Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ameera

[1] 2 3
Interzone / Re: 1 in 5 Americans think Obama is Muslim
« on: August 23, 2010, 07:47:44 PM »
The article says they talked to 3003 people. That's more than enough for a serious poll.
Thank you. It might do me some good next time to read more carefully, aye? ;)

Interzone / Re: 1 in 5 Americans think Obama is Muslim
« on: August 22, 2010, 09:23:35 PM »
Now now don't all jump with the crowd here. This post is started off an article full of statistics. And as everyone knows statistics don't really say anything. For all we know this article used a survey of 100 people to study "the American population." Which doesn't really show us anything now does it.

But anyways, in my opinion, Obama is a "Modern Christian." Ya know, one of those people that owns a bible, goes to church on Christmas, and perhaps says grace at dinner time. Not a die-hard like "Real Christians." With that said, he makes comments and decisions based outside of his "Christian" religion (the mosque near Ground Zero).
As a Christian, he'd probably be all anti-mosque, like the bible-bashing, holier-than-thou, child-molesting Christian/Catholics that the protesters are.
As a Muslim, he'd be all for the mosque for "Muslims are people too" reasons.
And as president, he'd be like, "Yeah, okay let's build a mosque to portray our countries diversity and to pretend we aren't overseas killing "terrorist" [*cough cough* and civilian] Muslims.

It's all just a look-good ploy.

And coming back on topic here, Americans are stupid. How else would a great deal of them/us not know what religion the LEADER OF THEIR FRIGGIN COUNTRY IS?!
Oh yeah... it's because we're more concerned about what Snooky is going to do next... or if there is a new Family Guy episode on tonight.

Interzone / Re: Introductions
« on: January 13, 2010, 09:32:56 AM »
I'm Sarah. I'm 18. I ask a lot of questions. I'm a full time student working on getting my Human Services degree. I listen to a lot of symphonic metal and classical, along with some occasional black metal and some guilty pleasures.

Interzone / Re: What is human?
« on: January 06, 2010, 03:33:35 PM »
Sorry to disappoint ;)

And, nothing is wrong with extensive elaboration, especially if you want what you say to be understood and/or considered.

Interzone / Re: What is human?
« on: January 03, 2010, 01:44:35 AM »
I mean being as in "human being" (or other living thing). Solid. Not the idea of "to be."

Interzone / Re: What is human?
« on: January 03, 2010, 01:27:58 AM »
But is a pig's brain not wired to do pig things? Is a bear's not wired to do bear things?
A humans... not wired to do human things?
Theoretically, if this were possible, you would have a brain using a tool (body) meant for something else. It would probably adapt to small things. But the bear with the pig's brain/mind would probably not care for it's young for up to 2 years as bears do. It would do what pigs do with their young.... or so I think.
But that's besides the point.
I suppose the purpose-question of this post can be expanded from "What is human?" To what is "a being?"
What makes a body human? The fact it looks like a human? Is a body not just tool of the mind?
What makes a mind unique to it's being? A bear mind is unique to a bear, a pig's to a pig, a human to a human.
Can a tool used to build a house be considered a part of the house? (Can a body be considered a part of the mind?)

To me, I think the baby without a mind is not human.
And although Burke may be a crackpot on some of his ideals, I believe he is correct in saying a human is a product of the mind. We speak with symbols, we create the negative, we are obsessed with perfection, etc etc.
That is, to some extent, the definition of human. The definition of human thought, human reasoning, human desire, human motive.
This baby..this THING without the mind, the manner in which to go underway with these human things, CANNOT partake in human processes. Which BY DEFINITION makes it unhuman.
All this thing is is a heartbeat and breathing lungs.

Again, I ask WHY is this baby human to you?
(or why not, though no one but me takes that stance so far).

Interzone / Re: What is human?
« on: January 02, 2010, 11:47:13 PM »
The origin of thought doesn't really matter. The fact is that humans think- based off of stimuli reaction or whatever it may be. This baby cannot do so.
It's the same with any creature. A bear is not a bear without the mind of a bear.
If you put the mind of a pig in a bear's body/shell, is it still a bear?
Or if the bear cannot do anything bears do, because it lacks a bear mind, as the baby lacks a baby's mind, can it still be defined as a bear?

Interzone / Re: What is human?
« on: January 02, 2010, 11:07:14 PM »
whoa.....All I can say about that baby, is just whoa....
He is human because he encompasses the body of a human being.

So the only thing that makes a human a human is the body? a shell?
I've always looked at body as a tool to contain the human (or other animals). Like a body is just the thing that holds us together, but does not create us.
I suppose I place a great deal of my definition of human having to do with the mind.

Interzone / Re: What is human?
« on: January 02, 2010, 11:00:40 PM »
Instinctual animals have no need to collaborate or predict the future, but at a certain level of intelligence, they begin doing this.
But that puts things like bees at the same level of intelligence as humans.
They do an elaborative symbolic dance to COLLABORATE to find honey. They work to store food for when the weather gets colder... they PREDICT food will not be available.

It's an artifact of communication: we want the mangoes, not the pomegranates. Pomegranates bad!
I don't really understand what you mean by "artifact."
We use words for words to differentiate between the mango and the pomegranate, but animals do not. They look at both things and think "good to eat, bad to eat" (according to Burke's theory anyways).
I think this goes with the "rotten with perfection"  and hierarchy thing. Humans are not content merely knowing the relevance of something to ourselves "this one is good, this one is bad." Instead, we have names for both in order to create that hierarchy of "this one is WORST, this one is BEST."

(This whole reply of mine is rather irrelevant to the post, but I thought I'd throw my ideas there... maybe have some conversation or something).


He might as well blame memory for the same.

Language, prediction and judgment are all part of being the thinker-aheaders.
I agree

Actually, it's non-hierarchy that produces this. With hierarchy we have role; without it we have status competition.
I think Burke used a poor word-choice here. It's not hierarchy, you're right. But he took the idea of placing things in class, in order, in some sort of low-at-the-bottom, high-at-the-top system.

The baby without a brain is a human... a broken human, like a pedophile, criminal, retard, etc.
But pedos, criminals, retards, etc... have these abilities- but they are morphed or skewed or lacking development. This child does not and will not ever have them at all. He does not have the ability to THINK at all.

Interzone / Re: Future of Deaf Technology/language?
« on: January 02, 2010, 11:02:19 AM »
Finally got to the link! Thanks!
Yes, this was fairly helpful. =)
I'm still not so sure on the relevancy of opening something for deaf related psychological services, but I suppose I can keep looking into it.
Thanks again!

Interzone / What is human?
« on: January 02, 2010, 10:59:59 AM »
What is it that makes a human, well, human- set aside from other creatures that inhabit this planet. The ability to reason? To have and show emotion? To think in terms of multi-step cause and effect analysis?
According to Kenneth Burke, human is:

Being bodies that learn language
thereby becoming wordlings
humans are
the symbol-making, symbol-using, symbol-misusing animal
inventor of the negative
separated from our natural condition
by instruments of our own making
goaded by the spirit of hierarchy
acquiring foreknowledge of death
and rotten with perfection

On Symbols
Burk'se statement of "humans are the symbol-making, symbol-using, symbol-misusing animal." He implies with this that humans are creatures that use symbols as a part of communication, and that other 'animals' do not use symbols in the same way or to the same extent in which humans do.

On Negativity
Humans are the "inventor of the negative." This means that humans, by using morals and ethics to derive a positive and negative aspect to actions, do not have the instinctual actions of animals. Humans have a moral and ethic instinct rather than the "pure" non-negatively or positively induced instinct.

On Separation
Humans are "separated from out natural condition by instruments of our own making." Humans, by creating a language based off of symbols (a word is a symbol for an object) have uniquely distanced themselves from their surroundings. By using "words for words" humans "remove themselves from primary experience."

On the Spirit of Hierarchy
Humans are "goaded by the spirit of hierarchy" in that we seek order and rank, to indulge and to deny, and to find power and superiority and define those who lack such.

On Perfection
Humans are "rotten with perfection." We impulsively seek to understand, to define, and to constantly find our place within life and things related. We find discomfort, even dissonance, when we lack understanding, definition, or self-relevancy in the things we delve upon.

( Thatis my rather quick and poor summary of this website http://www.cla.purdue.edu/dblakesley/burke/human/index.html )

So with that being said I'd like to pose a question of definition. What, to you, is human? And on top of that, is this child human? http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/87/34842/baby-without-brain-celebrates-first-birthday.html 

This baby cannot:
1. Symbolize. Create, analyze, or understand the symbols in which human language and behavior is bred up from.
2. Analyze, understand, or define morals and ethics, thus not understanding the necessary positive and negative value humans see situations from.
3. Communicate and understand things using the complexities of the "words for words" language humans interact with and think within.
4. Order. To seek to define things in a power-related aspect.
5. Define. Seek adequate understandings of things we lack knowledge in, and to find self-relevancy in our lives.

I think, by Burke's definitions it is adequately agreed upon that this child is NOT human. But, what are your own definitions?
If this child is human to you, why?
If this child is not human to you, why not?

Interzone / Re: Future of Deaf Technology/language?
« on: December 29, 2009, 10:42:04 AM »
Unfortunately, I don't have a strong enough internet signal at the moment to load the link, but I will eventually.
That's pretty much what I know. But that is the extent of it. I've tried looking into it a bit further, but still haven't found anything other than "some deaf people like it because it lets them hear, but some don't like it because it changes identity and/or threatens the community."
I need a "why" though. Other than the obvious "because if deaf people can hear the community CHANGES."
Changes how? Why is that threatening? Etc.
I think I'll probably end up having to find some deaf people to interview for this, but, again, if anyone has anything that might help, I'd love it!

Interzone / Future of Deaf Technology/language?
« on: December 23, 2009, 09:52:30 AM »
I've been thinking of trying to start some sort of organization or something that caters to deaf people seeking psychological services.
The thing is, I'm in school right now, and would rather not waste my time taking anymore sign language classes if it will deem irrelevant in 15 years.
With the popularity of the Cochlear implant rising, I would assume the number of people learning sign language is decreasing. (Though I lack solid information here. I only did a quick Google search and couldn't find any useful information).
I'm wondering if anyone here has any information or opinions themselves or if anyone knows of any reputable websites that could shed some light on the topic.
I've only been poorly public-school educated on deaf culture and community, and do not personally know any deaf people in my area. So any information one could provide on the popularity of the Cochlear implant versus sign language, or the relevancy of sign language in the future would be helpful.
(Also, I'm speaking strictly of American Sign Language and it's use in the US).

Interzone / Re: Writers? Readers?
« on: October 14, 2009, 08:57:39 PM »
You didn't take it seriously enough :[ If you were a good troll, you wouldn't have even been noticed. Oh, wait.

I definitely didn't take it seriously, it was just for fun to see what would happen. I was blatantly obvious that I was writing stupid things. I know I could have taken it further and gotten away with it, but I had my fun. I'd rather not fail the course, so I have to be a proper little robot and follow the rules now =P

Outcome 1:
"Professor, what's your Anus username?"
"W-Whaaaah? How did you know?!"

Outcome 2:
"Professor, what's your Anus username?"
"My....anus? That is far from appropriate! One more toe over the line and I will fail you!"

Outcome 3:
"Professor, what's your Anus username?"
*evil laugh* "Step into my office......."
"Uh...Professor, what are you doing with that machete?"

I amuse myself sometimes =D

Interzone / Re: Parent-Child communication
« on: October 12, 2009, 08:16:39 PM »
This is a bit of a side note, but I've always had judgment on the idea of the "perfect childhood."
Most modern parents seem to think that if they keep their children away from "the horrors of the world" and never allow them around, or to be educated about, "bad things" then their child will never turn away from the good upbringing they had even when presented with "bad" stuff (drugs, sex, and rock and roll, right).
But, as I've just passed that stage in life where kids grow up and leave the house, I've noticed many of the people that lived these sheltered childhoods have done the exact opposite, and rebelled. Most the kids from my upper-class high school that were handed what they want on a silver platter, as long as they made their beds in the morning, didn't go on to college, party all of the time, and many are developing drug problems (pills being the particular drug of choice in my town).
It isn't that I advocate shitty childhoods, but I've come to conclude that children need not be blinded by luxuries and "don't look at that homeless man sweetie, he's not good" ignorance of the world.
The parents that kept their children so sheltered are now saying, "I don't know what happened, we never allowed her to act like that at home. We always gave her what she needed. Why is she prostituting herself now? She could just come to us."

[1] 2 3