Kristine
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (HypatiasGirl @ Dec. 18 2009,01:23) | | Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 17 2009,20:50) | | Quote (HypatiasGirl @ Dec. 17 2009,12:18) | WRT celebrity lookalikes (mostly because I'm bored of just lurking, and I mean, why the hell not, this knowledge isn't gonna get me anything anyway).
I have a friend who worked in PR for about a minute and a half (weird job, she wound up at a lot of state fairs, and she's a city girl if e'er there were one). Part of her job (and I believe a significant reason why she quit) was herding semi-professional celebrity lookalikes to their appearances at the proper time. (whenever I get depressed about being a philosopher, I remember that there are semi-pro celeb lookalikes)
They don't actually look that much like the celebrity, it's a lot of artful hatwearing and context suggestion.
So, I suppose we could look at celeb lookalikes in a couple of ways, either they evolve their appearance to converge on the celebrity's niche, or there's a sucker born every minute.
/bored rambling |
Hmmmm...so celebrity look-alikes are like the plants that imitate, for their survival, the look of insects, and/or insects that imitate the look of plants (only that the celebrity look-alikes are much stupider)?
Or are they more analogous to domesticated animals?  Imagine, if creationists had a sense of humor, how they could have parodied Origin by starting out with that kind of husbandry (instead of plagiarizing part of a yucky introduction)! |
Kristine:
must it be an either/or? Can't celebrity lookalikes be the insecty-less-smartypants-domesticated hybrid of our celebrities?
(of course, where does that leave reality show type famous people?) |
Heretic! Don't you know that kinds can't mix? 
| Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 18 2009,05:01) | Latest StephenBism: | Quote | | Translation: Anyone who calls attention to that fact that I reject reason’s first principles is using ad hominem arguments |
You can't make this stuff up.
In fairness (UDers, ask your mother what that word means), StephenB was referring to this post: | Quote | 101
Mark Frank
12/18/2009
1:46 am
Scattered throughout this thread is an argument that appears to go like this.
1) I believe certain things to be self-evidently true e.g. everything has a cause.
2) Anyone who does not believe these things is irrational.
3) Therefore, any requests they may make for evidence or clarification of these beliefs is irrational.
4) Furthermore they are intellectual wimps for not putting forward their own set of self-evident beliefs.
|
|
You know, I think we're on the verge of a breakthrough here. These guys are getting really close to finally saying what the heck is on their minds.
Empiricism is "not empirical," but beliefs are "self-evidently true." We're uncovering the core, which I suspect looks something like this: It's just easier to reorder the universe around my assumptions than it is for me to try to think different ideas.
All open-minded so far! 
(P.S. All my librarian/archivist training has paid off - I am realizing how important sites like UD are for revealing people's thought-processes. Whatever opinions we have of them, these are people's real thoughts and a website like this is the first opportunity people have to see the life-cycle of a creationist idea. It's an important document (but too bad so much of it has been excised by its own moderators) that objectively captures people's subjective ideas. I'm been seriously thinking that we need a museum of creationism in this country, to make real in the minds of the public that this is a movement, not a science, based on people's deep fears and desires. Can you imagine if we had been able to access a website like this during the Little Rock "creation science" fight? Creationism is Americana, folk art, folk poetry, outsider philosophy, outsider identity-creation, and kitsch. I'm learning to see it as Bob Schadewald saw pseudoscience in general.)
--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|
