Have you every listened to vinyl records? I still do. Even the best of them played on a really good stereo had some quirky imperfections. I personal think that was better.

Not many of the old groups and singers made very complicated music back then, so there was not that much information to cram into the mix. That was the beauty of the old stuff, they did wonderful things simply.
There are some Jimi Hendrix live concerts that came out on 33 albums, the noise of the crowds was part of the magic. One one of them you could hear him dancing across the stage as the music went from one speaker to the other and back again. I heard a remastered version of it and I can honestly say it was crap. they had down toned the background sounds and it sounded more like a studio recording than a live one.

So where the freaking hell is it??

And I feel sorry for every single one of them. — frank

They are nearly all happy about my classes and I really doubt that they would welcome your pitying them. They had to work hard for the knowledge they acquired but were happy with the results.

But I don't think it's a bad thing, it's the same as reading certain philosophers over others. — The Opposite

Enabling what is not a bad thing? Do we actually have a follow function here?

Who has the most followers on here? — The Opposite

That would imply that there are leaders for people to follow.

What happens when you follow someone, beside instantly becoming a stalker? — praxis

That someone then leads you around like an idiot.

Experience with mandatory diversity training, yes.

My co-workers and I had reason to use the training with respect to a person in our care. They had various issues we had to address regarding their chronic health problems. — frank

I have 28 years of teaching English experience, with a lot of diversity. And a lot of students.

Climate Of Hunter was released in 1983; off the top of my head there's a small chance it could've been recorded digitally, but highly unlikely. I just meant Scott went from the Walker Brothers to his weird stuff. — Noble Dust

Look at the title of the video,

Remastered 2006 :wink:

Am I wrong? — Ken Edwards

You told a long, very long, story in short semi romantic prose. If omitting millions of pieces of important information is not taken into account them I guess you are not wrong.

But I ask again, what is the question?

A lot of this music gets ruined when the remove the squeaks and bumps by digitizing it. It can never sound like the jukebox down at the pub.

But even that cannot remove the greatness of it.

I'm glad you get to take up a chair here instead of working. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What do you mean? I have to have a seat here or I want be able to use the keyboard. :lol: And they won't let me stop working.

What is the thing you like least about this pandemic and what do you like best? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That I still have to bloody well work, but from home. I get to see the missus all day.

What I like the best is these bacon wrapped jalapenos filled with cream cheese! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, I leave the chilly to the missus, I stick to black and white peppers. I made some bacon and cheese wrapped spicy sausages a while ago, cleared up my sinuses for a day or two.

The way things are going around here we will probable be going back to work by the end of this year or the beginning of next. I am not looking forward to that.

See you around Tiff, I have classes early tomorrow and need my beauty sleep. :wink:

Gender fluid people want to be talked about using the plural pronoun, and at the same time, using "they" is being used to replace "he or she", as you did in this post.

Just saying. — frank

I presume that you (he/she/it) know what you are talking about, I guess you learned from experience.

Being brought up in northern England in the early 60's our grammar books and teachers said that the rule to apply when the gender of people was not known or that a general statement was being made about a group of possibly mixed gender was to use them and they.

It was much later that a bunch of yahoos decided that they/them should be used so at not to attach gender bias to single people.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/actually-we-should-not-all-use-they-them-pronouns/

But in the end I really don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else thinks or insinuates.

What do you think? — Ken Edwards

What was they question? :worry:

Well done! Now you know what you have to do! — Gus Lamarch

I am not going to be a security guard and escort them out, if they found their way in here they can find their own way out.

And that goes for anyone that thinks that this place should either live up to its name or change it.

Listening to another version. Pretty good. — The Opposite

All of their music was good, but then most of the music made in that era was. I played some of their tracks a couple of years ago for my students, they were fascinated with them.

So little originality nowadays that does not rely on the use of electronic synthesizers. These guys had none of that stuff to work with.

Feeling old today, remembering young loves while listening to old songs.

What I much admire about some non-Western cultures is their general belief in and practise of not placing their aged family members in long-term care homes. — FrankGSterleJr

You might admire these cultures for this reason, but are there other things about those cultures that you don't admire?
I used to work for an international charity and I have read some of the reports about these non western societies.
In a lot of these countries women's rights to employment do not exist, so they stay home and look after the kids and the in_laws or parents if they have not been forced into marriage.

