Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Do you believe in Mythical Creatures such as:
- Thread starter Arabian
- Start date
H
heatherrae
Guest
I've done both civil litigation and criminal defense. I haven't done any corporate stuff. The only thing I would hate more than corporate stuff is tax law. zzzzzzzzz.layinback said:
Actually, I really like criminal defense. The cases are much less dry. My first civil trial was so boring, the judge was falling asleep. It was a bench trial. I had to keep doing strange things and raising my voice to booming levels just to keep him awake...LOL.
H
heatherrae
Guest
I guess. I still don't know how some did it. We had a guy in our class that I didn't know how he even got into law school. Then we had another guy who was just brilliant and only got in when a seat opened up and took him off the wait list.Mr. dB said:
I just couldn't understand it.
I never thought the idiot would get through law school. My law school flunked out people left and right and had a true C curve. Somehow he made it though. Then, I thought he would never pass the bar. He passed it the first time. Go figure.
The guy who was wait listed and just barely got into law school went on to be the salutorian of our class and is doing very well at a large firm now.
heatherrae said:I guess. I still don't know how some did it. We had a guy in our class that I didn't know how he even got into law school. Then we had another guy who was just brilliant and only got in when a seat opened up and took him off the wait list.
I just couldn't understand it.
I never thought the idiot would get through law school. My law school flunked out people left and right and had a true C curve. Somehow he made it though. Then, I thought he would never pass the bar. He passed it the first time. Go figure.
The guy who was wait listed and just barely got into law school went on to be the salutorian of our class and is doing very well at a large firm now.
What is it???
A law students become professors
B law students become judges
C law students become millionaires
javaguru
Banned
The average law school graduation rate is 50% and most leave of their own accord, being a lawyer sucks ass as rewarding career.....most are just too type A to make a change.heatherrae said:I guess. I still don't know how some did it. We had a guy in our class that I didn't know how he even got into law school. Then we had another guy who was just brilliant and only got in when a seat opened up and took him off the wait list.
I just couldn't understand it.
I never thought the idiot would get through law school. My law school flunked out people left and right and had a true C curve. Somehow he made it though. Then, I thought he would never pass the bar. He passed it the first time. Go figure.
The guy who was wait listed and just barely got into law school went on to be the salutorian of our class and is doing very well at a large firm now.
H
heatherrae
Guest
That really has held to be true from our class, it seems.Stefka said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
I'm wrestling with it myself. I just don't know what else to do.javaguru said:The average law school graduation rate is 50% and most leave of their own accord, being a lawyer sucks ass as rewarding career.....most are just too type A to make a change.
H
heatherrae
Guest
In law school -- B student, overall, i suppose.javaguru said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
I liked law school okay. It is practicing that has been a big letdown.Stefka said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
I wish. I think I would love to be a judge (an appointed judge, though). I certainly don't like the idea of politics.Stefka said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
Trust me, practicing law is more stressful than it is worth.javaguru said:
Cal_21
New member
Pick3 believes in the Coch Ness Monster
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/sabbattehelp/geuu_03_img05463.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/sabbattehelp/geuu_03_img05463.jpg
JumpBallWinner
New member
Some people will never believe in something that they haven't seen at the zoo or that can't be somehow arrived at as an answer in a known equation. It's why I long for the day that something like a "mythical" ape or lake monster or sea serpent's body is brought before science... so that I can fall asleep that night knowing that they were all forced to deal with the fact that perhaps they aren't as all knowing as they believe themselves to be.
Or perhaps an encounter with a supernatural being, or occurance that they can't explain, yet know without question happened. Then you hope that they are met with smart ass close minded comments when they try to tell others about their experience. You know, the same types of comments and reactions that they have spent their lives spitting at others who were already aware that such things existing.
Or perhaps an encounter with a supernatural being, or occurance that they can't explain, yet know without question happened. Then you hope that they are met with smart ass close minded comments when they try to tell others about their experience. You know, the same types of comments and reactions that they have spent their lives spitting at others who were already aware that such things existing.
JumpBallWinner said:
Go back to feeding your pet bigfoot, plebe. This world is run by smart-ass closed-minded people, so you better get comfortable with it. Now return to devoting your life to searching for nessie while everyone else moves on with their fucking lives.
Hope that helps.
layinback
New member
goddamit samoth i had this handled. check out pg 14.samoth said:Go back to feeding your pet bigfoot, plebe. This world is run by smart-ass closed-minded people, so you better get comfortable with it. Now return to devoting your life to searching for nessie while everyone else moves on with their fucking lives.
