• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Science is bad and must be destroyed"

Resume said:
Yeah, it seems out of context; there has to be more to her argument. As I said earlier, I originally thought her an undergrad but I now think she is actually and educator and as such, a more complete argument is expected.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about the speaker being an educator?

The university seems to use "faculty" in the same way that other universities use "school", "college", or "division", so "in the Faculty of Science" doesn't necessarily mean "on the Faculty of Science".
 
mijopaalmc said:
Are you sure about the speaker being an educator?
Click to expand...
No, not sure, but something in her vocabulary and the way she frames her argument makes me think "course description."

The university seems to use "faculty" in the same way that other universities use "school", "college", or "division", so "in the Faculty of Science" doesn't necessarily mean "on the Faculty of Science".
Click to expand...
No, which is why we need a wider context.

ETA: Probably a student.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...ca-feesmustfall-movement-160205083002040.html
http://www.iol.co.za/mercury/fallists-need-future-view-too-1995621
http://www.mlaxconsulting.com/education/should-fallists-get-time-of-day/
 
Last edited:
ShadowSot said:
Already been waved off. Kerma or Nubia might be accepted, but probably going to have the line pushed to exclude them as well.
Always thought the Nubian pyramids were nicer looking, personally.
Click to expand...

The civilizations and societies of what is now Sudan are not necessarily sub-Saharan. Though I'm not sure exactly how much that actually matters.
 
casebro said:
Go ahead, point out something "great" that ever came out of sub-sahara africa*. Sanitation? Engineering? Medicine? Timekeeping?
Click to expand...

Between slavery, geography, colonialism and the other limitations (see Diamond) there's no point comparing building size.

It wasn't that Europeans were smarter, it's because they stole the very labour and materials that bought them ample free time to spend on science and tech.

My arguement re: the OP is that No, colonials didn't steal anything, there wasn't anything worth stealing. Rhodes' opinion of a lost city is not pertinant, though the existance of the city could be.
Click to expand...

They stole the land. They stole the minerals. They stole all the wood, so much wood. They stole the very freedom of the people they displaced. They stole any chance of an organic civilization forming. All of this not alone in South Africa.

You know — all the unimportant stuff.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Saying that someone not doing something is being hypocritical is a form of insisting that their (sic) person do the thing that you say their (sic) not doing is hypocritical. It may not be an explicit insistence but it does provide the person who made the assertion plausible deniability when they want to say that they didn't answer.
Click to expand...
That was all but undecipherable, sorry.

Passing judgement on someone's behavior contains an implicit suggestion that they change their behavior.
Click to expand...

I for one would insist that people on their soap box not engage in such utter hypocrisy as this speaker was.

Do you not consider it hypocritical to complain and demand starting over with respect to science, while all the time taking full advantage of the technology that this very science has brought into present existence? If not, why not?

That aside, I do not see how science is subjugating Africans in the present. Yes in the past the use of firearms, sailing ships, navigation sciences, and iron-working were all used to enable the slave trade and/or administer colonial governments. In the present however, there are no European colonies in Africa.

That said, how her bringing Newton's discovery of the laws of motion and gravity into this topic is, for me, beyond comprehension.
 
Resume said:
She was talking about how practitioners of black magic could send lightning to strike a person and wanted to know how science could explain that. In response the guy said "it's not true." Which of course it isn't. It's hard to tell whether the instantaneous response to his comment was an objection to this example of arrogant western science or his breaking one of the rules, or both. Probably both.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::eek::eek::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Then this thread should be in the conspiracies section as arranging such cozy forums that will not put up with contrary views is very typical of conspiracy theorist web forums.

Or perhaps it should be in the religion or paranormal sections as per her invoking of a supernatural ability.

He is correct, there may be witch doctors who can call upon lightning to strike a person. I highly doubt that the success rate of those invocations is better than pure chance.
 
jaydeehess-

When you use the gerund-źwhich is a participle that functions as a noun--you can use the possessive form personal pronoun. There the phrase "their [...] <gerund>" is not grammatically incorrect and does not need me need to be marked with (sic)--especially since you used "her bringing up" in your response.
 
jaydeehess said:
:confused::confused::eek::eek::rolleyes::rolleyes:
. . . as arranging such cozy forums that will not put up with contrary views is very typical of conspiracy theorist web forums.
Click to expand...

Well, the moderator did say " . . . by doing that, you're disrespecting the sacredness of this space . . . what you're trying to do is collapse this space and make it antagonizing."

In other words cozy. No word if they had their blankees.
 
mijopaalmc said:
jaydeehess-

When you use the gerund-źwhich is a participle that functions as a noun--you can use the possessive form personal pronoun. There the phrase "their [...] <gerund>" is not grammatically incorrect and does not need me need to be marked with (sic)--especially since you used "her bringing up" in your response.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see that. The first "their" was meant to be a "the" though, was it not?

Even with this explanation though, the paragraph is so convoluted as to be nigh on undecipherable, imho. While I accept that you may have meant to use "their " in the second instance, when I read it I have a hard time fitting that use into the sentence. While it is still very odd, to me it looked like you wanted "they're".
 
Resume said:
Well, the moderator did say " . . . by doing that, you're disrespecting the sacredness of this space . . . what you're trying to do is collapse this space and make it antagonizing."

In other words cozy. No word if they had their blankees.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that would have helped them deal with it. She makes the extraordinary claim that some people can call down lightning strikes at will and takes great umbrage when challenged on the claim. Wow, good thing he didn't shout out "prove it".

I watched again and marvel at the fact that she uses her not belonging to the science faculty as a badge of honour is her fight against science. This is, imho, the African equivalent of the creationist battle with science.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Ok, I see that. The first "their" was meant to be a "the" though, was it not?

Even with this explanation though, the paragraph is so convoluted as to be nigh on undecipherable, imho. While I accept that you may have meant to use "their " in the second instance, when I read it I have a hard time fitting that use into the sentence. While it is still very odd, to me it looked like you wanted "they're".
Click to expand...

I admit that it might have been better stated it in another way, but I think that pointing out real or not so real grammatical errors is not as productive as just saying that you didn't understand it.

Regardless, gerunds function as nouns and take the possessive pronoun. It could also be argued that the participle is actually a participial adjective describing "the thing that you say". However, since the pronoun is an object of a verb, the proper case for the pronoun in the objective case making the word "them" not "their".

Grammatical minutiae aside, the sentences stylistic Lee obscene and poorly proof bread and, if I intend to communicate by the written word in the future Kama I should consider writing more clearly. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom