exists on God's green earth. What you fail to understand, GammaGlobulin, is that the ideas you hold to be true about this subject matter or any other are your personal beliefs. You further fail to consider, and are most likely resistant to admit, that some of your beliefs may be dead wrong. And, God help you, an opposing belief might be correct. God, it's gotta be frustrating for you that others don't believe what you believe as you pound your head against the wall trying to get them convinced. I feel for you. And if you can't have it your way and the person refuses to accept and adopt your belief as true for themselves then they are fair game to then discredit and abuse. And people like to think of themselves as civilised. The irony.

Erm, "All men are created equal." In the eyes of God. Uhm, before you accuse someone of having a lack of education regarding American history pertaining to the founding of the country you might want to first ask them what they've studied. Where is an irrelevant question. Howard Zinn Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." I prefer the view of history as seen through the eyes of those who experienced it and who penned their thoughts rather than the view of history as interpreted by another, as it is first sifted through their belief system. Kinda the same as accepting a fact checkers conclusions of events after he's sifted those events using his personal beliefs as a filter. You end up at best with a distorted version of reality and at worst a tailored version of reality. But never the raw reality. Nah, I'd rather not make that mistake.

That was a hilarious movie. I loved it. Perhaps it's satire went over your head? If not then it was very much in 'good taste'.

What is instinctive in other life forms is not instinctive in man. Unfortunately man, at his current stage of understanding himself and the world he exists in, can never know, let alone experience, the reality felt and experienced by any other life form other than his own. Man tends to personify not only God but the animal kingdom as well. Good luck with that approach. When Washoe was shown an image of herself in the mirror, and asked what she was seeing, she replied: "Me, Washoe." Primate expert Jane Goodall, who has studied and lived with chimpanzees for decades, believes that this might indicate some level of self-awareness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee) The degree of hubris of man in his ignorance, that only man has self-awareness, is truly comical. It's just more proof in the pudding of how ignorant man truly is and, again, comical when one considers man likes to think he knows it all. Or nearly most everything. More comical still is that man believes that he is dead nuts correct in everything he assumes to know for sure.

You forget that much of the basis upon which the founders created the U.S. was upon Christian principles. You might want to educate yourself on the founding of the country and the debates which the founders had. For your statements above are the proof in the pudding that you are wholly ignorant of any of that. I do not use the word 'ignorant' as a slight so do not take offence. I use the straight dictionary definition of it which assigns no judgement whatsoever: lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

Ah, but what you don't understand is that the idea that "we are here only to reproduce" is just that; an idea. Since an idea accepted as true is in essence the definition of a belief then "we are here only to reproduce" is nothing more than a belief. No different than those who believe that there is a reason and purpose for everything. You ability to prove your belief as bedrock reality is just as impossible as anyone's belief that there's a reason and purpose for everything. Since there are many who share your belief then you will tend to believe in the false logic that consensus equates to truth, and so you will comfortably spout your belief as rockbed reality with utmost confidence. The trouble for you, and others, is that not everyone shares your belief. So, in your feeling of righteousness you assume it your inherent right, and perhaps even duty, to abuse others for believing differently than you. People are strange creatures for they have so much difficulty in seeing what they're doing.

A fellow music aficionado. Wonderful tales, Ray. And an illustrious list of talent which I'll have to explore. You'd be a perfect fit for the music thread to share music, rock history, and personal stories. I need to get back there myself. That's my favourite thread on AN.

The sound quality of that video was not the best so here's Green with Mayall on Out Of Reach off of the '67 Hard Road LP. Green is simply mesmerizing.

I saw two of his shows with The Splinter Group in the late 90's in a small, lounge atmosphere venue with hostesses serving alcoholic drinks to your coffee table. At the 2nd show we were told by those sitting by us to stick around after the show and wait until it had cleared out. Sure enough, Green and the band came out to chat with the half dozen or so stragglers for about half an hour. I got a chance to talk with him and had my ticket stub signed by Green and the rest of the band. The first show was a double bill with John Mayall opening the show. I had high hopes that Mayall and Green would jam together but Mayall had another late night gig booked and couldn't stick around. John Mayall on Facebook, 25 February 2020 I was blown away by Peter’s strong personality and ferociously confident playing when he was in my band in the 60's and am so pleased that his legacy is being recognized and celebrated. I’m looking forward to being a part of this fine celebration of his unique contributions to the genre. Another quote on Mayall from elsewhere: Outside of St. Peter, John is the greatest gatekeeper. The long line of talent he found and nurtured is unparalleled. All this on top of his own illustrious talent. And ain't that the truth. And so a small diversion but yet we are still on topic. The Gods have changed throughout history. New ones constantly emerge. And in the 60's we had the emergence of many Guitar Gods. Mere mortals and yet they connected us to our souls. B.B. King on Green: "He was the only one that gave me the cold sweats." John Mayall/Peter Green performing Tears In My Eyes live at the Marquee '67. John McVie and Mick Fleetwood handling the rhythm section.

Dontcha love HOT topics? Why Are Readers Here...So...Interested in...HOT Topics???

Now, now, no need to get a big head. Seriously, though, I've always appreciated your posts. I enjoy your posting style. It's original and certainly not boring.

Everyone has different interests. That fact isn't a shocker of an epiphany that just struck you, is it? So what's the beef? It's like Sunmaster said: I have this restaurant analogy that fits perfectly here . . .

Come now, retarius. You're just denouncing others' superstitions whilst having your own.

Perhaps you're not aware, GammaGlobulin, but you've actually got a cult following. Granted, they're not that vocal.

Why would you automatically assume eternal damnation? We keep getting told by believers their god is merciful. And all loving. Yup, it's why I tossed religion. But throwing out the idea of God as well is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

That's for sure. Thai women lift my spirits. And more!

Great one, Sunmaster.

what many people fail to understand is that the US consists of 50 states with individual subcultures, level of development and education. So it easy to not be entirely correct when making generalizations about the entire US. Bah! The U.S. has only two types of people throughout the 50 states. Those for Trump and those against. Most of the religious people are on the side of Trump. If we extrapolate from there then that means God is on Trump's side.

Thanks for the hint, Old Croc. So that must be the number One nation in the whole world. Hmmm . . . let me think a moment . . .

Because they are close to dying You should have gotten a lot more laughs for that one. Isn't it said that every joke has some truth in it?

Perhaps that's why the U.S. has free speech whereas the UK not as much.

I'd take Peter Green. He was considered a God in the UK in the late 60's.

No doubt about it, sirineou. So many more people are fascinated by Trump than God. If it can be said that God lives in your head then Trump has millions upon millions of residences. He is, after all, a real estate guy.

How many guesses do I get, Old Croc?