Hope that helps.
layinback said:
Edit your preferences e-tard.
foreigngirl
New member
samoth said:Well, if they're mythical creatures, obviously they do not exist outside of myth, else it would negate such a term.
lol....did anyone else catch this?
Crypto-zoology would be the term for these creatures, right?
H
heatherrae
Guest
Yeah, but attorneys have an astronomical suicide rate that pretty much speaks volumes about how fun it is to actually practice law...lol.PICK3 said:
MichaelScott
New member
inheatherrae said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
The mountain gorilla and the giant pandas were once considered mythological creatures, too.
We now know that they exist.
I bet the scientists laughed at the people who claimed they saw them or looked for them, too.
We now know that they exist.
I bet the scientists laughed at the people who claimed they saw them or looked for them, too.
MichaelScott
New member
imo i think there is a difference between a panda being a mythical creature and bigfoot or the loch ness monster. i think there is a better chance that a ghost exists opposed to bigfoot. with a ghost being an energy force. i dont know what that means.
H
heatherrae
Guest
No, there really isnt a big difference. It is possible that there is some sort of undiscovered bear or pig or something that people are making into a really fantastic sort of creature. However, the stories of a giant squid seem no more outlandish to me than the stories of a giant sea creature yet unidentified, for example.hstern said:
they all sound outlandish until we figure it out. Do all of them exist? No, probably not or they are confused with something else, but I HATE how SMUG and ARROGANT some people are who ridicule people for being open minded.
H
heatherrae
Guest
The chacoan peccary in Paraguay, and the giant forest hog in Africa have both been confirmed as real new species. Both of these species are now recognized by science, even though both of them were once the subject of much ridicule.
Another "mythological" giant hog turned out to be a real animal, but it was something other than a pig. This was the pgymy hippo, which looks like a cross between a pig and a miniature hippo.
Likewise, people were ridiculed by "scientists" when they reported sightings of giant sharks. Guess what? Yep. One species, the megamouth shark, has now been declared real by science. Only eleven bodies have been found in the last thirty years and little is known of this shark. The megamouth grows to over fifteen feet long.
Another "mythological" giant hog turned out to be a real animal, but it was something other than a pig. This was the pgymy hippo, which looks like a cross between a pig and a miniature hippo.
Likewise, people were ridiculed by "scientists" when they reported sightings of giant sharks. Guess what? Yep. One species, the megamouth shark, has now been declared real by science. Only eleven bodies have been found in the last thirty years and little is known of this shark. The megamouth grows to over fifteen feet long.
MichaelScott
New member
i had a good post but it wouldnt take, anyhow... you due real soon HR? good luck i agree with u that when things are discovered the reality does not live up to the hype.
i agree with u that when things are discovered the reality does not live up to the hype.
H
heatherrae
Guest
The platypus was considered a myth. So was the komodo dragon.
I would say that those two lived up to the hype...
How much more fantastic could you get than describing seeing an animal that looks like a beaver, but with a duck's bill and it lays eggs?
Or a little dragon?
They both exist, though.
I would say that those two lived up to the hype...
How much more fantastic could you get than describing seeing an animal that looks like a beaver, but with a duck's bill and it lays eggs?
Or a little dragon?
They both exist, though.
heatherrae said:
So do great whites.
While on the topic of giant fish, I'd love to see this thing still swimming around-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon
MichaelScott
New member
lol
H
heatherrae
Guest
I would maybe like to see it from the safety of a cruise ship...lol.hanselthecaretaker said:
I wouldn't want to go swimming with one.
heatherrae said:I would maybe like to see it from the safety of a cruise ship...lol.
I wouldn't want to go swimming with one.
I'm sure he'd be friendly
MichaelScott
New member
i couldnt put into words what i was thinking it was the best i could do, and it didnt work lololol
Great point HR,heatherrae said:The platypus was considered a myth. So was the komodo dragon.
I would say that those two lived up to the hype...
How much more fantastic could you get than describing seeing an animal that looks like a beaver, but with a duck's bill and it lays eggs?
Or a little dragon?
They both exist, though.
fistfullofsteel
Well-known member
I used to believe in a mythical creature known as a sane logical woman but i realized how nuts i was to think of such a thing.
