How are you associating his "cutting through" with "me me" and therefore discredited?
I'm not discrediting him in a binary fashion, i.e. all or none, but in a selective analog fashion. I was annoyed with the extremes to which assigned meaning to "origins" of words in "Cutting Through". His equating the word "meme" to the "me-me" generation is a classic example of his overreaching for relationships where none are likely to exist.
What do you think about Dawkins normalizing pedophilia?
Normalizing pedophilia? Is that how you characterize his comments, which are pulled further and further out of context for sensationalist purposes? So Dawkins is now condoning pedophilia? This is just more of "attack the messenger, ignore the message". Can you recognize it? It is so prevalent that we practically accept it as normal, which shows the extent of our brainwashing.
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:06 am
magamud
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm Posts: 4156
Re: Alan Watt Show Cutting Through The Matrix
Quote:
is a classic example of his overreaching for relationships where none are likely to exist.
I have no idea what your talking about here. Are you saying he states the new context of "meme" is more to me me, associating narcissism? If he is reminding people of narcissism, I dont think that is a bad thing.
Quote:
Normalizing pedophilia?
Unless they are misquoting him from his own book.
Quote:
'I don't think he did any of us any lasting damage.'
Quote:
Mild Pedophilia
The association, is to show Dawkins making outlandish Rock star comments. Or perhaps hes a pedophiliac and is normalizing his own deviant behavior? That's usually how it jumps from generation to generation, children are traumatized never get counseling and normalize the behavior and do it themselves creating more victims.
Quote:
This is just more of "attack the messenger
This is not binary but an exploration into the character.
Quote:
Can you recognize it?
Can you?
Quote:
which shows the extent of our brainwashing.
Some are more brainwashed then others...
I noticed the source link has been edited since I posted the material removing some of his quotes...
_________________ Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
Are you saying he states the new context of "meme" is more to me me, associating narcissism?
Alan Watt is associating the connotation of the word "meme" with the generalized selfish behavior programmed into the public by the ruling sociopaths. A meme is like a mind virus (but need not be malevolent) that spreads rapidly in a quasi-infectious manner. Because the ruling sociopaths are bad, Watt is implying memes are bad too, that they are one of the vehicles of mind control. And although they can be used in support of mind control (witness "Change we can believe in", "Yes we can", and other meaningless Obama campaign slogans), they also exist outside of that arena with no associated nefarious purpose. Most of the time, that is indeed the case.
Or perhaps hes a pedophiliac and is normalizing his own deviant behavior?
Doubtful. You are conjecturing broadly based on a comment taken out of context, and this is in your interest, given Dawkins' opposition to your religious beliefs. If you could sit down and talk with Dawkins to get a thorough understanding of his take on pedophilia, I strongly suspect you would both be in agreement in your condemnation of it.
This is not binary but an exploration into the character.
You spend more time and effort trying to discredit his character than you do to truly investigate his ideas.
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:01 am
magamud
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm Posts: 4156
Re: Alan Watt Show Cutting Through The Matrix
Quote:
that they are one of the vehicles of mind control.
I have never heard him say all memes are bad and that would be out of his character to do this binary thinking. Its easy to see the meme thing going both ways. Perhaps you are looking to hard to discredit AW with your idiot savant comment. lol
Quote:
You are conjecturing broadly based on a comment taken out of context
I dont think so. He admits his own boyhood violation and he is communicating his integration to it, which is appearing a skew with his comments and giving evidence of his Rock Star status or Megalomania or sociopathic tendencies? As other people are noticing too. And now he is backtracking on the whole issue altogether.
Quote:
and this is in your interest, given Dawkins' opposition to your religious beliefs.
I could say the reverse. You brought up Dawkins by the way, i happened to find the AW commentary and with a simple google search more is coming. The association AW brought up is of controlled opposition with RD being promoted to cause division in our species and also analogous to Religion itself with technocratic atheism. Which you appear unable to track showing evidence of your own conflict of interest in RD's incredible mind.
Quote:
If you could sit down and talk with Dawkins to get a thorough understanding of his take on pedophilia, I strongly suspect you would both be in agreement in your condemnation of it.
That would be true, but if he was a pedo he would do sociopathic behaviors and hide it.
Quote:
You spend more time and effort trying to discredit his character than you do to truly investigate his ideas.
Not at all, i have never spent anytime on his character until you brought him up. And when i do bring up his character you are quick to judge and discredit it. Which makes me think there is something there.
_________________ Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
And when i do bring up his character you are quick to judge and discredit it. Which makes me think there is something there.
I believe there is something there. For example, we surely have a different knowledgebase that we are working from. I have read nearly all of Richard Dawkins' books, not out of love for his personality (I don't know him personally), but out of admiration and respect for his ideas and the preponderance of evidence he provides to support them. Dawkins is no slacker, nor is he a puppet of the ruling powers-that-be. He has legitimately earned the respect he commands. That respect is not something that was orchestrated as a deception or manipulation to sway the public. Dawkins is an independent thinker, unafraid to challenge any idea that lacks evidence and truth, regardless of the public support it enjoys. He has a track record of doing so, first challenging the conventional ideas of evolutionary science, much to the disdain of the established scientific priesthood, and then challenging the conventional ideas about religion, much to the disdain of the faithful, of which you are one.
I encourage questioning everything, including Richard Dawkins, but it should be done in an informed, nonbiased manner. Otherwise, you are just muddying the waters.
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum