Englebertnightingale
Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011
|
Hi everyone. I hope you slept well. I tend to disappear and reemerge due to the time difference. So I hope nobody else besides Funkrae interprets this as me 'dropping the whole thing' and then picking it up again. This is what I am doing but simply for the reason that I need sleep in between.
I'm still profoundly thrilled to be a part of this debate and forum with such a diversity of different thinkers, and certainly some very comedic ones. On a few occassions now I have been called a 'troll'. Being new to this movie website subculture, I'm not really sure what that means.
When I think of trolls, I tend to think back to one of my favourite films, that is 1988's Willow, in which Mad Mordagan is explaining the situation of the cursed castle to Willow when subsequently he stands in fresh troll feces. 'Trolls' he says grimly, to which a bewildered Willow replies 'I hate trolls.' as he surveys the barren plaza.
Anyway I digress. Those in the know, enlighten me, please. What do you mean by 'troll'?
Okay let's rebutt!
I was surprised to see the return of Funkrae who is sounding well and truly tired of this debate.
Funkyrae (1)
quote:
Well unless what's been going into the water has only been going in through the timeline of somebody he knows then it's acceptable.
Said a still bittered Funkyrae.
My sarcastic rebuttals will now commence. (fighting fire with fire and sarcasm with sarcasm)
That's right because I don't believe in history, oh wait, that's not right. I do believe in history, I also believe in questioning it. But the only history I believe we really need to talk about for the purposes of this debate are the historical claims of the Bible. right?
quote:
Twice you've dropped the whole thing only to come back in and pick an argument again.
I'm like a dog with a bone.
quote:
OK fine, you have your opinions and no matter how idiotic and moronic they are...
You really think my opinions are idiotic and moronic. I dare say that hurts.
quote:
considering you refuse to argue with any evidence or fact....
Please enlighten me, where am I missing fact and evidence?
quote:
you are entitled to them.
You don't need to tell me this. I know.
If you tire of this debate, why not go and see what's happening in the Nanny Mcphees Big Bang sequel rumourmill forum? You don't have to be here. Perhaps you could start a push for a Clash of the Hittites movie?
If however you would like to stay, I would be most honoured to continue discussing with you the deeper ramifications of a Noahs Ark movie.
Dirk Miggler (1)
quote:
I'm having visions of a farmer. Field of Dreams, "if you build it THEY will come" type vibe ! Could be cool !
Yes it could be cool and it could also be very uncool and religious propaganda, which in my opinion is not cool at all.
At this point let's review a definition of propaganda.
propaganda |ˌpräpəˈgandə|
noun
1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view : he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.
• the dissemination of such information as a political strategy : the party's leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary .
2 ( Propaganda) a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV.
ORIGIN Italian, from modern Latin congregatio de propaganda fide ‘congregation for propagation of the faith’ ( see sense 2). Sense 1 dates from the early 20th cent.
I'm interested in the first meaning. lets analyse it shall we. information. Okay a movie is a source of information. agreed? everyone? can we agree on that? right!
Subsequently it goes on to say ...of a biased or misleading nature. This remains to be seen right? we don't know if it will be biased or misleading. Saavy? It certainly could be though.
Next part '...to promote or publicize a particular cause or point of view.'
Okay well here I will argue, and please target this argument in your future rebuttals. I will argue that simply by perpetuating this myth, fable, historical event and scientific claim (all of which it is to different people) You are validating it's value to the 40% of creationists in the USA who believe this was a true event. As such it is a step backwards for the honest scientific community who are struggling to popularize the true story of animal migration. THe consequences of this understanding or misunderstanding of the world around us are of paramount importance to how we understand the biodiversity of this planet which is threatened.
Yes, I agree the people who see it as pure myth may enjoy it, but as an Aronofsky film I don't believe it will be a family film. I may be wrong. Hold me to it by all means.
The next part of the number 1 definition of propaganda is the dissemination of such information as a political strategy.
Regardless of Aronofskys take on it, I believe that this is what it is, a political strategy. A political strategy in that it is perpetuating the popularisation of this myth that is specific to the three major religious cults. A myth of great importance to their understanding of the world and their cultural traditions understanding of the world. Meanwhile American native Indians view on this topic is silenced because they are a minority group. They are but one example that I use since I have previously used them to illustrate this point.
Yes, i know about the flood myths being everywhere but, i'll say it again, I don't believe that a universality of flood myths is relevant. I'm more interested in the animal migration aspect and the religious claims about it..
Okay now I'll review some of deviations rebuttals last night.
quote:
All I got was "THIS FILM SHOWS A BIBLICAL STORY IT'S PROPAGANDA", which is nonsense
That was one thread of the tapestry that has been my argument. It leaves out the validation of the social and religious groups beliefs and worldviews. This point is more important, and one that I don't believe you have the compassion to understand. I might be wrong, but it comes up a few times in your rebuttals so lets press on and see.
quote:
I have no idea what you mean, yes, only a finite number of countries actually tries to cater for every minority (maybe add Germany and the UK to that list, I kinda forgot them while I was posting).
