George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Imagine
May 29, 2011 18:46:19 GMT 10
Post by George on May 29, 2011 18:46:19 GMT 10
there are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? There are those who look at things as they are, and ask "why ?" There are others who dream of things that might be and ask "why not ?" ...and then there are those who look at things as they are, see them as they are not, and engage in incessant delusional speculation on the subject.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 30, 2011 6:38:21 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 30, 2011 6:38:21 GMT 10
there are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? There are those who look at things as they are, and ask "why ?" There are others who dream of things that might be and ask "why not ?" ...and then there are those who look at things as they are, see them as they are not, and engage in incessant delusional speculation on the subject. A secessionist or Fourth Worlder is a person who essentially sees things as they are, and asks "why?" Then, of course, he tries to change the way things are, because 'reality' is never 'utopia'. At best, 'reality' is the 'utopia' of the few (like certain Manhattan postal code areas), just as 'unreality' can be the 'dystopia' of the many (like the former Soviet Union). A micronationalist or Fifth Worlder is a person who sees how things could be, in a way anticipating the future, and asks "why not?" Then, of course, he tries to build the things that didn't even exist. Sometimes he may not succeed. I am the latter person, not the former. I am an active micronationalist, and only a curator/historian of macronationalism. If there is anyone delusional here, it is those who interpret my genuine 'utopia'... [/url]; 5. A saint who has delivered miracles, though not after his death, but during his lifetime, and a saint which even an atheist can appreciate, even a feminist, even a Hindu or a Buddhist.[/ul]...as 'unreality', without showing any evidence of the fictiveness of my 'utopia', and without even being fully aware of the difference between 'unreality', which is the opposite of 'reality', and 'dystopia', which is the opposite of 'utopia'.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 30, 2011 7:06:07 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 30, 2011 7:06:07 GMT 10
Your generalisation does not take into account the very real Judgement Day ( Yom HaDin). If everybody is a God, then Judgement Day would be absurd. I am afraid it is. ;D I guess Judgement Day would be absurd if you thought man was a creature of nature, and thus not obliged to follow any other rule besides the one's of the natural world. Here is some evidence human beings are probably as natural as AquAdvantage® salmon: Human Devolutionscholar.ac/humandevolution.htmlHuman Longevity Compared to Mammalsscholar.ac/human_longevity_vs_mammals.html
|
|
|
Post by Duke Casimir on Jun 2, 2011 1:45:40 GMT 10
[quote […]Every good micronationalist is basically a Robert F. Kennedy at the core: There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? Actually, sir, this quote is attributed to John[/] Kennedy, not Robert (unless he was quoting from his brother, which I’m given to understand, he did, when appropriate.
And to the Monarch of Dagostina (sp): it is probably more true that, although most countries give everyone the freedom of speech, no one is obligated to listen to you (There; that sounds better).
|
|
Dagostinia
Full Member
Monarchy of Dagostinia
Posts: 114
|
Post by Dagostinia on Jun 2, 2011 1:50:40 GMT 10
Thank you Duke Casimir. I was trying to be a touch more poetic with a repetitive use of phrases but your spin on it is much more clear. Case in point is most of this thread. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Jun 3, 2011 4:40:17 GMT 10
[quote […]Every good micronationalist is basically a Robert F. Kennedy at the core: There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? Actually, sir, this quote is attributed to John[/] Kennedy, not Robert (unless he was quoting from his brother, which I’m given to understand, he did, when appropriate.Quoting Wikiquote ( source): Though Kennedy stated that he was quoting George Bernard Shaw when he said this, he is often thought to have originated the expression, which actually paraphrases a line delivered by the Serpent in Shaw's play Back To Methuselah : “You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’". Robert's brother Edward famously quoted it (paraphrasing it even further), to conclude his eulogy to his late brother after his assassination (8 June 1968): Some men see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not? So the truth is that Robert F. Kennedy said those very words, and he was paraphrasing a line delivered by the Serpent in Shaw's play, Back To Methuselah.
|
|
|
Post by Duke Casimir on Jun 3, 2011 6:11:23 GMT 10
Sir:
Simply because the "Great Wiki" says so doesn't automatically make it so. I am myself not going by anything written in the enormous Internet, but by my own memory. When I was much younger, I was an avid fan of John F. Kennedy, and I remember the speech he gave when he said this one phrase. I did not know, nor was it important to me at the time, where he got it; it impressed me because of who he was, if nothing else.
I still use my memory; only if I need to do I refer to the WWW. That is why, although blind, I still have vast amounts of information memorized, if a subject I am interested in.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 3, 2011 6:29:02 GMT 10
It's all about context.
The fact of the matter is that the only reason anyone alive today has heard the expression, is because Robert Kennedy used it.
Had he not, it'd just be another obscure line in another obscure play by Shaw.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Jun 3, 2011 7:16:00 GMT 10
I concur with George on this one. There is nothing wrong with bringing forth one's memory. That's what the oral traditions of the not so ancient past were all about. Through the oral traditions, facts and ideas were kept alive from one generation to the next, although it was not necessarily an accurate way of preserving knowledge, as at least some details were either forgotten by the time the old-timers taught the young, or they were not remembered faithfully. Today when the purpose is similar, to convey something witnessed first hand, and usually not something witnessed via a medium like radio or TV, we use the word 'anecdote'. However, anecdotal evidence can only be used to reenforce the evidence of something for which there is no scientific or rational evidence, and you would need a lot of anecdotal evidence (ie, multiple sources) to provide reasonably compelling evidence of any kind. You cannot use anecdotal evidence about stuff said by someone who wasn't 'Uncle Tom', 'Aunt Sally', or even your great grandfather. For people of historical record, you can only back your assertion with a reference and/or source. It isn't a perfect way of examining the evidence, but it is a lot more dependable than pure hearsay. Academically the reference should be in book form ideally, but you can also use fairly authoritative/reliable Internet sources in contexts where such resources are also available. Otherwise your assertion is little more than an allegation, to use legal words, a statement without proof, or not supported by evidence. Actually, since the author of the quote I used was immaterial to the argument I was trying to make, because the argument was about micronationalism, and not the Kennedy's, or even the complex and brilliant George Bernard Shaw, then your attack is little more than a Straw Man.
|
|
|
Post by Duke Casimir on Jun 4, 2011 1:33:13 GMT 10
Actually, since the author of the quote I used was immaterial to the argument I was trying to make, because the argument was about micronationalism, and not the Kennedy's, or even the complex and brilliant George Bernard Shaw, then your attack is little more than a Straw Man. Sir, Actually, my comments were in the form of disagreement, and not used as any kind of an “attack.” Despite my disability, sir, I am physically still capable of defense to a reasonable amount of expertise (of course, after having the emminent Ralph Faulkner as my fencing instructor, before his death, I’m not about to allow my sword skills to deteriorate). Mind you, I’m not attacking either you, or George,but if I had, there would be no mistake about it. Duke Casimir Skyhunter P.S. It is, of course, quite possible that my memory is a tad faulty on a subject I haven’t perused for over forty years. If so, I apologize, of course (after all, I was less than ten years old at the time I remembered hearing the speech . These things happen….)
|
|