Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Music

Expand Messages
  • Michael Tong
    There is no cultural or racial component to rhythm. There is a cultural compnent, of course. Societies that frown on individual expression and public dispays
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      There is no cultural or racial component to rhythm.  There is a cultural compnent, of course.  Societies that frown on individual expression and public dispays of emotion don't dance well, and show an almost total lack of "rhythm".
      David Fisher
       
      Oriental societies may frown upon individual expression but I have never heard of them frowning upon public displays of emotion.  Notice that you did not show how such a culture would suppress rhythm.  If such culture suppress rhythm, why would China and Japan bother contesting in Olympic ice skating where artistic expression is required?  I'm sure that ice skaters are very good dancers.  Oriental people also like to sing and dance, it's just that they can't dance as well as blacks and can't produce music that has worldwide appeal.  The best explanation is that Orientals genetically do not have the rhythm that blacks have.  Evolutionists has to explain why.
       

       Beyond that, anyone with half a brain knows that 99% of the music you hear on Top 40 radio sucks, and that if you are into music at all you don't listen to it.   David Fisher
       
      This week on Rick Dees' Weekly Top 40  the #1 song was "Jumping, Jumping" by Destiny's Child, a black female group.  "Kryptonite" by 3 Doors Down was #2.  I didn't hear #3 but it was probably "Music" by Madonna. Do you think that these 3 songs suck?
       
      > Without both biological parents, the first human children would
      not
      have grown up properly.

      First define "properly."   Aaron
       
      Here is an excerpt from the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Sep 11, 2000 based on an interview with Judith Wallerstein, a senior lecturer at the School of Social Welfare at UC Berkeley and coauthor of "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce": "How are these California kids, now that they're 28 to 43?  Not so hot.  They're afraid to commit to relationships, feeling they're doomed to fail at romance.  They have little tolerance for conflict in their personal lives, believing that every argument represents the permanent slamming of a door.  One-third of them don't want to have children and say they'd never want a child to go through what they endured when young.  They're generally lonely, frightened and often angry at the fathers who failed to help them pay for college or at mothers who depended on them too much, obliterating their childhoods."
           I like to point out that Wallerstein realizes the harmful effects of divorce but offer no solutions.  Neither does evolution which cannot explain why children would evolve needing both biological parents for optimum growth, yet the parents not evolving the instincts to stay together.
       
      .  Nobody who institued the sexual and social taboos were aware of this at the time, they just noticed that there was a lot of bad feeling between a lot of people, and so they decided to create a rule.  And rules come from God, at least for primative peoples (and morons).   David Fisher
       
      If people claim today that two people shouldn't be forced to stay together, there is no reason to believe that people would have thought differently in the past unless some nonhuman being(s) told them that it was a requirement.
       
      Bullshit. Tell that to the Muslim and African populations who practice polgamy. I don't see them being descimated.
      Michael Brass
       
      Polygamy is not promiscuity - no one would get venereal disease if everyone in the relationship stayed faithful.  Actually there are restrictions.  An Iranian guy I once knew told me that under Islam, if a man marries more than one woman he has to treat all of his wives equally.  If he buys jewelry for one wife, he has to buy it for all.  Obviously, only wealthy men would be able to practice polygamy.
       
      Yours truly,
      Michael Tong




    • lflank@ij.net
      On 1 Oct 00, at 16:37, Michael Tong wrote: Tong, shut the fuck up and go away. I m tired of your stupid ass racist horse shit. Asshole.
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        On 1 Oct 00, at 16:37, Michael Tong wrote:



        Tong, shut the fuck up and go away. I'm tired of your stupid ass
        racist horse shit.


        Asshole.



