Do you believe in Mythical Creatures such as:

[Smurfy]

I read it and you are right.

Me and HR agreed on that finally. That animals that had witnesses are cryptozoological and the rest of them are mythical

oh, then i dont see what the debate is about.

 

[heatherrae]

did this post get overlooked?

That isn't what was said, however. Samoth and others labeled bigfoot a "myth" and laughed that anyone would look for it. My entire point has been that many animals that were once considered not to exist (whether you want to call them "myths" is irrelevant) have been found to exist. These animals seem just as fantastic and unlikely as some of the ones listed in the original post, i.e. bigfoot.

As far as FG is concerned, I told her that I don't really care if she wants to use the "myth" label or just call them undiscovered. It really is of no importance to my argument.

However, then she went off on some tangent that "myth" is only a product of literature. It really is so wholly irrelevant to the gist of the thread. However, by definition, she is just wrong. She can argue that the definition should be changed if she likes, but that IS the definition.

Frankly, any time I debate any topic, it seems like the whole board would argue the sky is purple if I said it was blue. If I post a definition or some sort of evidence, they resort to attacking me personally or my character. It gets silly after a while.

 

[foreigngirl]

oh, then i dont see what the debate is about.

Now its only about if mythology falls under literature. She feels she is right. I know I am right, cuz I majored in literature and had extensive studies on mythology and folklor. If those were not relevant to literature, they would have been just mentioned. We wouldnt have to spend 2 semestars studying myths and folklor as 2 separate subjects. She still feels that she know more tham me, even though she hasnt done nearly in-depth study as I have. So, the expert (me) doesnt know shit, cuz the random person (HR) has to be above all

 

[heatherrae]

I am not arguing with the definitions. I was arguing with you when I told you I have studied literature and you told me myth is not under that category. If it was so clearly different, it wouldnt have been subject. It would have been absent just the same as science and physics was absent.

Gilgamesh is a myth. We studied it under ancient literature. The apocryphas too. The oral traditions we studied them under folklore literature.

Please understand what I am trying to get through your thick head for the past 4-5 pages.

I never said that myths are not part of literature.

I said that not all myths are a part of literature.

some myths are in literature. some are not. Do you not get this?

 

[Sub-Zero]

Frankly, any time I debate any topic, it seems like the whole board would argue the sky is purple if I said it was blue. If I post a definition or some sort of evidence, they resort to attacking me personally or my character. It gets silly after a while.

 

[foreigngirl]

However, then she went off on some tangent that "myth" is only a product of literature. It really is so wholly irrelevant to the gist of the thread. However, by definition, she is just wrong. She can argue that the definition should be changed if she likes, but that IS the definition.

.

OMG, you clearly dont read good. I never said myth is a PRODUCT of literature. I said that myth is studied UNDER THE CATEGORY LITERATURE. Which I studied. And which I know more about than you. Period. Case closed

 

[JumpBallWinner]

The loch ness creature has been given a name in science, " Nessiteras Rhombopteryx"

So is it allowed to exist now?

 

[foreigngirl]

I never said that myths are not part of literature.

I said that not all myths are a part of literature.

some myths are in literature. some are not. Do you not get this?

the first sentence - yes, its true.


the other two - no, they are not true. Gilgamesh is a myth. We studied it under ancient literature. The apocryphas too. The oral traditions (which you would say are not literature) we studied them under folklore literature.

 

[heatherrae]

OMG, you clearly dont read good. I never said myth is a PRODUCT of literature. I said that myth is studied UNDER THE CATEGORY LITERATURE. Which I studied. And which I know more about than you. Period. Case closed

I "don't read good?" I won't even explain to you the irony of that.

I never said that there are not myths in literature.

I've never debated with anyone worse at it than you, no offense.

 

[heatherrae]

the first sentence - yes, its true.


the other two - no, they are not true. Gilgamesh is a myth. We studied it under ancient literature. The apocryphas too. The oral traditions (which you would say are not literature) we studied them under folklore literature.

Read the definition of literature and get back to me next week. Seriously, i don't care anymore...LOL.