Forum: Arts / Debates

Page:
Page 2 of 2: 1 2
re: Can we save the planet?
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Wed Dec 08, 2010 03:17 PM
After watching Pen & Teller's Bullsh*t, I'll never buy organic :D It's not safer, healthier, or better for the environment!
re: Can we save the planet?
By pondflyPremium member
On Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:17 AM
Edited by pondfly (218838) on 2010-12-09 00:21:07
I recycle and use reusable bags so I feel better driving my 10 mpg truck :)

As for a nuclear attack, unless the Russia or China is planning on destroying the world (including them) the only chances will be a low yield device done by a rogue group or unstable country.

The response will be a precision device turning the place to a sheet of glass for 10,000 years.
re: Can we save the planet?
By Wicked_Elphabamember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:20 AM
It warms my heart to know that I'm not part of the out of control breeding problem.


It warms my heart too that i'm not, nor will I ever be, part of the out of control breeding problem. :D So that makes me feel better about driving my boyfriend's Avalanche to Trader Joe's with our re-usable bags to get all natural, organic food in recycled containers. :D That we later put out for recycling.
re: Can we save the planet?
By MJeanette
On Sat Dec 11, 2010 06:53 AM
This is an issue I've seen a lot about in my Biology class this semester. My own opinion is that many people (Including my Biology professor) are being narrow-minded and anti-human when they make it sound as if humans are destroying the planet. I don't think people cause as much damage as some people claim. Yes, humans are definitely responsible for a lot of pollution and destruction, and possibly responsible for some climate change, but (At least right now) it's not like we're regurally setting off majorly destructive nucleur bombs. And if we were, we'd destroy all human life, and wouldn't that stop global warming and pollution?
(Sorry for that sarcasm at the end, I couldn't resist)
re: Can we save the planet?
By slice
On Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:24 PM
MJeanette wrote:

This is an issue I've seen a lot about in my Biology class this semester. My own opinion is that many people (Including my Biology professor) are being narrow-minded and anti-human when they make it sound as if humans are destroying the planet. I don't think people cause as much damage as some people claim. Yes, humans are definitely responsible for a lot of pollution and destruction, and possibly responsible for some climate change, but (At least right now) it's not like we're regurally setting off majorly destructive nucleur bombs. And if we were, we'd destroy all human life, and wouldn't that stop global warming and pollution?
(Sorry for that sarcasm at the end, I couldn't resist)


You really think we haven't had an adverse affect on the planet?

Image hotlink - 'http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/380193705_4e21e9ea2a_o.jpg'

^sorry for the crappy quality, but I couldn't find an image of the exact chart that wasn't a printscreen
re: Can we save the planet?
By Munkensteinmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:25 AM
This is an issue I've seen a lot about in my Biology class this semester. My own opinion is that many people (Including my Biology professor) are being narrow-minded and anti-human when they make it sound as if humans are destroying the planet. I don't think people cause as much damage as some people claim. Yes, humans are definitely responsible for a lot of pollution and destruction, and possibly responsible for some climate change, but (At least right now) it's not like we're regurally setting off majorly destructive nucleur bombs. And if we were, we'd destroy all human life, and wouldn't that stop global warming and pollution?
(Sorry for that sarcasm at the end, I couldn't resist)

Yeah, and I took an environmental science class when I was in college that used studies and whatever else to show how much damage humans were indeed doing. It depends on the interpretation/spin a lot of the time.

Have you heard of VHEMT? There are plenty of people who support an end to humans on earth. :)
re: Can we save the planet?
By Wicked_Elphabamember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:40 AM
^ I'm a proud member of the VHEMT. I'm also a proud recipient of the golden snip award! :D
re: Can we save the planet?
By Kekoamember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Sun Dec 12, 2010 01:14 PM
Heart wrote:

After watching Pen & Teller's Bullsh*t, I'll never buy organic :D It's not safer, healthier, or better for the environment!


