First of all this is a very open question considering there is a LOT of music out there.
I listen to some music of today that doesn't get aired on the radio or tv or anything and I just think how popular it might be if the same thing came out in the 60's.
Here's the thing.. There is a lot more music now then there was. There will never be another Beatles because we live in a world where everyone is listening to different things. If a band started right now and they were as good as the Beatles do you think they'd get big? Or be on the radio? Or win awards?
The reason so many people argue for Na on the other side is that they compare say the Beatles or led zepplin to say.. the Jonas Brothers or taylor swift. That's not a proper comparison. There are a lot of rock bands who make a lot of music that is very good. That kind of sound doesn't get a lot of media attention. Simple as that. People don't look for good music and don't know it's there.
A genre of music can only be dead to people who rely on the norm of society.
I know. Christ wasn't born in December. But that doesn't mean Christmas isn't about Christ. Whatever it used to be was changed. The birth of Christ was celebrated before that happened.
I don't see what point you're trying to make as if that makes celebrating Christ less valid.
Ohh ok I see where you're coming from I do. It was like the celebration of the winter tree or something like that?? I don't know but Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ.
It's like when a company gets bought by another company. It's like the catholic church absorbed that holiday and some parts of it like the tree but it's core meaning is this Christ.
Christmas for you isn't Christmas then.
Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. You can go through the motions of commercialism.(I'm assuming that's what you're talking about) Which I think is just a perk, don't get me wrong I love lights and trees.
Depends on your definition of Christmas. Just because you put up lights and buy a tree doesn't mean you're celebrating Christmas.
Remember Christmas is a religious holiday, a Christian holiday. That's a fact. Weather you're liberal, atheist, whatever you can't touch that. (:
So if you're an atheist you can join in some of the festivities associated with Christmas. But you're in no means celebrating (let alone "getting into the spirit" of) Christmas.
Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to exclude anyone. Every bodies welcome to whatever part of Christmas they wan't. All are welcome to celebrate Christmas but not everyone does.
"Are you suggesting that I am trying to shut out these conspiracy theories if I am against it and beyond it?"
It depends on why you're against and beyond it. If you refuse to talk about it or look at any evidence (or don't care about the severe lack of investigation) then I would say yes. But I'm not making assumptions.
Here's a little bit of evidence.
"How would anyone know that an conspiracy exists?" We're talking about conspiracy THEORIES. So they technically don't know if that's what you're getting at.
"Are you suggesting I am trying to snuff out the conspiracy due to I maybe withholding a secret? That is the only logical explanation."
You lost me there.
"How can there be an conspiracy when people are creating them out of thin air? NOT POSSIBLE. They are creating their own reality."
Creating "conspiracy theories" you mean? I realize we're taking the word theory lightly. I just don't know what else to call it.
If it makes you feel any better I don't generally agree with most "conspiracy theorists".
All I am saying is that we should all look at evidence weather it be for or against these ideas.
"What should have been argued was that the secret would spread like wild fire, not the conspiracy because if there are no secrets, then a conspiracy is irrelevant,"
Ok ..and If there are no secrets, then a secret is irrelevant..
But either way my point is that the conspiracy(or whatever you want to call it) is safe because there's always conspiracy theories and people always scoff at them. The majority wont listen.
"the conspiracy would spread like wild fire"
No matter what side you're on you have to admit this is kind of ironic. It wouldn't spread like wildfire because of the whole "there's no way" argument that people like yourself support by default. Because of what you are doing right now it wouldn't spread.
You're pouring water on a fire and saying that if it was a real fire it would spread.
Like I said there's always going to be a "conspiracy theory" about every major event in history so if one were to ever happen it would just go un noticed would it not?? Sure there'd be a few websites and documentaries but it doesn't matter.
I'm not one who is saying anything for certain. But there's lots of things that are weird and that don't add up. Why does this have to be black and white. People are either saying the government did it or no way the government did it. Why can't we just take a step back and look at this stuff??
First of all it seems that nobody has the open mind and humility to just flat out say "I don't know!"
I don't know what happened but I do know that a commercial airplane didn't make that tiny hole in the pentagon with no plane wreckage. And I do NOT know how building seven came down.. or why it came down. I don't know why people don't talk about how a fireman found a dead body in a closet in the WTC, I don't know why nobody cares about scientific proof that there was a substance only found in bomb material found in the wreckage.
What I do know is that a conspiracy wouldn't be hard to pull off because whenever people hear the word "conspiracy" a logical part of their brain seems to shutdown because it's simply unthinkable. It's been psychologically proven that logic doesn't happen much when people here things they don't want to hear, such as hearing things about the political candidates they support.
It's the boy who cried wolf. The word conspiracy has this sort of culture surrounding it. Only crazy people believe in them right? So what if a conspiracy really did happen?? It would just be another "conspiracy."
A= conspiracy, therefore A= crazy talk
This is the norm that has been established.
Let's say it is some kind of conspiracy, whoever did it knew that there would be a couple of documentaries made and a few websites devoted to "uncovering the truth." They know. They don't care because there's always a documentary, there's always a website. They know that most people wont wanna talk about it.
I go to BYU-Idaho a mormon school. (yes I'm mormon). Evolution is tought at my school because were open minded enough to know that the idea of evolution doesn't denote the existence of a God.
Even if I didn't think it was true it doesn't matter. I'm a psychology major. Just because I learn about Frued doesn't mean I want to have sex with my mother.. You get what I'm saying?
You're assuming that Christians who believe we're in the last days think that everything's going to be wiped clean.
I believe that progression and learning and all that stuff you mentioned we will use in the eternities and that only the evil things will be "wiped clean".
So tell me how scientific is it to assume the beliefs of others?? No really, tell me. You clearly just wanted to prove a point. It's so easy to paint an ugly picture of what somebody else believes so that you can just tare it down.
No. Unless they're talking about pacific individuals within the government.
Conservatives usually criticize the size of the government and sometimes get carried away with it in which they would be guilty of hast generalization.
Take note that it's the same fallacy to say that all conservatives say our gov is bad. Just like one individual saying everyone in the u.s. gov is bad. I don't know which conservatives you were talking about but it sounded pretty general.
But regardless of the context it's still subjective because "bad" is hard to define.
