Leaderboard

Black Preacher In Savannah ,Georgia ,Caught In A Prostitution ,Sting. Preacher Enters Room,Not One Minute Before The Preacher Gives The Woman Money,He Says To .The Woman,I Want To See You Without Your Clothes . She Goes To Another,Room,Police Come In,Preacher Says ,He Was Not,Going,To Do Anything...Then He Weeps. I Don't Want Problems, With My Wife ,I Am A Pastor Of A Church....A Black,Preacher In Florida Was Having Sex With A Married Woman ..Her Husband Came Home ,Saw What Was Going On ,Got One Of His Guns ,Preacher Ran Outside Naked...No Clothes On....Preacher,Caught With Prostitute Is On Video...Why Do ,People Go To Church? Some Call Churches Night Clubs And Pimp Houses...Preachers Are Predators Wanting Women And,Money...NAACP,Black Churches ,Black Politicians All ,Condone Church Corruption.. Long List Of Sex ,Money Lusting,Preachers.....Black Unity Not Coming Soon..

Mel I apparently did not communicate that point clearly. Allow me to elaborate. First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning to understand; it is absolutely crucial to learning. I teach web design to college students. I don't have a degree in web design nor have I ever taken a course in it. I learned by doing. One of the assignments this semester was to critique my website. Of course I know a lot more about web design than my students but I also know I can learn from my them too. But the subject is web design and much of it is very subjective and almost anyone is qualified to have an opinion. I took a course in astrology many years ago and have some passing interest in the subject. Del has studied it intensely for a long period of time. Now I might debate Del on the various qualities of sun signs but his knowledge greatly exceeds mine and there will be areas where I'd be much better off listening rather than talking. I doubt Del has a "degree" in astrology that does not to me for he has demonstrated a knowledge of the subject. As far as string theory is considered Michio helped invent the theory. I don't have enough of a background to understand the underlying principles, let alone question him on any of it. I think calling that "bowing down," is a bit much, but it would be silly for me to challenge the theory on any level because I simply don't know enough. That does not mean that he is right, and he would not say he is right. Again, I understand that I don't know enough to speak on the matter. All I can do is marvel at the idea of 11 dimensional vibrating strings as the most fundamental building blocks of the universe--assuming that even comes close to describing it I'm not saying I should not be challenged because I have a couple of engineering degrees, but what I am saying is that people, in general, feel way too comfortable challenging others on subjects they know nothing about. I did not believe with Al Gore when he first introduced climate change to the mainstream media, he was just a guy with slides, sort of like Del with his spreadsheet analysis. But over time, based upon the overwhelming consensus of 97% of scientists, climate change is both real and something we really should be working on. There are smart and decent people voted for 45, deny evolution, and deny manmade climate change. However, society would be better off if we understood how this thinking--indeed humanity's survival may actually dependent upon it.

See this is where I differ - I don't bow down to authority - I question it. Now if a person feels comfortable enough to teach a subject then they will have my attention. It doesn't matter to me if they have a degree in the field or not - what matters is their ability to explain the concept where I can reach synthesis and find use for the concepts in other areas of my life. If a person has a degree but can't convey the concept their degree represents - then the degree is a piece of paper. The degree holder was able to memorize facts and return the information to the educator/proctor. Further, there's a verse in the scripture that states "lean not to your own understanding" ...It's actually an African proverb ...warning us that we humans seek comfort in any endeavor or field and it could be our undoing. Sort of like what you mentioned @Troy, you've found comfort in your engineering degrees and believe that you shouldn't be challenged by anyone outside of your field. In believing this you will have missed, in those questions, something crucial to your growth and development in the field. Those without degrees in the field have no such comfort. In fact they are uncomfortable and always questioning. They are willing to take chances sort of like Mark Zuckerberg or the black telecommunications entrepreneur Freddie Figgers who is reported to be self-taught engineer who now owns his own mobile phone business. Even an early Jeff Bezos with his degrees remained uncomfortable in his early days - - So, it's irrelevant if someone has a degree, is an amateur or alleged expert on climate change. -The one who can teach it, show us how we can use these concepts in preventing or slowing possible catastrophes is the one who will have our ear ... @Delano, I wish I could say I have an interest in the climate change argument - but I don't right now. While it tends to capture my attention from time to time - I don't have the mental space for it. I do, however, work to minimize my impact on the environment. So there's that.

