Destroying History

[Speaker to Animals]

I am uninterested in debating anything with you. You have proven that you have no intention of debating or discussing anything charitably. He has actuallly taken time to attempt a simple layout of his position. Disagree with it if you want, but he is trying to discuss charitably (or at least was, the last few pages haven't been)You keep trying to debate points that have nothing to do with the original argument, constantly moving goalposts, throwing out giant wordwalls of nonsense to obfuscate your lack of argument, Debates often do that when the original point is agreed upon, it seemed to have been to me. It isn't a symptom of malfeasence that Bjorn moved to talk on side topics, although it is a bit offsetting without formal acknowledgement of overall agreement with the initial premiseand then you would go so far as to delete all the quotes I listed in which Roman historians themselves explicitly contradicted you when you replied to my post. Fuck off. You burned this bridge.Some people abbreviate quotes for relevence to their reply, or for convenience. Although he could be doing it for these reasons, it is improper to assign him such intentions.

You can't even admit when you are wrong when a person quotes a Roman historian saying the opposite of your claim. So, honestly, just fuck off.

It just got to the point where I realize that guy is a total fraud and wasting my time. He has no intention of debating anything honestly. I caught him flat out lying and deleting quotes to avoid admitting he was wrong.See prior point.

No, you really are not. You are interested in puffing yourself up and posing as a scholar.

The Roman historians described exactly what the Bacchanalia was like (which, I should not have to explain to you -- as one would to a child -- was not even a Roman cult to begin with, but a foreign cult that infiltrated Roman society).

Your quotes about Christians are non sequitors that have ZERO to do with the original argument. You are trying to throw up a smokescreen just to avoid admitting you were wrong.This is good. There is often a thin line between non sequitors and analogous or principle-extending arguments. He was trying to extend the principle that sources should be taken at face value to other sources, which is not a non sequitor when it is explained carefully as it was.

That's not an argument. You just shit all over my post with red marks, in which the only possible way I can respond, if I felt sufficiently sadomasochistic, would be to choose my own color and continue the practice of making the post illegible. But nobody reads that. You never intended me to read this post, and you would not read my responding color post, and nor would anybody else read it.

[Speaker to Animals]

Bolelli describes it better than me, and he probably wouldn't take it as far as I do with respect to the threat to civilization itself. But in terms of what this movement really was, I think he does a good job. It's in the first fifteen minutes of his episode on the Spartacan revolt.

I think we can safely leave the historical dispute in the past. Bjorn lost that one. He is contradicted by the historical record and actual historians. So it's probably more productive to debate the actual idea I had expressed rather than the historical details used to support it. I don't deny it's a difficult position to defend.

I agree with your take on Bolelli. Bjorn is contradicted by those historians. I agree enough with your thesis that it doesn't need to be contended.

The only reason I'm prattling on with this late is to get you to recognize the logical faults in the debate with Bjorn, regardless of if you were right or wrong or if it was topical or not.

You engaged in a plethora of ad hominem attacks, poisoned the well, etc. None of which makes you wrong, per se, but is poor form. You also assigned intents and motives without sufficient evidence from Bjorn's actual posts. This does not affect the general correctness, as I view it, of your argument, and by now I realize I must be becoming a prick, so I'll close that issue with my methodological objections raised.

That's not correct. I engaged in zero ad hominem attacks. I insulted Bjorn. Insulting somebody is not an ad hominem fallacy. Nor did I poison the well, which is an allied fallacy.

[C-Mag]

Good article on this subject
https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/22/va ... e-america/

[katarn]

Good article on this subject
https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/22/va ... e-america/

Conclusion is good:

But telling the truth about our ancestors should not mean discounting everything they ever did, for if we do that for any person, including ourselves, we all have nothing to do but go home and weep. If we discount achievements because those who perform them are imperfect, there will be no achievements, only darkness. That creates a world of always tearing down and never building up, and the end of it is annihilation. In life is both great joy and great sorrow, and both deserve their due. That is what monuments are for.

[Speaker to Animals]

One almost gets the impression that the end result, and true motivation behind this, is the dismantling of civilization itself.

[Hastur]

One almost gets the impression that the end result, and true motivation behind this, is the dismantling of civilization itself.

You should read this:
https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/200 ... tions-fall

