Originally posted by blowfishdl
Originally posted by Nulil
Moreover, please stop bringing up the comparative of Y2K, that's inane subject matter. The fact that some people would choose to use the Y2K
comparative to 2012 shows an attempt to sate your own paranoia, that or a complete lack of logic.
Obviously can't touch on everything you posted because it's quite cluttered and hard to break apart so let me touch on the psychology of Y2K.
The psychology of Y2K supported that the world is going to break into catastrophic events because of the date (01/01/01). The psychology of 2012 is
very much the same, based on a date (12/21/12).
If you were to read my Original Post you would see a lot of information there which it seems you have skipped over entirely to make your point
. I
don't blame you because I do this too sometimes. However, have a look there. It is more than a discussion thread as I have posted science.
Additionally, a note to you personally, the Mayan Calender does not end on 2012
. Check out my Original Post.
I apologize about the lack of paragraph manner. You're mistaken though, of the few posters I paid attention to in this thread, I thought it would be
wise to actually read all of your posts, and I did.
I asserted that the Y2K subject matter was inane based on the fact that you cannot rule out that because one event did not take place that another
will also not. This is the same comparative analysis that utilizes past precedence to discount future possibilities.
You might want to actually have read my post in entirety. No where in it did I say that the Mayan Calendar ends in 2012. In fact, I intentionally had
not made my position clear on it to avoid the issue of having to debate it, because I know that is exactly what these kind of 'debunking' threads
turn into.
You've provided a wealth of information that has of course taken a side, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. Many people would argue that
the laws and assertions of Science cannot be argued once set in stone. On the contrary however, quantum physicists would argue to say that just
because those laws are set in stone doesn't mean they can't be changed. And this is what I'm trying to get at. Instead of lending so much credence
to scientific values and research pushed out there by popular tenants of Science, examine history from a sense of self. In a world populated by nearly
7 billion people with nearly 7 billion different perspectives, it's important to realize that how we choose to interpret information and past events
is important in that it decides how we choose to react to (hearing of) similar events in the future.
Logic and reason is integral to the basic interpretations of Science, however in the field of science, what often cannot be explained is not presented
at all. So when "Scientists" feed people information, they're feeding them information largely based on what they have successfully been able to
interpret.
It's easy to present complex information that by all logical concerns, requirements are met and a theory is attached. For many people who concern
themselves with a simpler approach, that being going to other well known sources, this spreads the diseased illusion of science, that what is
concluded as strong science cannot be argued upon. This is what in people's minds forbids them from often challenging the information provided to
them.
So, that being said, I'm not challenging you to redress your conclusions, only to approach them from a sense of you, not through peddling information
that supports your assertions. If you can come to the same conclusions as you started this thread with after discounting the effects of "scientific
data," then I've done exactly what I sought out to do, to propose that you examine it not from a field of widely-accepted Science, but by examining
it through your own constitution.