Many non western societies see having a lot of kids as a way to assure a reasonable old age, the more the better. Unfortunately not all of the survive, they don't have enough money to feed them all. In some cases when they do survive they are sold of as workers, especially the girls, to "help" maintain the brothers and sisters.

Most big business are big because of their success at selling their service or product. When people stop paying for them the stop being big.

So the solution, as you say, would be not to use the care homes and for everyone to keep their old folks at home. So which of the parents of the school children would have to quit their job to look after the old ones? Obviously it would be the child of the old ones wouldn't it.

So the man of the house brings mom and dad home one day and calls out as he enters the door
"Honey I'm home. By the way I brought mom and dad here to stay. But don't you worry about a thing, they will not be a burden to you or the kids. I quit my job to look after them."

The next day, as the lady of the house is leaving for work. "Honey, could you pass by the supermarket and do the shopping for next week and don't forget the mortgage is due on today"

If everyone took responsibility for themselves and made sure that they had enough money in the bank their would be no need for care home except for those that decided they needed to live in one.
Oh, how stupid of me!! We are trying to get rid of big business, right. I forgot about that.

So if we get rid of the money makers how is anyone going to have a chance of putting money in the bank?

Baden jamalrob, this is a name much closer to the reality of the "forum". — Gus Lamarch

Some people don't recognize a joke when it falls on their head.

As a member of the original Philosophy Forum I find it delightful to be a member of its love child "The Philosophy Forum".

I have no idea why anyone would go anywhere they are not comfortable being and stay there complaining, telling everyone that the place should change and generally putting the place down.

To anyone who feels dissatisfied with the forum I have a word of advice.

The exit door is the same size as the entrance door, should not not have any problems passing through either. Just do everyone else a favor while passing through.

DON NOT FUCKING FART IN THE LOUNGE!!

Thank you.

It occurs to me that this forum is an approximation to a Salon. — Banno

I like it, "The Philosophy Salon"

Fantasizing can also be just thinking about things, such as taboo sex or not paying your tax and spending the money on a new car, without any other intention involved.

You could fantasize about running down the road naked screaming the devil is behind me, but that does not mean yu are planning to do it.

Thought.

Is religion still satisfactory for you on this matter? — Raul

I don't have much faith in the existence of souls, but it would make sense if all of the memories were available in between each reincarnation. But that appears to be something that no religion that believes in reincarnation has taken into account.

How advanced would humanity be today if people were really reincarnated with the memories intact, the good guys at least.

you are right but the tale still works no matter the sophistry a reader may be willing to use — Rafaelsanchez53

The reader? How come?

“Hey! how do I get across?” — Rafaelsanchez53

Perfect example of asking the wrong question.

Can you name a mathematician who's taken this approach to scientific equations before me? — TheMadFool

In reality I cannot think of anyone that would have wasted their time comparing scientific equations that describe the workings of the universe and down-scaling it to simple geometry. Geometry itself has a place in science, but not everything can be downgraded to it and still explained by it.

If I’ve given a definition of truth on this OP then I’d be happy to see it. — Brett

You did not give a definition of how your were using the word, that is exactly what I and others have said. Jeez, do not bother answering. :shade:

although it could be asked what kind of bodies do human beings have in heaven too? — Jack Cummins

Bodies are material, heaven not. They could not co-exist. Glad I am not going there.

Really? Someone on a philosophy forum needs a definition for atheist? — Brett

No, I think I corrected you on the incorrect definition you were using. What I meant was the definition of truth that you were using incorrectly, as others also pointed out.

And do try to put all of your answers in one post, you do not earn extra points for all of the unnecessary post. You just look childish trying to up the number of posts you have next to your name.

This is a dead end. — Xtrix

I agree. I am out of here too.

What? How could I replace something I never thought existed? — Brett

Which is what I have been saying, I never thought it existed either so there is nothing to replace.

Most atheist don't think gods exist either.

Which brings us to the end of another pointless non discussion on god.

And please learn to post properly before starting more threads, explain exactly what you are talking about and give the definitions and info needed for people to be able to reply properly.

If you read my posts you’d have seen that I neither believe or disbelieve. — Brett

So I'm talking to an agnostic here then?

What did you replace the truths about the existence of god with then?

Which is that God doesn’t exist. — Brett

Anything that is referred to as a god does not exist, I am not going to worry about which one.

