a TED.com awesomeness! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

GreedyTop -> a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 12:55:21 AM)

http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran.html



rulemylife -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 12:51:55 PM)

So what she is giving is her interpretation.

Which is just the same as the fanatics who interpret it to mean the opposite.

That's why I can't understand people who base their lives on books written by those from an ancient culture.

But she is an entertaining speaker.



Kirata -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 1:12:28 PM)

I liked this observation....

The fact that so few people do actually read the Koran is precisely why it's so easy to quote, that is, to misquote; phrases and snippets taken out of context in what I call the "hi-liter" version, which is the one favored by both muslim fundamentalists and anti-muslim islamophobes.

Different book, same shit.

K.



rulemylife -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 1:18:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I liked this observation....

The fact that so few people do actually read the Koran is precisely why it's so easy to quote, that is, to misquote; phrases and snippets taken out of context in what I call the "hi-liter" version, which is the one favored by both muslim fundamentalists and anti-muslim islamophobes.

Different book, same shit.

K.


Exactly.

"Different book, same shit".

But it is no different than the whole founding fathers thing and the documents they wrote, it's all subject to interpretation.

Yet we have people on all sides of both the religious and political spectrum declaring their interpretation is correct.





Moonhead -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 1:23:18 PM)

Hell, you even have people declaring that any interpretation of the constitution that differs in anyway from their own is not just incorrect, but proof that the speaker is a stooge of the evil ZOG administered by the Queen and Goldman Sachs...



Kirata -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 1:39:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

it's all subject to interpretation.

Well, no. Just because some people will misuse a text rather than seeking to understand it does not mean that it is subject to any interpretation you like. It just means that some people will disregard that fact and interpret it to suit their purposes anyway.

K.



rulemylife -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 2:11:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

it's all subject to interpretation.

Well, no. Just because some people will misuse a text rather than seeking to understand it does not mean that it is subject to any interpretation you like. It just means that some people will disregard that fact and interpret it to suit their purposes anyway.

K.


Nope, don't agree.

Pick out any document you want, historic or recent, and you will get a myriad of different interpretations.

Remember those "death panels" in the health care bill?

Whether people choose to interpret something based on their beliefs is irrelevant to my point that there are no absolutes.






Musicmystery -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 4:09:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

it's all subject to interpretation.

Well, no. Just because some people will misuse a text rather than seeking to understand it does not mean that it is subject to any interpretation you like. It just means that some people will disregard that fact and interpret it to suit their purposes anyway.

K.


Nope, don't agree.

Pick out any document you want, historic or recent, and you will get a myriad of different interpretations.

Remember those "death panels" in the health care bill?

Whether people choose to interpret something based on their beliefs is irrelevant to my point that there are no absolutes.


That hardly means their imagined meanings are valid or even defensible.

We get this nonsense out of the way on day one of undergraduate literature courses. Can you invent some way anything means whatever? Sure. Can you show how the entire work systematically supports this? Opps.

That's why a Jesus about love and forgiveness is a better interpretation of the New Testament than that eating mushroom pizza will get you into heaven, for example.



rulemylife -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 4:21:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That hardly means their imagined meanings are valid or even defensible.

We get this nonsense out of the way on day one of undergraduate literature courses. Can you invent some way anything means whatever? Sure. Can you show how the entire work systematically supports this? Opps.

That's why a Jesus about love and forgiveness is a better interpretation of the New Testament than that eating mushroom pizza will get you into heaven, for example.


Unfortunately yes, you can support many different interpretations unless you want to believe that your interpretation is the only correct one.

Or you use ridiculous examples about pizza.



Musicmystery -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/18/2011 4:38:04 PM)

Unfortunately, no, you cannot support any interpretation, and no, that doesn't mean there's only one.

It does mean silly examples like pizza and silly assertions like yours can't be supported.

And that's the difference.

Or if you insist, then I interpret your words to mean that you apologize, that that I'm absolutely correct. Come on. Language would then be pointless.



BenevolentM -> RE: a TED.com awesomeness! (1/24/2011 5:07:41 PM)

As I've pointed out in another thread few works are structurally sound; consequently, if you are interested enough in proving your point it means there will be a way to do it. In this regard religion and law have something in common. That is why zealots often go off the deep end. They assume that the foundation from which they draw meaning is structurally sound when it isn't.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875