Oh, it really gets me going when people buy organic bananas shipped in from 2,000 miles away. Buying local and in season produce is so much more important than organic! I will admit though, I generally buy organic boxed meals and snacks because they can't contain GMOs.
re: Can we save the planet?
By hylndlasmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Dec 13, 2010 09:00 AM
Edited by hylndlas (107168) on 2010-12-13 09:02:29 .
Ben and Teller only got part of that right though. Besides they also had a special on how the female Orgasm is a myth. They come up with some crazy stuff those two!

It's not just the carbon footprint issue with Organic food. It's the GMO and pesticide issue I look at. Even food that is certified by the USFDA (and we all know how worthless that label can be)According to several studies still contains less pesticides than commercially grown food. You have to weigh your options. I don't buy Organic bananas because they come from too far away. But I do try to buy things that are hard to wash like Strawberries and Spinach as well as things we consume a lot of like milk or juice.Especially if I can't get them locally.

Sometimes I miss living in Florida because I could pretty much get everything all year round.
re: Can we save the planet?
By Lev_Nougol
On Thu Jan 27, 2011 04:19 AM
I think we have a chance if we act quickly enough.
I'd actually really like to recommend the documentary - Zeitgeist: Moving Forward - to those who are interested not only in how things are, why they are as such, and how we might be able to fix it.
It was just released net-wide yesterday, and I watched it last night.
I'm blown away, for sure.

Um, not sure what proper procedure for linking is here yet?
I'll post it, if it's a problem feel free to remove it please.
zeitgeistmovie.com
re: Can we save the planet? (karma: 1)
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Thu Jan 27, 2011 01:23 PM
Edited by Heart (21721) on 2011-01-27 13:25:54
Ughhh. Zeitgeist is basically indoctrination into conspiracy theory. I couldn't get through the first five minutes, so I can't say I've watched the thing, but here's a complete and thorough debunking. Obviously no one's debunked the one that was just released yesterday, but you get the general idea.

hylndlas, I had no idea Penn & Teller said the female orgasm was Bullsh*t! WTF???? I'll have to watch that episode. They definitely dropped like a zillion points in my book.
re: Can we save the planet?
By Lev_Nougol
On Thu Jan 27, 2011 07:33 PM
Heart wrote:

Ughhh. Zeitgeist is basically indoctrination into conspiracy theory. I couldn't get through the first five minutes, so I can't say I've watched the thing, but here's a complete and thorough debunking. Obviously no one's debunked the one that was just released yesterday, but you get the general idea.

hylndlas, I had no idea Penn & Teller said the female orgasm was Bullsh*t! WTF???? I'll have to watch that episode. They definitely dropped like a zillion points in my book.


I see you have a kneejerk reaction to this.
Admittedly, I usually have a kneejerk reaction to that kind of commentary.
I've worked on myself a lot lately though, so I think I'll give it a different approach.

Firstly, the three films are pretty well independent of one another.
The first had begun as a dark artistic expression.
The second (Addendum) was is more solution oriented.
The Movement, also independent of the films as well.
To judge all of them based on any of them would make little sense.
This is how stereotypes and kneejerk reactions come about, after all.

Second, I imagine it's going to be a while before people can simply 'debunk' neuroscience, behavioral science, systems theory and observable social dynamics, which is what the third film, Moving Forward, is focused on.
Not to mention ecological science, economics, and so on.

Third, I'd recommend those whom are interested learn and decide for themselves, and hey, if you actually weigh (more than five minutes) of the evidence and arrive at a differing conclusion, you're doing well for yourself.

Fourth, the film opens with animated abstract visualizations, film and stock footage, a cartoon and audio quotes about spirituality, followed by clips of war and explosions...that's the first five minutes.
If you made a complete decision about the entire 2 hours of film based on that little tidbit, and immediately set out to find 'complete and thorough' debunking claims...you're not doing so well for yourself.

Fifth, arbitrarily throwing out a site 'debunking' what you yourself have not taken the time to actually consider has several issues, but I'm going right for the most relevant.
That is, I could hunt down links and sources all day and post them here for cross examination of said debunking, perhaps sections by section and word for word, but I don't think that would be appreciated here, and it would also require a topic all its own.
Not to mention it could become a nightmarish flame fest, as it usually does when introduced into public forum.

Don't like Zeitgeist? Fine. But to say it's "basically" anything based on a very vague five minutes of personal viewing and a site which seems to have the very specific role of 'debunking conspiracy theory'...no, I don't get the general idea.

*sigh*

That in mind, I also agree with you.
Penn & Teller lost points with me over that one.

I'd like to add...I do hope that my reply was not offensive to you or anyone else here. :)
re: Can we save the planet?
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Fri Jan 28, 2011 05:19 PM
Edited by Heart (21721) on 2011-01-28 17:20:35
K. Five minutes of Googling "Zeigeist movie" and "Zeigeist review," all first-page responses:

Wikipedia
A review in The Irish Times entitled “Zeitgeist: the Nonsense” wrote that “these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."


"The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular... It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context."


Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, called Zeitgeist "a fast-paced assemblage of agitprop", an example of unethical film-making. She accuses Joseph of deceit through the use of unreferenced and undated assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques.


Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."



GotQuestions
The “Zeitgeist movie,” which is available for viewing on the Web – www.zeitgeistmovie.com, is essentially a baseless conspiracy theory focused on attacking the Christian faith and the government of the United States. What is interesting, though, is that while nearly all the assertions put forth in the movie are completely wrong, the end fear promoted by the movie is correct and backed by Scripture (depending on one’s view of biblical eschatology).



Skeptoid
[The movie] purports to critically examine Christianity, the cause of 9/11, and the world economy. Instead, it paints them all with a single wide stroke of the conspiracy paintbrush... The problem with the film, as has been roundly pointed out by academics worldwide, is that many of the conspiratorial claims and historical references are outright fictional inventions.


For a long time, people have been asking me to do a Skeptoid episode about Zeitgeist. I've resisted, mainly because it's so poorly researched that I didn't feel it deserved any response from legitimate science journalism.
That's also why I haven't bothered watching it.

Think or Thwim
Get your tin foil hats.
Really all that needs saying.

I honestly didn't see anything saying there was any validity to the movie.
re: Can we save the planet?
By Live_on_Broadway
On Fri Jan 28, 2011 05:53 PM
How has no one posted this yet? (PG-13 for language.)

re: Can we save the planet?
By panicmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Fri Jan 28, 2011 06:25 PM
Edited by panic (116436) on 2011-01-28 18:40:42 i added stuff. duh.
My friend recommended Zeitgeist to me, but I couldn't get through it. Can't remember why, but I only watched the first 5 minutes. Maybe I'll try to watch it again after I have a few margaritas or something.

And uhhhh... I believe Penn & Teller debunked female EJACULATION. Not female orgasm.

My own opinion is that many people (Including my Biology professor) are being narrow-minded and anti-human when they make it sound as if humans are destroying the planet. I don't think people cause as much damage as some people claim. Yes, humans are definitely responsible for a lot of pollution and destruction, and possibly responsible for some climate change, but (At least right now) it's not like we're regurally setting off majorly destructive nucleur bombs. And if we were, we'd destroy all human life, and wouldn't that stop global warming and pollution?
Awww sweetie, aren't you cute? Please cite your sources (as if) so we can discuss. I'm especially interested in the part about the nucleur bombs.

edit: forgot to mention - I come from a farming family, and even I can't usually get my hands on fresh, local produce. My grandparents ate that way until the early 90s, but they lived in a rural community, and all their friends were farmers. So they all just traded produce amongst themselves (and thankfully, they shipped a lot of it to their appreciative grandchildren). The dirty little secret about a lot of vegetables is that you have to either cook them or freeze them on the same day they're harvested. If you don't, the nutritional value degrades precipitously. So if you're worried about nutrition, you're usually better off buying frozen vegetables than fresh.