This seems like very difficult information to verify. Are you sure you know so much about the cinematic output of all of these countries: Germany, U.K, Iran, et al.? Or do you simply watch and engage in popular films from these countries regularly?
It's a very nationalistic way of thinking and doesn't really account for our current globalised society. Hollywood itself is comprised of a lot of different people from different places. Take The Truman Show as an example. A seemingly Hollywood film due to it's production company. Yet it had an Australian director, a New Zealander writer, and a Canadian lead actor. Can you call it an american film? How do you qualify films in this way these days? I don't think you can. But What is certain is that Hollywood as an industry is markedly western. It is also comprised of a large Jewish population, behind the scenes and in front of the camera, It can casually produce a film that draws heavily from the Christian religion but any other religious source material simply wouldn't be used.
Tony Gatlif, I believe is a French filmmaker but his films span the borders of Europe and Africa as he presents films about minority groups including the Roma. He is another example of trans-national film-making.
quote:
According to the ones set here, i.e., films that deal with Jewish faith and religion. Something that deals with a political crisis or conflict wouldn't count.
Right so you're setting rules for this discussion/debate are you? That's interesting. Are there any other rules I need to know?
quote:
And clearly you missed the point. Nobody is saying Rushdie has a greater opinion than your friend from the slums, it's saying that people who live or lived there, who are from that region itself, were critical of the film and its plot. The example was to show of criticism to show that some people from India itself were not impressed by the film and not to override your friend's opinion. This. Was. Not. Just. From. Critics. And. Scholars.
I don't really feel the need to re-argue this point. I think it was quite clear what you said and what I said. Perhaps someone else could objectively analyse this thread of the debate and offer their fresh unbiased opinion. DazDaman don't bother, because you two are like Brokeback Mountain buddies.
quote:
Yeah, considering anyone who considers the story nothing but a myth will still think it is a myth afterwards. So nothing on Earth will be changed.
Nothing on Earth will be changed with the people who believe it is a myth. Right.
However, I'm not concerned about the people who think that Noah is a myth. I never said that this is a kind of propaganda that brainwashes people into believing in Noahs Ark. To make that claim is to entirely misunderstand propaganda, see the definition above and also to entirely misunderstand my argument.
So for your convenience here it is again.
40% of Americans believe in creationism. That the world is roughly 10 million years old and that we did not evolve from apes, but rather were created by a supernatural designer.
Here is a link that verifies that percentage and provides more information on this ridiculous and dangerous way of understanding the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Noahs Ark is a biblical myth/story/historical account (depending on how you want to interpret it personally I opt for the fourth namely a load-of-shit) from the bible.
Biblical literalists are people who take the bible literally. I.e Moses parted water, Jesus walked on water and turned water to wine, and possibly performed other magic tricks with an aquatic theme as it was apparently quite popular at the time.
Biblical literalists believe in creationism as it is stated in the Bible.
For more information on the Bible. Ricky Gervais explains it in basic terms here:
http://www.snotr.com/video/4351/Ricky_Gervais_-_The_Bible
A film like Noahs Ark, irregardless of how Aronofsky treats the material, as stated previously, further popularizes and validates the importance of this myth/story/historical event/ rubbish scientific explanation, in the realm of our shared western popular culture.
If you are of that 40% in the U.S.A or a creationist elsewhere, this will likely be a validation of your beliefs and their importance in our shared popular culture.
If you are agnostic, and you are interested in this myth and see the film, you are embracing its value and the value of the Judeo-Christian myths that permeate and dominate our shared popular culture.
If you are a minority group, with a different world-view and spiritual understanding, then you will continue to be marginalised.
If you are an non-theist you might recognise that the perpetuation of this ridiculous story serves only to block our collective understanding of evolution, animal migration and humanity's place in ecology, and our ecological responsibilities in the century ahead.
If like me you want to rise and meet the ecological challenges of this century then you see this literal belief in this story by people across the world as a block in the road to rising to this challenge.
quote:
That's because agnosticism has nothing to do with the position of belief but that of doubt, genius.
Do you have doubts about something? what are they? I'm earnestly interested.
quote:
Oh, and you are somewhat forced to be baptized here and it's somewhat expected by every member of the society from birth, you don't really have a choice.
That sux, I'm very much against that kind of religious pressure.
quote:
So Chad is the country that releases most films a year? No, it isn't.
I'm making a point that Chad is a country that has no cultural capital.
quote:
No, explain more on why it wasn't effective, Also, which version did you see?
It was a historical story. I don't know enough about this history. Perhaps Funkyrae could discuss what this film was about and whether it was historically accurate. He's a history guru.
Rebenectomy (1)
quote:
No, it was Moses who did that.
I think you're mistaken, you mean to say that you believe Moses did that because you take the stories in the bible literally.
I believe that neither Moses or Jesus performed those miracles, because there is no evidence for it and they are as far as we know scientifically impossible
|
Printable Version
RE: Rebuttals - 
RE: Religious Propaganda - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread