Modesty, self-esteem and body confidence?

[Totenkindly]

I think yes it is. Science is this age's orthodoxy, if its eventual rejection is as severe as religion's it may not bode well for humanity. The problem is that too many people conflate superstition and ignorance with religion or tradition, while at the same time behaving with the fatal conceit of the present for the past. It makes me heart sick to witness it and see it repeated over and over as bold insight when it's anything but. Sometimes it feels like ground hog day.

Although mind you years ago I might have said the same thing, not just as you here but as Metaphor. Perhaps I have as much myopia and defensiveness for my present perspectives as I did once acknowledgely have for the other but there doesnt appear to be anyone else voicing doubts or defending it.

This is probably one of the most open posts I've seen by you here, helping me to understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for stepping back a moment and framing it for us.

 

[erm]

This leaves no possibility for intersubjectivity. How do I know, for instance, that Jessica Alba is attractive, despite my own personal distaste for her looks? The attractiveness does not exist in my mind (since I don't find her attractive), nor does it exist in any particular person's mind that I can identify (that is, I'd still know she is thought of as attractive whether or not Johnny down the street finds her so.) Yet I know that she is considered an attractive person.

How does it not leave room for inter-subjectivity? Everyone finding the same thing attractive is inter-subjectivity.

As mentioned early, there are plenty of trends in attractiveness, and it's not very hard to recognise a lot of them. Other than that there's the way the media portray her, which is another big give away.

Science is this age's orthodoxy, if its eventual rejection is as severe as religion's it may not bode well for humanity. The problem is that too many people conflate superstition and ignorance with religion or tradition, while at the same time behaving with the fatal conceit of the present for the past.

There's a lot of truth to that.

 

[Oberon]

I dont know were you're going with this "mean side" business, it looks like just another way of behaving dismissive.

It's aj's favorite mode of expression.

 

[Lark]

This is probably one of the most open posts I've seen by you here, helping me to understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for stepping back a moment and framing it for us.

Its always been so.

 

[Lark]

So are you saying that, to be a priest, you have to have a penis?
I think that was kinda his point.

(Btw, it's "uterus". It's a noun, not an adjective.)

I dont know how its spelt, Nicodemus doesnt do anything other than troll me Jennifer so I dont treat his posts are genuine or anything other than games playing. Its the only real explanation for the sex/gender of the priesthood randomly cropping in this thread.

 

[ajblaise]

I think yes it is. Science is this age's orthodoxy, if its eventual rejection is as severe as religion's it may not bode well for humanity. The problem is that too many people conflate superstition and ignorance with religion or tradition, while at the same time behaving with the fatal conceit of the present for the past. It makes me heart sick to witness it and see it repeated over and over as bold insight when it's anything but. Sometimes it feels like ground hog day.

Although mind you years ago I might have said the same thing, not just as you here but as Metaphor. Perhaps I have as much myopia and defensiveness for my present perspectives as I did once acknowledgely have for the other but there doesnt appear to be anyone else voicing doubts or defending it.

Science's eventual rejection?? Hey, when science stops coming up with life saving medicine, yearly improvements affecting nearly all facets of your life, from when you get up and have your coffee (or tea, I guess it is) from when you go to bed, you've enjoyed the fruits of science making your life easier, safer, comfier, and if you ever get hurt and end up in the hospital, it will be science that you'll be turning to to potentially save you. You may not give credit where credit is due, but you take advantage of science every day.

As long as there are humans and and we don't regress to the Dark Ages.... logic, reason, and the formal process of it, the scientific method, will always be popular.

I know you have a rational mind sometimes, you honestly think science will be rejected over time? It gives us results, and has real-world value and utility.... if anything, we rely more on science each and every year.

So like science, do you think the internet (thanks science, for that) will have it's 15 minutes of fame too?

I dont know were you're going with this "mean side" business, it looks like just another way of behaving dismissive.

I'm just saying you used to be a lot cooler on the forum. You're completely a Negative Nancy now, and others apparently agree, seeing from my reps.

I think it came from others being mean to you first, like what's his name.... BananaTrombones and some others.... I stuck up for u a few times against them, on the board and the modbox. So don't think I have a bias against you. But they are probably what turned you outwardly ugly on the forum. Or you;re going thru personal stuff.

Why place the blame with me?

Blame the victim much.

You're just playing the victim. And the nastiest stuff in this thread that I've seen has come from your posts.... "Of course your alternative of unmitigated depression, aggression and addiction is so much more appealing." Sarcasm doesn't fit you.

U don't see how you've changed? Even when you were the old Lark, I saw people trying to pick on you, but these days I'm less apt to feel much sympathy.