In the course of the 1960s, a new tribe was established that also sought to overthrow the Western citadel from within and had notably greater success. This was Betty Friedan’s radical feminists. It was a tribe constructed out of women who had taken some sort of degree and were living domestic lives. Technology had largely liberated them from the rigors of beating, sweeping, and cleaning, while pharmacology had released them from excessive procreation. In tactical terms, radical feminists made one innovation that has turned out to be crucial to the destiny of the West over the last half century. They suppressed almost completely the idea that their project involved a transfer of power and operated entirely on the moralistic principle that their demands corresponded to justice.
What lay behind this momentous development? It is a complicated question, but I think that Diana Schaub understood the essence of it in her essay 'On the Character of Generation X':
[Betty] Friedan was right that the malaise these privileged women were experiencing was a result of 'a slow death of the mind and spirit.' But she was wrong in saying that the problem had no name—its name was boredom. Feminism was born of boredom, not oppression. And what was the solution to this quandary? Feminists clamored to become wage-slaves; they resolutely fled the challenge of leisure.
And by 'leisure,' Professor Schaub means something classically Greek: the higher employment of the mind once the necessities of life have been dealt with.
The first task of this new movement was to create the shared consciousness necessary for tribal functioning. Like all forms of psychic collectivism, 'consciousness raising' (as it is known) exploits indignation and cultivates righteousness. It operated in this case with the basic liberatory image of the prison and, identifying happiness with being in the labor force, argued that only male oppression over the centuries had 'confined' women to the domestic sphere. What radical feminism essentially did was to deny complementarity between the sexes and set men and women up as competing teams playing exactly the same game, but a game in which all the rules were stacked against the women. It was only on this eccentric assumption—i.e., that women had identical talents and inclinations to men—that they could support the conclusion that there had been foul play. As with Hitler’s appeal to the Aryan race, the basic principle was one of flattery: women, it revealed, are a marvelously talented set of people who have been iniquitously suppressed by males running a patriarchal system.

[katarn]

Bolelli describes it better than me, and he probably wouldn't take it as far as I do with respect to the threat to civilization itself. But in terms of what this movement really was, I think he does a good job. It's in the first fifteen minutes of his episode on the Spartacan revolt.

I think we can safely leave the historical dispute in the past. Bjorn lost that one. He is contradicted by the historical record and actual historians. So it's probably more productive to debate the actual idea I had expressed rather than the historical details used to support it. I don't deny it's a difficult position to defend.

I agree with your take on Bolelli. Bjorn is contradicted by those historians. I agree enough with your thesis that it doesn't need to be contended.

The only reason I'm prattling on with this late is to get you to recognize the logical faults in the debate with Bjorn, regardless of if you were right or wrong or if it was topical or not.

You engaged in a plethora of ad hominem attacks, poisoned the well, etc. None of which makes you wrong, per se, but is poor form. You also assigned intents and motives without sufficient evidence from Bjorn's actual posts. This does not affect the general correctness, as I view it, of your argument, and by now I realize I must be becoming a prick, so I'll close that issue with my methodological objections raised.

That's not correct. I engaged in zero ad hominem attacks. I insulted Bjorn. Insulting somebody is not an ad hominem fallacy. Nor did I poison the well, which is an allied fallacy.

I have known that insults do not equal ad hominem, but I brushed up on exactly where the two are distinguished and reread the thread, and discovered something. I am wrong on that count. I don't like even insults where they aren't necessary, but I was wrong in mistaking them for those fallacies.

Thanks for prompting a second look.

[Speaker to Animals]

And, to be fair, he did barrel in there like a cat five cuntstorm of fake history.

[SuburbanFarmer]

And, to be fair, he did barrel in there like a cat five cuntstorm of fake history.

Was funny the first time...

[BjornP]

I know he didn't read the text because it contradicted what he was posting. He didn't even know it contradicted him until I pointed it out.

You are a little late. We've moved on to him lashing out at Bolelli now for also stating that the servile wars had some connection to the Dionysian cults, and that Spartacus' wife was, in fact, a follower of Dionysus. But, again, he'd have known that if he read the quoted Plutarch.

He was a Thracian from the nomadic tribes and not only had a great spirit and great physical strength, but was, much more than one would expect from his condition, most intelligent and cultured, being more like a Greek than a Thracian [3]. They say that when he was first taken to Rome to be sold, a snake was seen coiled round his head while he was asleep and his wife, who came from the same tribe and was a prophetess subject to possession by the frenzy of [the god of ecstasy] Dionysus, declared that this sign meant that he would have a great and terrible power which would end in misfortune. This woman shared in his escape and was then living with him.

http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/s ... s_t01.html


Again, I realize my thesis about degeneracy and the similarity between the SJWs and the Bacchanalia is controversial. I don't have a problem with people disputing that. Bjorn is disputing historical record and doing so in an insulting fashion. I just responded in likewise insult, though I use the actual historical record to support my case whereas he does not.

You know, fair's fair. About the tone of, at least my initial, reply. It was needlessly provocative. I apologize about that.

Still nowhere disputing historical record. The historical record knows about interpretatio romana.

I talked to our late iron age archaeologist at the museum where I work today about this discussion of ours, btw. He too confirms what I'm saying. That ancient Romans interpreted foreign gods to really be Roman gods with other names. Most historical sources simply relays the truth as they experienced it.

Again, I'm nowhere disputing the historical sources, just your reading of them. Plutarch's not contradicting me, lying, or being dishonest when he says that Spartacus' wife was a Dionysian priestess. To Plutarch and other ancient Romans, saying that Germans worshipped Mercury and Thracians Dionsysus, even if they instead worshipped Woden or some Thracian god(ddess) would have been met with blank stares. To them, WodenWAS Mercury, just a different name for the same god. This is referred to as interpretatio romana:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... tio_romana

https://books.google.dk/books?id=as_OTs ... us&f=false

Are there any Thracian gods that resemble Dionysus? Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Balkan_mythology

You decide.