        =======================================================
        Lenny Flank
        "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

        Check out my reptile page:
        http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
        Suncoast Serpentarium
        http://www.geocities.com/suncoastserpentarium/
        Creation "Science" Debunked:
        http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437
      • Allan Myhara
        ... Oh really? You have measured this? What are the units of measurement? ... on ... ... of ... Tong, kids are harmed by strife
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael Tong wrote:

          > Oriental people also like to sing and dance, it's just that they
          > can't dance as well as blacks

          Oh really? You have measured this? What are the units of measurement?

          > Here is an excerpt from the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Sep 11, 2000 based
          on
          > an interview with Judith Wallerstein, a senior lecturer at the
          > School of Social Welfare at UC Berkeley and coauthor of "The
          > Unexpected Legacy of Divorce": "How are these California kids, now
          > that they're 28 to 43? Not so hot.

          <rest of interview deleted>

          > I like to point out that Wallerstein realizes the harmful effects
          of
          > divorce

          Tong, kids are harmed by strife between their parents. And if the
          parents can't live with each other without further strife, then they
          have to divorce to minimize the damage to the kids.

          > but offers no solutions.

          Of course not. Divorce is not a cause of harm.

          > Neither does evolution.

          Evolution has nothing to do with it!
          --
          Bye for now

          Allan Myhara
          Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
        • avann31@hotmail.com
          ... cultural compnent, of course. Societies that frown on individual expression and public dispays of emotion don t dance well, and show an almost total lack
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 1, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In DebunkCreation@egroups.com, "Michael Tong" <mtong@p...> wrote:
            > There is no cultural or racial component to rhythm. There is a
            cultural compnent, of course. Societies that frown on individual
            expression and public dispays of emotion don't dance well, and show
            an almost total lack of "rhythm".
            > David Fisher
            >
            > Oriental societies may frown upon individual expression but I have
            never heard of them frowning upon public displays of emotion.

            And my white relatives who are scientists frown upon showing emotion.

            Precisely what does this have to do with debunking evolution?

            >Notice that you did not show how such a culture would suppress
            rhythm. If such culture suppress rhythm, why would China and Japan
            bother contesting in Olympic ice skating where artistic expression is
            required?

            Completely illogical.

            >I'm sure that ice skaters are very good dancers. Oriental people
            also like to sing and dance, it's just that they can't dance as well
            as blacks and can't produce music that has worldwide appeal.

            I submit your comment is racist. Blacks are seemingly LEADING the
            market in American music. Precisely how, via falsifiable evidence,
            does the color of someone's skin affect their ability to do
            creative things?

            >The best explanation is that Orientals genetically do not have the
            rhythm that blacks have. Evolutionists has to explain why.

            Perhaps you should look into the differences between CULTURAL and
            BIOLOGICAL differences.

            > Beyond that, anyone with half a brain knows that 99% of the music
            you hear on Top 40 radio sucks, and that if you are into music at all
            you don't listen to it. David Fisher
            >
            > This week on Rick Dees' Weekly Top 40 the #1 song was "Jumping,
            Jumping" by Destiny's Child, a black female group. "Kryptonite" by 3
            Doors Down was #2. I didn't hear #3 but it was probably "Music" by
            Madonna. Do you think that these 3 songs suck?

            I fail to see what Madonna has to say about evolution.

            > > Without both biological parents, the first human children would
            not
            > have grown up properly.
            >
            > First define "properly." Aaron
            >
            > Here is an excerpt from the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Sep 11, 2000 based
            on an interview with Judith Wallerstein, a senior lecturer at the
            School of Social Welfare at UC Berkeley and coauthor of "The
            Unexpected Legacy of Divorce": "How are these California kids, now
            that they're 28 to 43? Not so hot. They're afraid to commit to
            relationships, feeling they're doomed to fail at romance. They have
            little tolerance for conflict in their personal lives, believing that
            every argument represents the permanent slamming of a door.
            One-third of them don't want to have children and say they'd never
            want a child to go through what they endured when young. They're
            generally lonely, frightened and often angry at the fathers who
            failed to help them pay for college or at mothers who depended on
            them too much, obliterating their childhoods."

            Just out of curiosity, do you ever quote from a source besides the
            L.A.
            Times? Do you understand that Wallerstein is a sociologist, not an
            evolutionary biologist?

            I asked YOU to define "properly," not Wallerstein. Please answer my
            question. I will consider anything quoted from the L.A. Times as
            invalid, in an effort to force you to examine other sources.

            > I like to point out that Wallerstein realizes the harmful
            effects of divorce but offer no solutions.

            Divorce has nothing to do with evolution. It is a learned, cultural
            value not an evolved, biological one.

            >Neither does evolution which cannot explain why children would
            evolve needing both biological parents for optimum growth, yet the
            parents not evolving the instincts to stay together.

            I believe evolution's precept is to explain the appearance and descent
            of life via selection and variation, not as to why culutural mores
            and values are disintegrating.

            > . Nobody who institued the sexual and social taboos were aware of
            this at the time, they just noticed that there was a lot of bad
            feeling between a lot of people, and so they decided to create a
            rule. And rules come from God, at least for primative peoples (and
            morons). David Fisher
            >
            > If people claim today that two people shouldn't be forced to stay
            together, there is no reason to believe that people would have
            thought differently in the past unless some nonhuman being(s) told
            them that it was a requirement.

            Pure and total speculation. From what historical references
            excluding
            the Bible (notice plural) do you draw your conclusions?
          • Mikey
            ... Of course it is. It is culturally permitted promiscuity with more than one woman. ... So what. That doesn t define what promiscuity is. ... Ha ha ha ha ha
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 2, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              >Bullshit. Tell that to the Muslim and African populations who practice
              >polgamy. I don't see them being descimated.
              >Michael Brass
              >
              >Polygamy is not promiscuity

              Of course it is. It is culturally permitted promiscuity with more than one
              woman.

              > - no one would get venereal disease if everyone in the relationship
              > stayed faithful.

              So what. That doesn't define what promiscuity is.

              >Actually there are restrictions. An Iranian guy I once knew told me that
              >under Islam, if a man marries more than one woman he has to treat all of
              >his wives equally.

              Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! And you believe this?

              I have a Muslim woman working in my department. It is usually the first
              wife who is treated with greater respect than the others.

              >If he buys jewelry for one wife, he has to buy it for all. Obviously,
              >only wealthy men would be able to practice polygamy.

              Bullshit. Do you actually have a clue on how poor "classes" function.


              Michael Brass,
              Archaeology SocSci(Hons), University of Cape Town,
              History BA, U.C.T.,
              ICQ: 44563988.
              ------------------------------------------------
              Co-owner of: Ancient Egypt and World Prehistory
              <http://www.users.directonline.net/~archaeology>
            • David Fisher
              ... compnent, of course. Societies that frown on individual expression and public dispays of emotion don t dance well, and show an almost total lack of
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 2, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                >>>>There is no cultural or racial component to rhythm. There is a cultural
                compnent, of course. Societies that frown on individual expression and
                public dispays of emotion don't dance well, and show an almost total lack of
                "rhythm".
                David Fisher<<<<

                Tong -- Oriental societies may frown upon individual expression but I have
                never heard of them frowning upon public displays of emotion.

                David -- Who said anything about Asian societies? And Japan is as against
                public displays of emotion as you can get.

                Tong -- Notice that you did not show how such a culture would suppress
                rhythm.

                David -- Correct, because I didn't say anything about Asian cultures, first
                off. I was actually referring to Western cultures more than anything, the
                U.S. in particular. Go out and watch people dance, and look at all the
                people trying to dance to the melody of a song.

                Tong -- If such culture suppress rhythm, why would China and Japan bother
                contesting in Olympic ice skating where artistic expression is required?

                David -- The culture itself doesn't "suppress" rhythm. Rhythm is not an
                "either/or" situation. My parents' generation is almost totally soul-less,
                in my view, and yet they produced Fred Estaire and Gene Kelly. GO figure.
                That doesn't mean that my dad can dance at all (he can't, it's hilarious).

                Tong -- I'm sure that ice skaters are very good dancers.

                David -- You are also sure that there are beings out there directing things.

                Tong -- Oriental people also like to sing and dance, it's just that they
                can't dance as well as blacks and can't produce music that has worldwide
                appeal.

                David -- You have got to be the most ignorant, racist idiot I have ever
                encountered.

                Tong -- The best explanation is that Orientals genetically do not have the
                rhythm that blacks have. Evolutionists has to explain why.

                David -- Nope. It doesn't even address the issue. Evolution is a
                biological principle. You are an idiot. ALl human beings have exactly the
                same amount of rhythm.

                >>> Beyond that, anyone with half a brain knows that 99% of the music you
                hear on Top 40 radio sucks, and that if you are into music at all you don't
                listen to it. David Fisher<<<

                Tong -- This week on Rick Dees' Weekly Top 40 the #1 song was "Jumping,
                Jumping" by Destiny's Child, a black female group. "Kryptonite" by 3 Doors
                Down was #2. I didn't hear #3 but it was probably "Music" by Madonna. Do
                you think that these 3 songs suck?

                David -- Yep. They suck ass. I have never even heard of "Destiny's Child"
                (but if Rick Dees plays them they suck by defintion), that Kryptonite song
                is weak at best, and I saw Madonna's video for "Music" but had to change it
                before the end because it (and the song) sucked. I listen to a lot of
                Trance, Jazz, Black Metal, GG Allin, GWAR, and many, many other bands that
                you have never heard of because you get your music spoon-fed to you by Rick
                Dees and the rest of those corporate weenies. It's kind of funny how you
                are all paranoid that there are aliens controlling things, and yet you
                listen to exactly the programming that aliens would be using to control
                people.
                I don't listen to the radio at all, except to listen to the ballgame
                when I can't watch it on television.

                <snip>>>> Nobody who institued the sexual and social taboos were aware of
                this at the time, they just noticed that there was a lot of bad feeling
                between a lot of people, and so they decided to create a rule. And rules
                come from God, at least for primative peoples (and morons). David
                Fisher<<<

                Tong -- If people claim today that two people shouldn't be forced to stay
                together, there is no reason to believe that people would have thought
                differently in the past unless some nonhuman being(s) told them that it was
                a requirement.

                David -- Hey, dumbass: People have not always had the same perception of
                the world that we do now. People thought differently in the past about a
                lot fo different things for a lot of different reasons. You really need to
                read some books. Sheesh.
              • Dave Oldridge
                ... From: Mikey To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Music
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 2, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Mikey" <mikeybrass@...>
                  To: <DebunkCreation@egroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 3:00 PM
                  Subject: Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Music


                  >
                  > >Bullshit. Tell that to the Muslim and African populations who practice
                  > >polgamy. I don't see them being descimated.
                  > >Michael Brass
                  > >
                  > >Polygamy is not promiscuity
                  >
                  > Of course it is. It is culturally permitted promiscuity with more than one
                  > woman.

                  As a part-time sociologist, I would have to disagree. Promiscuity generally
                  connotes general "slooping around." Polygamy (and even polyandry--both were
                  permissible in Tibet, for example) are social institutions that impose
                  implied limitations on sexual behavior.

                  [snip]

                  > I have a Muslim woman working in my department. It is usually the first
                  > wife who is treated with greater respect than the others.

                  Any institution that involves more than one person is apt to develop lines
                  of authority. Polygamous marriages are no exception.

                  > >If he buys jewelry for one wife, he has to buy it for all. Obviously,
                  > >only wealthy men would be able to practice polygamy.
                  >
                  > Bullshit. Do you actually have a clue on how poor "classes" function.

                  Still, few poor Muslims collect four wives. Mohammed, if I recall, was
                  content with one (without whom he would have been a dismal failure).
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.