 

[rav3n]

You're just playing the victim. And the nastiest stuff in this thread that I've seen has come from your posts.... "Of course your alternative of unmitigated depression, aggression and addiction is so much more appealing." Sarcasm doesn't fit you.

U don't see how you've changed? Even when you were the old Lark, I saw people trying to pick on you, but these days I'm less apt to feel much sympathy.

Yes, he's playing the victim but that's typical of him, same as shooting the messenger when he dislikes the message and/or can't think up a rational rebuttal. I did find the "aggression" part seriously funny. On TypeC, my claws and teeth are always sheathed since there's no quantifiable investment or return in participating in the Special Olympics. As for the entire aggression, depression and addiction phrase, it's all part and parcel of his schtick that religion cures all, much like snake oil.

At present, he's on ignore. There's no fun to be had in debating topics with a close minded individual who's understanding of subject matter is about as far from the intuitive level as one might get. Vast consumption of "read" ideas and then vomiting verbatim doesn't equate to understanding beyond that of a superficial level and even at that level, I have doubts of understanding.

Anyways, back to the subject matter of women and body image. Root cause, religion and its need for servitude which has morphed into a societal fixation. What's forboden appears to make it more fascinating to the human race.

 

[ajblaise]

Yes, he's playing the victim but that's typical of him, same as shooting the messenger when he dislikes the message and/or can't think up a rational rebuttal. I did find the "aggression" part seriously funny. On TypeC, my claws and teeth are always sheathed since there's no quantifiable investment in participating in the Special Olympics. As for the entire aggression, depression and addiction phrase, it's all part and parcel of his schtick that religion cures all, much like snake oil.

At present, he's on ignore. There's no fun to be had in debating topics with a close minded individual who's understanding of subject matter is about as far from the intuitive level as one might get. Vast consumption of "read" ideas and then vomiting verbatim doesn't equate to understanding beyond that of a superficial level and even at that level, I have doubts of understanding.

At least he doesn't play the victim as well as Victor. Actually, maybe Vic's been teaching him. I mean, Vic makes holocaust survivors feel guilty.

 

[rav3n]

At least he doesn't play the victim as well as Victor. Actually, maybe Vic's been teaching him. I mean, Vic makes holocaust survivors feel guilty.

Zing!

*waits for Victor to make women feel guilty about having bodies*

 

[Lark]

Science's eventual rejection?? Hey, when science stops coming up with life saving medicine, yearly improvements affecting nearly all facets of your life, from when you get up and have your coffee (or tea, I guess it is) from when you go to bed, you've enjoyed the fruits of science making your life easier, safer, comfier, and if you ever get hurt and end up in the hospital, it will be science that you'll be turning to to potentially save you. You may not give credit where credit is due, but you take advantage of science every day.

As long as there are humans and and we don't regress to the Dark Ages.... logic, reason, and the formal process of it, the scientific method, will always be popular.

I know you have a rational mind sometimes, you honestly think science will be rejected over time? It gives us results, and has real-world value and utility.... if anything, we rely more on science each and every year.

So like science, do you think the internet (thanks science, for that) will have it's 15 minutes of fame too?

What do you mean by the internet? Would you say TV has had its day? Or radio? Its not the same as an orthodoxy, like I say, each age or generation has a trip rejecting orthodoxy, I'll bet that science's day will come.

I'm just saying you used to be a lot cooler on the forum. You're completely a Negative Nancy now, and others apparently agree, seeing from my reps.

That's alright, most of the people who's opinion I worry about arent visiting anymore, what's that tell you?

I think it came from others being mean to you first, like what's his name.... BananaTrombones and some others.... I stuck up for u a few times against them, on the board and the modbox. So don't think I have a bias against you. But they are probably what turned you outwardly ugly on the forum. Or you;re going thru personal stuff.

Yeah, I figure you guys have had this talk, I figured it back when CheChe posted a thread asking whether or not people worry about becoming an ugly person. I'm not going through any personal stuff and I dont mind what you or your buds opinion is of me. By and large it I think it fits with a certain stereotype which the prevailing consensus associates with someone who has opinions like mine.

You're just playing the victim. And the nastiest stuff in this thread that I've seen has come from your posts.... "Of course your alternative of unmitigated depression, aggression and addiction is so much more appealing." Sarcasm doesn't fit you.

Well, that's not sarcasm, that's my view of the modern day, it abounds with choice, prosperity and relative ease (I'd suspect for people visiting this forum at least) and yet its spiritually dead, hence the three things I mentioned which are typical in my society if not your own. I dont consider that nasty but whatever, I suppose its easier to dismiss it as a nasty comment or sarcastic response to some compelling condemnation of religion, that unmitigatedly bad thing, than give it some consideration.

