Do you believe in Mythical Creatures such as:

[heatherrae]

But thats what I tried to tell you - it doesnt have a wider rubric than literature, cuz literature is such a broad term and bunch of other categories fall under it. They are all separate, with separate definitions, but still under that wide repertoar. Just the same as science - it has a lot of different categories falling under it, but they are all under that broad term

I just disagree based on those definitions. It isn't anything for either of us to get angry about.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Same level? I hadn't said a word to you like that. You called me stupid before I called you "dear." You pulled out the names. "Dear" can hardly be compared to "stupid" and I was calling sub "kiddo." I always call him "kiddo" whether we are agreeing or disagreeing.

Enjoy your sexy time though, gal. Woo hoo! lol. I'm not even remotely angry.

whether you feel you have a right to be (to me cause im younger) or not, you have a tendancy to be VERY rude and condescending to those you argue with. reread some of your posts. im an asshole, usually, but its the fact that you act the way you do, and then play victim in the middle of it all, that is agrevating and immature

 

[samoth]

Samoth, for sake of making this even relevant, what is your definition that you are using to describe a "myth?"

Are you differentiating things that originated in fictional works from those that originated or are believed to be originated from eyewitness accounts?

Do you agree that the examples that I posted were those that originated from eyewitness accounts? Do you agree that these animals were widely believed to be non-existent?

In your opinion is bigfoot a myth?

I view word definitions as an amalgamation of the dictionary, everyday use (as I see it, that is, in my own environment) and as a kind of vernacular meme.

I view a myth as something invariant of time. If there was a "myth" of x in anno 1600, but x actually existed, the "myth" but a spreading rumor, then I would not consider x to be a myth. I define a myth as something tangible (in the same way a deity is tangible) based purely on belief, regardless of if something "similar" actually exists. The giant squid or krakan of Verne's classic work is myth, but the giant squid architeuthis n. are fact. I recognize these as seperate entities. The belief is the myth, while the fact remains just that -- fact -- invariant of how its percieved in literary, vernacular, traditional, or media outlets.

Maintaining my first post in this thread, "Well, if they're mythical creatures, obviously they do not exist outside of myth, else it would negate such a term." Basically, this is what I've been arguing the entire time. Washington is not a mythical creature. He existed. The exaggerated or untrue coeval perceptions of him would be mythical, but the actual person himself was not, and is not, a myth.

And yes, I fully recognize the circular fallacy that exists in my temporally-invariant definition that hasn't been explicitly pointed out yet. It's still fun to debate.

 

[heatherrae]

whether you feel you have a right to be (to me cause im younger) or not, you have a tendancy to be VERY rude and condescending to those you argue with. reread some of your posts. im an asshole, usually, but its the fact that you act the way you do, and then play victim in the middle of it all, that is agrevating and immature

did you read the entire thread? I don't think you did. I was giving nothing but my opinion and logical arguments and then some definitions. I got called stupid by FG and a cunt by you. The most I said in retaliation was "dear" to her and "kiddo" to you.

Your post really didnt even deserve a response from me, yet I'm the one telling everyone to chill out and not get all worked up over a dumb thread.

 

[foreigngirl]

Same level? I hadn't said a word to you like that. You called me stupid before I called you "dear." You pulled out the names. "Dear" can hardly be compared to "stupid" and I was calling sub "kiddo." I always call him "kiddo" whether we are agreeing or disagreeing.

Enjoy your sexy time though, gal. Woo hoo! lol. I'm not even remotely angry.

I aint angry anymore either. But you did call me "my dear" and it pissed me off. And it did make me feel as if you are acting as being my teacher. The scholar in me had to voice up. Sorry. You just have to understand that even those definitions were explaining the same thing I am telling, but hey......Literature is broad category with a lot of sub-categories each with separate definition, just as what you posted. Your definitions still do not negate that myth falls under that broad category.

 

[heatherrae]

I view word definitions as an amalgamation of the dictionary, everyday use (as I see it, that is, in my own environment) and as a kind of vernacular meme.

I view a myth as something invariant of time. If there was a "myth" of x in anno 1600, but x actually existed, the "myth" but a spreading rumor, then I would not consider x to be a myth. I define a myth as something tangible (in the same way a deity is tangible) based purely on belief, regardless of if something "similar" actually exists. The giant squid or krakan of Verne's classic work is myth, but the giant squid architeuthis n. are fact. I recognize these as seperate entities. The belief is the myth, while the fact remains just that -- fact -- invariant of how its percieved in literary, vernacular, traditional, or media outlets.

Maintaining my first post in this thread, "Well, if they're mythical creatures, obviously they do not exist outside of myth, else it would negate such a term." Basically, this is what I've been arguing the entire time. Washington is not a mythical creature. He existed. The exaggerated or untrue coeval perceptions of him would be mythical, but the actual person himself was not, and is not, a myth.

And yes, I fully recognize the circular fallacy that exists in my temporally-invariant definition that hasn't been explicitly pointed out yet. It's still fun to debate.

you little shithead.

Well, yes, I agree that if it is a myth, then it is a myth and if it is not a myth, then it is not a myth.

I see the argument that you are making even though it is completely not helpful on any level.

 

[heatherrae]

I aint angry anymore either. But you did call me "my dear" and it pissed me off. And it did make me feel as if you are acting as being my teacher. The scholar in me had to voice up. Sorry. You just have to understand that even those definitions were explaining the same thing I am telling, but hey......Literature is broad category with a lot of sub-categories each with separate definition, just as what you posted. Your definitions still do not negate that myth falls under that broad category.

"Dear" is not a pejorative term in my area of the country. It doesn't denote any sort of superiority in the south.

Agree to disagree on the definitions, FG. We aren't going to change each other's minds, and it is only tangentially related to the matter at hand. Plus, we arent really debating a topic that is going to make either of us go hungry tonight, anyway.

 

[samoth]

Well, yes, I agree that if it is a myth, then it is a myth and if it is not a myth, then it is not a myth.

Kinda. If, at any time t there exists x, then x is not a myth, for we define a myth as something that does not exist (the empty set). See, this way, I can cover all bases. It's like giving an argument the ability to time travel.

 

[heatherrae]

Kinda. If, at any time t there exists x, then x is not a myth, for we define a myth as something that does not exist (the empty set). See, this way, I can cover all bases. It's like giving an argument the ability to time travel.

lol...I get you. Logics games about empty sets, etc. LOL.

Okay, now from a PRACTICAL standpoint and not from a roundabout game of logical deduction, do you believe that it is ridiculous for people to look for unknown species to explain the alleged sightings of Nessy or bigfoot?

 

[foreigngirl]

"Dear" is not a pejorative term in my area of the country. It doesn't denote any sort of superiority in the south.

Agree to disagree on the definitions, FG. We aren't going to change each other's minds, and it is only tangentially related to the matter at hand. Plus, we arent really debating a topic that is going to make either of us go hungry tonight, anyway.

In my area and even in my country can be used in a sarcastic matter. I cant see your face and hear your tone HR. But I am glad you explained that.

To me its a very important topic, cuz thats my passion. I cant agree with you that myth is literature and it is not. You are taking those definitions the wrong way. I explained to you 7 times already and you are still not getting it. Or choosing to do so. Either way, you got the wrong idea about them definitions. The def. are not wrong - you take them the wrong way and making a stretch out of it.