Destroying History

[C-Mag]

That seems like some pretty sketchy source material.

I hope it is Fake News, but you never know nowadays

This is why you fail padawan................ believe

Original Swedish article
https://www.svd.se/fynd-fran-jarnaldern ... rvinningen

It's complicated. Ironically the root of the problem is the extensive privatizations that Sweden has gone through the last decades. Major constructions used to be handled by the state but is now subcontracted to private firms. In their bids they have to put aside funds to cover the costs for archaeological examinations and eventual excavations. They have to do that. Problem is that when they make a large find they haven't set aside enough money for conservation and for some reasons the museums aren't allowed to accept raw finds. It falls between chairs.
I blame the ultra left leaning ministry of Culture and their warped prioritizations.

WTF is up with these Archeologists and their adhearance to professional ethics ?



I don't understand why they didn't turn excess stuff over to schools or just sell it to fund other Archeological work.

[Speaker to Animals]

Sorry Bjorn, I don't think you should be voting in our elections either.

/snicker.

It's frightening how easy it apparently is to mislead people. They are more ready to believe obvious nonsense because the person on the other side of the debate is somebody they don't like. It's really amazing to see it sometimes.

This guy came in here with ZERO sources or evidence and was caught wrong repeatedly only to move goalposts around, lie, and even delete all the text of the first source Livy when responding.

I am really reconsidering this democracy idea. I am not sure it was the right way to go. Nergol makes a lot more sense now in hindsight.

[Okeefenokee]

Sorry Bjorn, I don't think you should be voting in our elections either.

/snicker.

It's frightening how easy it apparently is to mislead people. They are more ready to believe obvious nonsense because the person on the other side of the debate is somebody they don't like. It's really amazing to see it sometimes.

This guy came in here with ZERO sources or evidence and was caught wrong repeatedly only to move goalposts around, lie, and even delete all the text of the first source Livy when responding.

I am really reconsidering this democracy idea. I am not sure it was the right way to go. Nergol makes a lot more sense now in hindsight.

Yeah, I've thought about it too. I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I'm long past getting to the point where I see universal franchise and direct democracy as social suicide. It's like putting your dog in the driver's seat, and getting on the freeway.

[C-Mag]

Nergol makes a lot more sense now in hindsight.

Nergal, Hell's Secret Police
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nergal


That name always made me think of the Babylonian Demon

[BjornP]

But, please, tell us what Livy really meant.

Still not getting that what I'm critiquing, and has been critiquing from the start, is your use of Livius as a source on Spartacus... My first post in this interaction was in reply to your ridiculously unfounded assertion that Spartacus was some sort of extremist proto-SJW bent on destroying Roman civilization.

Again, Spartacus was not Roman. He did not worship Dionysus, and if he had a Thracian "prophetess" wife, she was no Roman either. Meaning, even IF we accept your story that those Bacchus cults sought the complete overthrow of Roman civilization, the emancipation of slaves, gender and social equality, etc., Spartacus would not have been part of that.

Now you are fucking lying to weasel out of it. I did not use Livy as a source on Spartacus, you lying sack of shit.

"Lying"? Nope, stop being a drama queen. Misunderstanding what you meant? Perhaps. You should have been clearer from the start, then. The initial post of yours I responded to was this:

The entire Spartacan revolt was, essentially, a Dionysian revolt. Spartacus' wife was a preistess of Dionysus. His army was made up of former slaves and Romans who wanted to overturn the order of Roman civilization.

I naturally figured the reason you would first post a source on the Bacchus cults, followed by a source claiming Spartacus had a Dionysian prophetess-wife, and finally you saying Spartacus revolt was a "Dionysian" revolt, was that you were trying to connect those two sources, somehow.

Portraying your own inability to form an argument as me "lying"... dude, stop playing the victim.

Were you not saying that Spartacus was connected to Bacchus cults? Ok, then. It looked that way, but if that's not what you meant, it's not. But my point remains the same, though. A Roman source saying a Thracian, German, Gaul or whatever worshipped "Dionysus" or "Mercury" or whatever Roman god, does not in fact mean that Thracians, Germanic tribes and Celts worshipped Roman gods - not untill their lands got conquered, anyhow. This should be standard knowledge for anyone wanting to read ancient Roman sources.

[Speaker to Animals]

Weaseling again.

I posted Livy's account of them to show how similar they were to our SJWs with respect to moral degeneracy and the belief that the highest "virtue" is that no sexually degenerate practice is unacceptable. I also showed how this was a movement primarily driven by women, involved the erosion of class and gender roles and distinctions, and (by quoting Polybius) that it was a major factor fomenting two of the servile wars.

You, on the other hand, were completely wrong in your assertion that Spartacus was not married to a priestess of Dionysus. Had you actually bothered to read the post you responded to, you would have seen that, but lacked the integrity to read it, didn't read it, and now you are caught with more and more lies and obfuscations to avoid admitting you are wrong.