H
heatherrae
Guest
fistfullofsteel said:
Or a sexist meathead male being able to engage in any significant form of debate.
fistfullofsteel
Well-known member
heatherrae said:Or a sexist meathead male being able to engage in any significant form of debate.
ok, just cause you said so
just go back to your plan of trying to suck as much money from your ex for child support as you can
foreigngirl
New member
can you people start making a difference between mythology and crypto-zoology?
Mythological creatures are dragons, elfs, trolls, fairys, vampires, werewolfs, griffins, meduza, unicorns, Pegasus - the flying horse etc
Crypto-zoological creatures are Yeti, bigfoot, chupacabra, Nessie etc....oh and the creatures that now we know they exist were crypto-zoological, never mythological ones , like the giant squid, the gorilla and so on
Mythological creatures are dragons, elfs, trolls, fairys, vampires, werewolfs, griffins, meduza, unicorns, Pegasus - the flying horse etc
Crypto-zoological creatures are Yeti, bigfoot, chupacabra, Nessie etc....oh and the creatures that now we know they exist were crypto-zoological, never mythological ones , like the giant squid, the gorilla and so on
H
heatherrae
Guest
fistfullofsteel said:ok, just cause you said so
Oh, yes, I would be a terrible person for asking for child support.
However, I'm not asking him for anything, because, like you, he doesn't have the good sense to come in out of the rain, and I don't want him to rub off on my child.Do you ever have anything intelligent to say on any topic? If you do, I've certainly never seen it. All you ever do is name call.
fistfullofsteel
Well-known member
heatherrae said:Oh, yes, I would be a terrible person for asking for child support.
Do you ever have anything intelligent to say on any topic? If you do, I've certainly never seen it. All you ever do is name call.
if you think nothing i say is intelligent then i am most happy because i know i'm doing something right. you're the last person that i want to say to me i said something intelligent. in that case, i probably just check myself into a mental institution.
layinback
New member
HEATHER,you are smart and pretty. you have nuthin to defend. stop dignifying this shit with a response.heatherrae said:Oh, yes, I would be a terrible person for asking for child support.
Do you ever have anything intelligent to say on any topic? If you do, I've certainly never seen it. All you ever do is name call.
MichaelScott
New member
heatherrae said:
The difference is that these creatures existed back then, too. (No, this isn't a temporal paradox.) They were not mythical back then, they existed. If someone considers fact to be myth, they are wrong. The status of something's mythologicalicity (heh) is independent of whether someone thinks that something is myth or fact.
foreigngirl said:
"Cryptozoology is the search for animals hypothesized to exist, but for which conclusive proof is missing. The field also includes the search for known animals believed to be extinct."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology
This looks like TCR.
JumpBallWinner
New member
samoth said:Go back to feeding your pet bigfoot, plebe. This world is run by smart-ass closed-minded people, so you better get comfortable with it. Now return to devoting your life to searching for nessie while everyone else moves on with their fucking lives.
Hope that helps.
Great points.
H
heatherrae
Guest
You are splitting semantic hairs, now. What is labeled as a "myth" now may be the future discovered species. What was the subject of past ridicule as a "myth" is now our facts. These things that you label as "myth" may turn out to be undiscovered species. These animals are LABELED as myth until such time that someone proves that they exist. I'm not saying that they all will be discovered. I'm just saying that ridiculing those looking for proof seems somewhat to fly in the face of science rather than furthering science.samoth said:The difference is that these creatures existed back then, too. (No, this isn't a temporal paradox.) They were not mythical back then, they existed. If someone considers fact to be myth, they are wrong. The status of something's mythologicalicity (heh) is independent of whether someone thinks that something is myth or fact.
H
heatherrae
Guest
I'm not saying that bigfoot or the lockness exist. However, that would be convenient in order for someone to lay immediate skepticism or ridicule if I did. I'm merely pointing out that many of the animals previously LABELED as "mythological" turned out to be real species of animals.samoth said:I'm sure that argument worked great back in the 15th century. Fortunetly, we've come a long way since then. There is not bigfoot or lockness monster, sorry. But feel free to keep looking in the african rainforests and in the ocean, Captain Ahab.
Mocking people for seeking empirical evidence in support of a hypothesis seems quite UNSCIENTIFIC and 15th century, if you ask me.
foreigngirl
New member
heatherrae said:
omg, thats why they are labeled as CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL creatures. They did NOT come from any myth that exist in any culture.
I dont know why I am anal about stuff like this, but I just am.
foreigngirl said:
foreigngirl
New member
samoth said:"Cryptozoology is the search for animals hypothesized to exist, but for which conclusive proof is missing. The field also includes the search for known animals believed to be extinct."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology
This looks like TCR.
TCR?
btw, yeah, I am totally with you
H
heatherrae
Guest
You are wrong, my dear. The giant squid of today was the "mythological" kraken of yester year. Study your cryptozoology more.foreigngirl said:
heatherrae said:
As already iterated, the definition of mythology requires belief. That ain't science. There is no scientific evidence of bigfoot or the lochness monster, only media popularity. You're mixing up science and science fiction. Even if the group of actors from the shot Ghosthunters call themselves scientists, they are not. Sorry.
If something was labled as myth and turned out to be fact, it was never mythical. That worked centuries ago. It does not work not. There is a difference. The world is much smaller than 500 years ago, and anyone thinking we're going to discover unicorns in the african forests or magical energy from rotting corpses needs to step away from the television screen.
People that argue religion, magic, and this kind of fictional stuff will always draw a stalemate in the argument with science, because they rely on belief, not scientific principles. Such arguments belong in theology and philosophy, not science.
H
heatherrae
Guest
In addition, even pygmy humans were considered mythological creatures at one time. They exist. Period. End of story.
Honestly, I can't see how a scientist would have a problem with a team of scientists searching lock ness with sonar etc to try to explain all the sightings, etc. maybe they will discover some new species of huge lake sturgeon or whatever. What is the problem? Why all the mocking?
So many scientists were persecuted and mocked for their beliefs before their beliefs became widely accepted. Such stifling attitudes hinder the progress of science.
Honestly, I can't see how a scientist would have a problem with a team of scientists searching lock ness with sonar etc to try to explain all the sightings, etc. maybe they will discover some new species of huge lake sturgeon or whatever. What is the problem? Why all the mocking?
So many scientists were persecuted and mocked for their beliefs before their beliefs became widely accepted. Such stifling attitudes hinder the progress of science.
foreigngirl
New member
heatherrae said:
What I tried to say, when arabian started this thread he was talking about sea monsters, big foot and creatures like that that are clearly cryptozoological. They are not at the same level as the real mythological creatures as the ones that I pointed at.
Here is a list of those creatures and you are not gonna find the mythical figures as mermaids, unicorns, dragons, phoenix, griphins etc. Almost every creature that was discussed here is in this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cryptids
H
heatherrae
Guest
Actually, there is empirical evidence that qiant squids much, much larger than those which have surfaced so far do in fact exist. So, these sailors saw a huge freaking squid and freaked out not knowing what it was. Turns out they were giant squid. Real creatures. Case closed.samoth said:Quit confusing fictional writings of yesteryear.
We will never, never find this:
The giant squid that does exist is not that entity. Sorry. No ship-eating squids exist.
The fact is that a new species which does not turn out to be EXACTLY like the described creature turns up and explains the sightings. So your "mythological" creature turns out to be real.
heatherrae said:
Because that's not science.
Pygmies are short people, like Covergirl. If people chose to make myths of ship-eating pygmies, that's their choice. But the myth and the fact do not coincide. They are seperate entities.
Your scientific attitude would fit centuries past. Not today. Science doesn't care about desparate semantical interpretations of the english language. Nor does science care about bigfoot or mythology -- that's for the television producers and historians.
H
heatherrae
Guest
Actually, you are wrong again. There are serious scientists all over the world who search for undiscovered and unknown apes and hominids. Bigfoot falls squarely in that category.samoth said:Because that's not science.
Pygmies are short people, like Covergirl. If people chose to make myths of ship-eating pygmies, that's their choice. But the myth and the fact do not coincide. They are seperate entities.
Your scientific attitude would fit centuries past. Not today. Science doesn't care about desparate semantical interpretations of the english language. Nor does science care about bigfoot or mythology -- that's for the television producers and historians.
heatherrae said:
No, they don't.
"Tales of giant squid have been common among mariners since ancient times, and may have led to the Norwegian legend of the kraken, a tentacled sea monster as large as an island capable of engulfing and sinking any ship." = myth.
"They are deep-ocean dwelling animals that can grow to a tremendous size: recent estimates put the maximum size at 13 m (43 ft) for females and 10 m (33 ft) for males from caudal fin to the tip of the two long tentacles (second only to the colossal squid at an estimated 14 m (46 ft), one of the largest living organisms)." = fact.
You're saying that anything and everything is or can be mythological. This is not true. If I exaggerate the size of a pregnant woman and get people in a bar laughing and talking of a fire-breathing godzilla-sized female human roaming the earth destroying cities, that would not make said pregnant woman a myth -- it makes the godzilla sized, fire-breathing entity a myth. You can add apples and oranges, but you cannot compare them.
H
heatherrae
Guest
These animals were also considered "mythological" Natives described a mix between a giraffe and a zebra. They were ridiculed as stupid and superstitious uneducated natives.
Guess who turned out to be right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi
Now you are trying to say that actually the half giraffe half zebra "myth" is still a myth and that this creature can't be compared - thus apples and oranges. However, you have to take into consideration that this is the animal that they were describing seeing. They hadn't caught one to examine it, do tests on it, etc. They were just describing what they were seeing.
I bet is sure as hell sounded outrageous! If I had never seen one and I had to bet which was more likely to be true, the okapi or a bigfoot, I would probably think that the bigfoot sounded less outrageous. Wouldn't you?
Guess who turned out to be right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi
Now you are trying to say that actually the half giraffe half zebra "myth" is still a myth and that this creature can't be compared - thus apples and oranges. However, you have to take into consideration that this is the animal that they were describing seeing. They hadn't caught one to examine it, do tests on it, etc. They were just describing what they were seeing.
I bet is sure as hell sounded outrageous! If I had never seen one and I had to bet which was more likely to be true, the okapi or a bigfoot, I would probably think that the bigfoot sounded less outrageous. Wouldn't you?
needtogetaas
New member
she is right bro.samoth said:Television is leading you astray again. I hate it when that happens.
H
heatherrae
Guest
Please don't be condescending. It is in avoidance of the real arguments given. Address the specific creatures, that these scientists who discovered them or are looking to discover new ones are not real scientists, or some of my points made, but please don't blame it on my being educated by television, because you and I both know that I'm well educated and do have a science background, including zoology, biology, evolutionary biology, etc.samoth said:Television is leading you astray again. I hate it when that happens.
needtogetaas
New member
well now samoth has a point here...samoth said:No, they don't.
"Tales of giant squid have been common among mariners since ancient times, and may have led to the Norwegian legend of the kraken, a tentacled sea monster as large as an island capable of engulfing and sinking any ship." = myth.
"They are deep-ocean dwelling animals that can grow to a tremendous size: recent estimates put the maximum size at 13 m (43 ft) for females and 10 m (33 ft) for males from caudal fin to the tip of the two long tentacles (second only to the colossal squid at an estimated 14 m (46 ft), one of the largest living organisms)." = fact.
You're saying that anything and everything is or can be mythological. This is not true. If I exaggerate the size of a pregnant woman and get people in a bar laughing and talking of a fire-breathing godzilla-sized female human roaming the earth destroying cities, that would not make said pregnant woman a myth -- it makes the godzilla sized, fire-breathing entity a myth. You can add apples and oranges, but you cannot compare them.
wait say ye big fire breathing prago girl.lmao
H
heatherrae
Guest
needtogetaas said:
I say that I would have been mislabeled as a myth and that I actually EXIST! Granted, he exagerated about my girth, but I am a prego chick with a big round belly, same one he was describing. I exist. I was the creature he was describing, albeit inaccurately.
I'm no myth.
I'm am, however, a legend....
okay, just kidding there.
foreigngirl
New member
heatherrae said:
do you seriously think you know about every subject there is to discuss, HR? You dont. Everything that me and Samoth said flew right over your head. Read this deffinition about a myth and you just might understand what we are trying to tell you:
H
heatherrae
Guest
I don't think one single thing you have said has flown over my head. I just don't agree wtih you, sorry.foreigngirl said:
There are some animals that have been labeled a "myth" whose very descriptions etc derived first from people who have claimed to be eyewitnesses, etc. Then, you have animals which are undoubtedly mythological because their origins can be traced back to authors etc who just made them up.
Sometimes what people describe ends up being pretty close to the truth, as in the case of the okapi and sometimes they end up being way off base, such as thinking manatees were half fish/half woman.
My only argument has been in favor of keeping an open mind and allowing scientists to discover new species and explain some of these sightings, if they can. I haven't argued that bigfoot exists, or chupacabra, etc.
And, what makes me less qualified than you or samoth to debate a topic such as this one? I'm not allowed to debate in your opinion because of what? Why is it that anytime I don't agree with you, you think I shouldn't have the right to debate? You didn't point out that anyone else on this thread doesn't deserve the right to debate.
Similar threads