Is that the sum total of what has replaced that original belief in God’s existence? — Brett

If there is no original belief in a god then nothing has to be replaced, not all atheist are converts to atheism.

What else do they think as a result of repudiating that belief? — Brett

They don't think anything because they have not repudiated anything. Have lost nothing means that nothing to replace.

So I’m talking to an atheist here? — Brett

Does it make any difference? From what I remember you asked us specifically for responses.

Which is part of my point. As an atheist you have no proof that God does not exist. So why do you believe that to be true? — Brett

After you tell me why you believe there is one. It should be easier for you to prove the existence of something existent that for me to prove the non-existence of something.



You might make more sense if you learn to read a whole post before responding to anything instead of doing it bit by bit. It is also bloody annoying having to read so many posts made in reply to one post of mine.

Okay. Let me be clearer. I was not referring to “truths” about God. I was referring to the idea that God exists exists for believers. — Brett

So the answer is yes, for them it is true that a god exists. But for me it is true that he doesn't. Go figure.

No!
Science is not a math, its a style of philosophy , a technique, a way of reasoning. — Trebor

:gasp: :chin: :roll:

Can we take this idea, run with it and reduce, in a manner of speaking, all science to geometry? — TheMadFool

Math is one of the ways used to express the working of science, I think that you are several hundred years late coming up with this.

Our need for gender identification is to define their role based on their physical abilities. — Rxspence

No, gender has been used to decide roles in societies, but not based on physical abilities but the needs of the society. Strong women would have been warriors and wimpy men would have maids if only the physical abilities had been taken into account.

Without physical advantages or restrictions we eliminate judgement, pain, pride, etc. — Rxspence

No, people are judged by many more things than their physical state. Pain and pride are things that cannot be eliminated because they serve a very important part of life.

It also makes it nearly impossible to explain what comes after the bright light. — Rxspence

I have no idea what you are referencing here.

[reply="Sir2u;481215"
I think that the idea being conveyed is that God is not limited to the restrictions of a physical body and its pleasures, but if (God exists at all), is way beyond our limitations of male and female, and bodies. — Jack Cummins

To reply to a post, just select the text to quote and click on the "quote" button.

If what you say is true then what would be the great thing about going to heaven?

It’s possible there’s something very wrong with my post. But as yet I can’t see it. — Brett

That is an understatement.

I don’t think that I’m referring to “truths” about God, whatever that means. I’m referring to the idea of believers that God exists, something that is true to them. — Brett

That is why I asked for more information about what you were actually talking about, because I don't know what you think.

Both atheists, those that do not believe a god exists, and theists, those that believe on does exist, have their opinion about it. They might consider it to be true but neither has any proof to back up their opinion. The main difference between atheists and theists is that there are so many "one true gods" that it is impossible for them to all be true whereas the atheists have only one true concept.

No, what it does not say is that a truth has to replace God. I do not say anything has to replace God. I ask what atheists replace the idea that God is the truth with. — Brett

If you read it very carefully asked what truths about god have to be replaced, not what should replace god.

Data? What is proper data? — Brett

Maybe some definitions would help. As Tim said, what exactly is a god. What is a truth as you use the word here.

That’s not what I said. Reread my first post. — Brett

OK, here it is.

For all those avowed atheists out there; if God and the beliefs in God’s existence and actions have no validity, no claim to truth, then what truth have you replaced them with? — Brett

I did read it again and it says just what I stated. The truths about god have to be replaced by something. The problem is you have not specified those truths yet either.

True, but it doesn’t make you an atheist. — Brett

It does if they do not believe in god, unless you have another use of the word that you have failed to tell us. Maybe you think it is conditional upon the rejection of god, but that is not what the word means.

This was in response to your post about how many people that are atheists never believed in God. If they were raised from being very young without any knowledge of God that would not make them atheists, it would just make them ignorant of the idea of God. — Brett

Atheist - Someone who does not believe in the existence of a god.
Theist - Someone who believes in the existence of a god.

If you have not been taught to believe in gods, it does not mean that you are ignorant of other people believing in their existence.
You can still know about the concept of gods even if you have not been trained to believe int hem.

But this discussion is getting boring without having the proper data necessary to continue. You said the the truths about god need to be replaced by something, so exactly which truths are you talking about? Maybe this will help to decide what could possibly replace them.