U don't see how you've changed? Even when you were the old Lark, I saw people trying to pick on you, but these days I'm less apt to feel much sympathy.

Grand, so you reckon that then and now there were people picking on me, that's interesting. I only ever visited here because I was interested in typology and the sorts of topical discussion you can expect to find on a forum, what I wrote in my introduction thread pretty much stands from the day I wrote it. Perhaps you been worn down by the people who've got the low opinion of me that they started out with. You're best placed to answer that one.

I dont think I've changed, I've got easier pissed off with what passes for discussion here sometimes but I'd link that to infrequent or non-existent contributions of anyone sharing my views, there's a very good chance that that's how I became people's Mr. Nasty too, the sorts of opinion they simply dont like arent offered by anyone else anymore because they dont visit.

For myself, I dont know, I've not particularly noticed your posts and I'm surprised at the interest you've taken in me and mine.

 

[ajblaise]

What do you mean by the internet? Would you say TV has had its day? Or radio? Its not the same as an orthodoxy, like I say, each age or generation has a trip rejecting orthodoxy, I'll bet that science's day will come.

I just don't see how science's day will come. The medical field will always demand it.... transportation will always demand science to improve... manufacturing.... ergonomics.... alternative energy... food... entertainment...space travel...

Since when have humans ever stopped demanding new technologies? That will be the day science dies.... e.g. never.

Ohhh, maybe ur talking about those hippie anti-technology back-to-the-earth off-the-grid movements. That's come and passed. Science and tech won.

For myself, I dont know, I've not particularly noticed your posts and I'm surprised at the interest you've taken in me and mine.

I'm a mod, and you get complaints. So I notice it.

 

[Oberon]

I'm a mod, and you get complaints. So I notice it.

You resorted to playing the mod card to win this discussion? I'm astonished!

...well, actually, I'm not...

 

[ajblaise]

You resorted to playing the mod card to win this discussion? I'm astonished!

...well, actually, I'm not...

Doesn't make me win the convo. Just explains how I get to reading lark.... thru the Reported Posts section, lol.

I still don't like people picking on Lark tho, unless I'm doing it, because at least he has some intellectual firepower and is interested in politics when there are so few true politcos on this site. I know it's not a politics forum, but still.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think we all need to get back to the topic of this thread... which is not Lark.

Thanks mucho.

 

[Jaguar]

I still don't like people picking on Lark tho, unless I'm doing it.

Oh, please.

 

[rav3n]

You resorted to playing the mod card to win this discussion? I'm astonished!

...well, actually, I'm not...

He made a reference but gave no details. This doesn't violate any site rules.

So, what's your take on women and possibly men using a hair of the dog methodology to offset body image issues, potentially body dysmorph?

 

[Lark]

I just don't see how science's day will come. The medical field will always demand it.... transportation will always demand science to improve... manufacturing.... ergonomics.... alternative energy... food... entertainment...space travel...

Since when have humans ever stopped demanding new technologies? That will be the day science dies.... e.g. never.

Ohhh, maybe ur talking about those hippie anti-technology back-to-the-earth off-the-grid movements. That's come and passed. Science and tech won.

I think you're confusing and conflating technology and science, you reckon there wasnt any technology before the enlightenment or science took up its present predominance, how you figure the pyramids got built? Stone henge? Wait, was it magic? You know the way that was way back in the Dark Ages.

I'm a mod, and you get complaints. So I notice it.

You got the Lark Envy

 

[Lark]

He made a reference but gave no details. This doesn't violate any site rules.

So, what's your take on women and possibly men using a hair of the dog methodology to offset body image issues, potentially body dysmorph?

Bets its not "It were tha church wot did it"

 

[ajblaise]

I think you're confusing and conflating technology and science, you reckon there wasnt any technology before the enlightenment or science took up its present predominance, how you figure the pyramids got built? Stone henge? Wait, was it magic? You know the way that was way back in the Dark Ages.

It's hard to separate tech from science, and both have been around since humanity, we just formalized the scientific method more recently. I don't know where you get the idea that I think tech and scientific application hasn't always been here. Back when the wheel was invented, that was a scientific application; there was experimentation, logic was implemented, and it was applied. The pyramids, same deal. Stone hedge, same deal.

Why would I reckon there wasn't tech before the Enlightenment? Science, even before it became a more formalized systematic study, and tech has been around forever.... even back with apes figuring out how to use tools for food collecting.

 

[Oberon]

He made a reference but gave no details. This doesn't violate any site rules.

No, it doesn't break any rules. I just thought it was a cheap shot.