[ssu]

A Roman source saying a Thracian, German, Gaul or whatever worshipped "Dionysus" or "Mercury" or whatever Roman god, does not in fact mean that Thracians, Germanic tribes and Celts worshipped Roman gods - not untill their lands got conquered, anyhow. This should be standard knowledge for anyone wanting to read ancient Roman sources.

I like it how in old times historian portrayed the opponents of Romans decadent, immoral and all things negative. And that they lost was because they were decadent, immoral and all things negative. Starting from the Etruscans forward...

A little bit source critique should be in Place?

Spartacus as a SJW.
THE SJW OF 1960!


I wonder what Kirk Douglas thinks about that. He's btw 100 years old now.

[Speaker to Animals]

A Roman source saying a Thracian, German, Gaul or whatever worshipped "Dionysus" or "Mercury" or whatever Roman god, does not in fact mean that Thracians, Germanic tribes and Celts worshipped Roman gods - not untill their lands got conquered, anyhow. This should be standard knowledge for anyone wanting to read ancient Roman sources.

I like it how in old times historian portrayed the opponents of Romans decadent, immoral and all things negative. And that they lost was because they were decadent, immoral and all things negative. Starting from the Etruscans forward...

A little bit source critique should be in Place?

Spartacus as a SJW.
THE SJW OF 1960!


I wonder what Kirk Douglas thinks about that. He's btw 100 years old now.

Oh, thanks for quoting that. I wanted to quote that falsehood earlier, but really didn't want to break out the machete of truth to carve my way through several posts of word salads.

Read that quote from Bjorn first, and then read this:

They then occupied a strong position [1] and elected three leaders. The first of these was Spartacus [2]. 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

[BjornP]

Bjorn came in here like a massive cunt shitting all over what I wrote with wordwall #1. Let's be clear that his first big complaint was that Spartacus had nothing to do with the Dionysian cults and his wife was not a priestess of Dionysus. I referred him back to the quoted text from Polybius (which he never bothered to read and probably still has not read) which explicitly stated this was the case. Then he started moving goal posts for the first time by saying OMG Polybius wasn't actually there!!! But neither was Bjorn, and Bjorn presented exactly ZERO sources or evidence to back himself up. Are we supposed to believe him that Polybius was wrong or lying but we are supposed to believe Bjorn instead? On faith in Bjorn? Fucking hell no. That guy is a fucking clown.

Let's not forget this entire debacle stems from my arguing that the closest match to SJWs in antiquity were these cultists. The Spartacan comments, though factually correct and backed up by sources, were merely an aside to show just where this kind of mentality can lead. Yet Bjorn disputes all of this, and when he gets cornered in his lies and nonsense, he deliberately tries to obfuscate with more lies about me using Polybius to describe the Bacchanalia (when I used Livy). When he replies to my posts using these texts, he actually deletes all the quotes of Livy and then responds as if I made it all up.

If you think that's convincing, then more power to you. I want to walk back enfranchisement because of shit like this.

Lol, as if not quoting the entire Livius text meant that I "ignored" it or "pretend that it all made up"? What the fuck sort of childish, on-the-fly made up rule is that, StA? Do you always quote all of someone's text when responding to them? No? Just how much bullshit do you need to make up about what I wrote? You seriously expecting anyone to believe another one of your victimhood fantasies?

Awww.... Did I "shit all over what you wrote"? If you can't deal with a little professional criticism, go crawl up into that safe space lodged behind your shrivelled balls.

What part of Roman sources Romanizing foreign deities is still not getting through? And it's Plutarch, not Polybius. And no shit I wasn't there... Nor did I anywhere claim that Plutarch was a bad source because he wasn't there... that's you misunderstanding the criticism. That a reader needs to know HOW to read an ancient source, that it needs to be read with a mind to the historical context it was created in, obviously does NOT mean it should not be read. Simply means that you won't get anything out of an ancient text if you read it like it was a contemporary text.

[Speaker to Animals]

No, you deliberately reply to those posts by deleting the quotes from Livy and Plutarch that show you were totally wrong. I have posted them repeatedly and you just ignore them, falling back on more word salads instead of admitting you are wrong.

It's not like you posted anything to back up your claim. Are we supposed to just assume Bjorn is the authority on all things that happened in Rome, and one should just search through his word salads to figure out what "actually" happened, even when actual Romans of record dispute you?

LOL, no.

Why can't you just admit you are wrong?

You could easily contest my thesis that the Bacchanalia was the closest analog to our social justice warriors without being such a cunt and disputing recorded history (without a shred of sources presented to support you).

I don't give a shit if you dispute that thesis. What pisses me off is how you come in talking out of your ass about history and you never even bothered to read the people who were there and recorded what happened, and you get the history so fucking wrong.

Spartacus was married to a priestess of Dionysus, genius. You were wrong.