I think Michio is correct. I also think he may be understating American's precarious position. There is no "rise of conservatives" they have always been here. I know this is really hard for folks who come from big cosmopolitan cities like New York City, but most of the country is not like NYC. Shoot, most of New York State, including Staten Island (which is part of NYC) is not like NYC. I think I'm the only tagged on this conversation with an actual engineering degree (two). But my education has never stopped anyone less credentialled from questioning my knowledge of the subject. This is a curious thing. For example, I would never question Michio's knowledge of string theory and more than I would question Del's knowledge of astrology. They clearly know more about the subjects than I do. This is also why I believe what the world climatologist tell us about climate change. When people create an analogy between belief in "religion" and belief in "climate change," they are making a mistake. Belief in religion is based upon faith. Evidence is not needed, all that is required is belief. However climate change is based upon evidence. This may come to a surprise to people who live in big cities, but there are many American who reject the theory of evolution--despite ample evidence against it. The fact that the majority of scientists believe in evolution means nothing to these people. Of course it would take very little effort, especially today, to find "evidence" and scientists who reject evolution. It is possible for people to create their own realities and there are plenty of resources available today to help reinforce any hairbrain scheme out there. Yeah, Michio understated America's educational predicament.

#GETOUT was labeled a comedy by the oscars. Forget about the purpose to why that labeling was done. Artistically, how do you define GET OUT and how can it be labeled a comedy? @sabine ziya @Neftali Rivera Jr @Mel Hopkins I define get out as a suspense thriller. It can be deemed in the science fiction mold through the mental paralysis but I think it is not complicated. The complication in get out is not the general plot or the science fiction. It is the wrapping, about black white relations in the usa that is unique and that is the biggest hurdle in classification. if the entire plot involved white people and did not have the concept of white people trying to obtain black bodies in the larger context to the usa. Texas chainsaw massacre- the brood- all deal with similar plots involving white people who harm others through similar means in the film. They key is black people are never in the story. If anything, they are white on white crimes. The legacy/history in the u.s.a. from white on black crime is massive or well documented while not treated as valuable or worthy in films, which are the modern book. So few people see films that are not historical fictions where white on black crime ix exhibited. And thus, the definition to get out is a thriller that utilizes elements from film noir side science fiction. To the comedy label, i know how. the movie does have funny aspect. yes the line i always love is the , she licking your balls and shit. The best friend to the main character is the comic relief, while he serves a greater function as the hero. It is not a comedy though. But I comprehend why oscars did it. The reality is, a movie that displays criminal white behavior from fiscally wealthy/violent/liberal whites to completely innocent or peaceful black people is something that was never done before in the usa, in a relatively big budget film. Get Out if a student film does not have the accessible audience. but cause it could reach a larger audience the themes in it are for white people , unknown in the usa. White people are never criminals like this to black people in a film. it is that simple. I think about movies I have seen, I can not recall many white antoganist to a black protagonist. Film versions of Othello/brother from another planet ; enemy mine or star trek do not count as the inhuman nature to klingons or the creature louis gossett junior played. Story wise, the truth is, the system is not perfect in the film. by default the part that remain from the original people is an echo that by defacto has to continually be suppressed. and the chores are the method to continually repress them, thus the other members are enslaved to the armitages.

That sounds right. I gave it a bit more thought. I am thinking of the conversations I have now versus twenty years ago. I think the rise of conservatives and fundamentalists signaled a shift. Specifically Fox news and the right. This may have been a symptom not a cause. It is similar to the mindset of some religious people. We are saved and special you are not. It is next to impossible to have a reasonable conversation. You also have they same problem with liberals. People seem to have an ad hominen approach instead of attacking the idea. Sadly I have noticed myself doing this in some of my discussions here. Questioning the person's mental or emotional capacity. I am not the sole person doing this either. Actually Sarah Silverman the comic nailed the problem. She said we used to have discourse and there could be differences of opinion. Its gone from this is wrong for me to this is wrong for everyone.