On the other hand, a recent study showed that green, leafy vegetables actually improve their nutrition if you leave them under fluorescent lights for a few days. Go figure. My point is that people who INSIST on organic or INSIST on local or INSIST on fresh produce are ideologues - not nutritionists or ecologists. There is really no way for any of us to know which are the most nutritious or the most environmentally friendly vegetables. Unless you have your own organic garden in your back yard like my grandparents did.
re: Can we save the planet?
By Lev_Nougol
On Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:15 PM
Heart wrote:

K. Five minutes of Googling "Zeigeist movie" and "Zeigeist review," all first-page responses:

Wikipedia
A review in The Irish Times entitled “Zeitgeist: the Nonsense” wrote that “these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."


"The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular... It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context."


Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, called Zeitgeist "a fast-paced assemblage of agitprop", an example of unethical film-making. She accuses Joseph of deceit through the use of unreferenced and undated assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques.


Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."



GotQuestions
The “Zeitgeist movie,” which is available for viewing on the Web – www.zeitgeistmovie.com, is essentially a baseless conspiracy theory focused on attacking the Christian faith and the government of the United States. What is interesting, though, is that while nearly all the assertions put forth in the movie are completely wrong, the end fear promoted by the movie is correct and backed by Scripture (depending on one’s view of biblical eschatology).



Skeptoid
[The movie] purports to critically examine Christianity, the cause of 9/11, and the world economy. Instead, it paints them all with a single wide stroke of the conspiracy paintbrush... The problem with the film, as has been roundly pointed out by academics worldwide, is that many of the conspiratorial claims and historical references are outright fictional inventions.


For a long time, people have been asking me to do a Skeptoid episode about Zeitgeist. I've resisted, mainly because it's so poorly researched that I didn't feel it deserved any response from legitimate science journalism.
That's also why I haven't bothered watching it.

Think or Thwim
Get your tin foil hats.
Really all that needs saying.

I honestly didn't see anything saying there was any validity to the movie.



Wow, I see a whole lot of ad hominem and media sensationalism, for starters.
That's pretty easy, we can sling dirt at anything anytime.
"baseless accusations! that's ridiculous! conspiracy theories! blasphemy!"
And it can go on all day...and it's beside the point.

Oh, almost forgot, here's the '09 article of the NY Times, which was actually present to attend at the first live Z-Day Event.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html

Now, that was actually a rather respectable article, withholding ad hominem and keeping trap words at nearly a minimum.
I guess you didn't look hard enough...but hey, feel free to discredit the NY Times too while you're at it.

Really all that needs saying.

Anyway, you seem to be stuck on the first film...when it was actually the second film, Addendum, and more-so the third film, Moving Forward, which bear the most relevance to the topic.

The topic being, 'can we save the planet?'
Supported by 'how?'

We're not going to get anywhere exclaiming "ewww, that's icky. Nuh uh, you're icky!"
So, we can spew ad hominem and build straw men all day...which seems to do a wonderful job of solving problems...
Or we can try critical thinking, deductive reasoning, the scientific method applied to the sociological and ecological systems we live in...and so on.

Clearly you abhor the first film, despite having admitted you've only seen five minutes of the two hour duration, subsequently prejudging the entire series and all things related by name or reputation...duly noted.

Again, I only recommend consideration of others, that they may see the film(s)/movement if they so choose, and decide for themselves.

And hey, if you want to bring religion into it to and pray for world peace, I think that sounds perfectly wonderful as well.
One thing I think we could all use a little more of is that brotherhood and good will stuff.
I'm all for it. :)
re: Can we save the planet?
By Lev_Nougol
On Sat Jan 29, 2011 05:05 PM
panic wrote:

My friend recommended Zeitgeist to me, but I couldn't get through it. Can't remember why, but I only watched the first 5 minutes. Maybe I'll try to watch it again after I have a few margaritas or something.

And uhhhh... I believe Penn & Teller debunked female EJACULATION. Not female orgasm.


Yeah, one size does not fit all, and a lot of the content of the first film is very difficult to digest.
The second is less difficult, but has its share.
I very much enjoyed the third above all though, and that's the one I recommend to people ad this topic in particular. :)

Female ejac? No way! *look of utter defeat*
Page:
Page 2 of 2: 1 2

ReplySendWatch

Powered by XP Experience Server.
Copyright ©1999-2021 XP.COM, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS