50512
Post by: Jihadin
A Vermont man suing the state under the 13th Amendment for the labor he was forced to perform while awaiting trial in jail will get his day in court.
Finbar McGarry was a graduate student at the University of Vermont in December 2008 when he was arrested for allegedly firing a gun in his home and threatening to kill his family and an official at the university, where he had recently lost his job. His lawsuit alleges that the state violated his rights under the 13th Amendment -- which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude after the Civil War -- when he was forced to work in the laundry for minimal pay as an inmate in the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington, Vt.
McGarry, who filed the $11-million lawsuit pro se, said he was forced to work three days a week for six weeks washing other inmates' laundry. He was paid a wage of 25 cents per hour and developed a bacterial infection on his neck because he was not provided sanitation in the laundry room, he told ABC News in an interview Thursday.
Prison officials threatened to put McGarry "in the hole," where inmates are shackled and locked up for 23 hours per day in solitary confinement, if he refused to work, he said.
McGarry was released in June 2009, and all charges against him were dropped.
McGarry's anti-slavery case was thrown out in November 2009 by a federal court in Brattleboro, Vt. In his opinion, U.S. Magistrate Judge John Conroy wrote that McGarry's 13th Amendment claim was without merit because his laundry work "was nothing like the slavery that gave rise to the enactment of that amendment."
But on Friday, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled the lower court's dismissal of the case, arguing that McGarry did not have to prove that his experience was akin those of African slaves before abolition.
"Contrary to the district court's conclusion, it is well-settled that the term 'involuntary servitude' is not limited to chattel slavery-like conditions," appellate judge Barrington Parker wrote in the court's opinion. "The amendment was intended to prohibit all forms of involuntary labor, not solely to abolish chattel slavery."
Supreme Court precedent has established that the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees are distinct from those of convicted inmates, because criminal convictions can justify certain punishments, Parker argued.
The appellate panel remanded McGarry's case to the district court, where he will get a new trial. The state has 90 days to appeal the panel's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"If you haven't been convicted at all, your pretrial detention is not a form of punishment," said Columbia Law School professor Jamal Greene. "The degree to which his liberty can be restricted is directly tied to the needs that required him to be detained. So if he was detained only to secure himself for trial, he can't be detained for punishment."
David McLean, an assistant attorney general for Vermont, said it has never been the policy of the state's Department of Corrections to compel pretrial detainees to perform manual labor, but he refused to comment on McGarry's case.
McGarry pointed to a 1986 policy under which the department developed employment programs designed to help inmates gain employable skills and reduce the cost of incarceration. The policy did not distinguish between convicts and pretrial detainees.
"At that facility, that's what was happening. It was a 'rehabilitative' labor policy, and all inmates were expected to participate in it," he said. "It was a practice that affected a lot of pretrial detainees."
The Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility does not only house inmates awaiting trial. Unlike larger states, where county jails house the accused and state prisons house convicts, Vermont's correctional system mixes the two.
In a separate lawsuit he filed while he was in jail, McGarry's chief concern was not the Constitution; it was getting injunctive relief to prevent the state from forcing him to do more labor. During his 14-hour shifts, he said, he was unable to contact his public defender, causing him to fear that his case would not be handled properly. Other pretrial detainees had similar concerns, he said.
As a result of his lawsuit, which became moot upon his release, prison officials placed a hold on him to allow him to avoid labor, though he was still mistakenly forced to work on two occasions.
While all inmates may be expected to clean up their cells or wipe down tables in the mess hall, Greene said, the poorly paid, unsafe work McGarry alleged he was forced to do may have crossed a legal boundary.
"There is no distinct line here," Greene said. "But the closer [the job] gets to being something you do as part of the group, the more likely it is to be upheld by a court. The further away you get -- like being subjected to something unusual or forced labor -- it sounds like he might very well have a legitimate claim here."
Greene said that, in the past, the lower federal courts have rejected claims that general housekeeping prisons required of inmates qualified as forced labor, but the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on cases involving additional labor, like McGarry's laundry work.
29408
Post by: Melissia
He wasn't yet convicted, so I can see this being legitimate.
Once you're convicted, get your ass to work. But before that? You're not a criminal yet.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I thought prison work programs were generally opt in? That actually does kinda sound like slavery. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:He wasn't yet convicted, so I can see this being legitimate.
That doesn't actually have much bearing on the slavery case. That'd be an entirely different lawsuit were that the basis of it.
37020
Post by: DarkCorsair
He was forced to do this before he was even given a trial? In that case, I certainly agree, he has every right to sue.
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Quote Stephen Fry after visiting an American Prison, "Its like modern day slavery". Sure you can call it a work program, but its just a sub ethical way of getting a lot of cheap labour, and seeing as a large part of the US manufacturing industry is made up of convicts (again quote Mr Fry)its what allows them to compete with other world powers. =P
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Wyrmalla wrote:Quote Stephen Fry after visiting an American Prison, "Its like modern day slavery". Sure you can call it a work program, but its just a sub ethical way of getting a lot of cheap labour, and seeing as a large part of the US manufacturing industry is made up of convicts (again quote Mr Fry)its what allows them to compete with other world powers. =P
You say sub-ethical, I say brilliant business planning 
But nah, I've heard of seriously disturbing things, especially in privately run prisons. Like how inmates at times work for eighteen hours a day in no air conditioning/heat doing work with power tools and equipment that is not regularly inspected or properly maintained while not having any of the appropriate safety gear for what they're doing.
But then, they're prisoners, so I don't care if they're life sucks. Should have considered that before knocking over Papa O'Macky's gas stations
18602
Post by: Horst
LordofHats wrote:Wyrmalla wrote:Quote Stephen Fry after visiting an American Prison, "Its like modern day slavery". Sure you can call it a work program, but its just a sub ethical way of getting a lot of cheap labour, and seeing as a large part of the US manufacturing industry is made up of convicts (again quote Mr Fry)its what allows them to compete with other world powers. =P
You say sub-ethical, I say brilliant business planning
But nah, I've heard of seriously disturbing things, especially in privately run prisons. Like how inmates at times work for eighteen hours a day in no air conditioning/heat doing work with power tools and equipment that is not regularly inspected or properly maintained while not having any of the appropriate safety gear for what they're doing.
But then, they're prisoners, so I don't care if they're life sucks. Should have considered that before knocking over Papa O'Macky's gas stations
I'd agree with you, if it wasn't for the war on drugs...
I have no sympathy for people who commit violent crimes. They deserve to be in jail, and slave labor is less forced labor, as paying back society for what they've taken. However, when you have 1 million + people a year being thrown in prison for drug use / possession charges, or for parole violation in using drugs, then we have a serious problem. I don't do drugs, and I don't advocate their use. However, I don't think any sane person could agree that its a reasonable punishment, to be sentenced to slave labor for a few years, for smoking a joint.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Well, you're not exactly going to be encouraged into becoming a positive member of society if your forced to work 14 hours a day to make $3.50.
Besides the humongous amount of money he claims, I think he's in his right. Prison shouldn't be able to force you to work, unless maybe the crime you've committted had a monetary value to it that you couldn't reimburse.
18602
Post by: Horst
Prison should be a place for rehabilitation of criminals, not the punishment of criminals.
Criminals who have no chance of rehab should be put down.
Criminals who can be rehabilitated should be, and forcing them into slave labor conditions will do nothing to help them, except turn them into resentful monsters when they are released.
37020
Post by: DarkCorsair
Horst wrote:Prison should be a place for rehabilitation of criminals, not the punishment of criminals.
Criminals who have no chance of rehab should be put down.
Criminals who can be rehabilitated should be, and forcing them into slave labor conditions will do nothing to help them, except turn them into resentful monsters when they are released.
This dude wasn't a criminal yet. He was still awaiting a trial.
18602
Post by: Horst
Well then he should never have gone to prison in the first place. I never understood this, how you can be held at a prison while awaiting a trial... don't they have things like ankle bracelets for house arrest, so you can't run away?
12313
Post by: Ouze
It's funny cause I read the headline and was like lol, no. Then I read the story and I was like hey, that's actually... a pretty good case.
49775
Post by: DIDM
a LOT of major manufacturers now use prison laborers to make their goods
no fething joke
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/business/private-businesses-fight-federal-prisons-for-contracts.html?pagewanted=all
Victoria Secret stuff is made by men in prison a lot of the time, imagine that
121
Post by: Relapse
Melissia wrote:He wasn't yet convicted, so I can see this being legitimate.
Once you're convicted, get your ass to work. But before that? You're not a criminal yet.
Agreed
49272
Post by: Testify
They said on QI that the US Army's helmets are made in prisons, as well as a lot of their equipment. I think it's disgusting. I honestly don't see how a civilised society can tolerate slavery on that scale.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Prison should be a place for rehabilitation of criminals, not the punishment of criminals.
At what point does punishment of criminals happen then?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Mr Hyena wrote:Prison should be a place for rehabilitation of criminals, not the punishment of criminals.
At what point does punishment of criminals happen then?
I'd imagine it would be the whole being locked away from society and having your freedoms restricted.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
SilverMK2 wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Prison should be a place for rehabilitation of criminals, not the punishment of criminals.
At what point does punishment of criminals happen then?
I'd imagine it would be the whole being locked away from society and having your freedoms restricted.
Agreeable...though with access to Facebook, PS3s and SkyTV does that really count as being 'locked away' from society?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Mr Hyena wrote:Agreeable...though with access to Facebook, PS3s and SkyTV does that really count as being 'locked away' from society?
I'm not going to comment on the current prison system since I don't know too much about what people have access to and what the do not and the different levels of prison there are and the kinds of people who go to them.
However I could see some types of ciminals being given access to these items/services as part of their "rehabilitation" while others are refused them.
49272
Post by: Testify
SilverMK2 wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Agreeable...though with access to Facebook, PS3s and SkyTV does that really count as being 'locked away' from society?
I'm not going to comment on the current prison system since I don't know too much about what people have access to and what the do not and the different levels of prison there are and the kinds of people who go to them.
However I could see some types of ciminals being given access to these items/services as part of their "rehabilitation" while others are refused them.
Mr Hyena is a right-wing troll, I wouldn't feed him.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Do not make ad hominem attacks against other posters, thanks.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Mr Hyena wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Prison should be a place for rehabilitation of criminals, not the punishment of criminals.
At what point does punishment of criminals happen then?
I'd imagine it would be the whole being locked away from society and having your freedoms restricted.
Agreeable...though with access to Facebook, PS3s and SkyTV does that really count as being 'locked away' from society?
Where does the prison system give offenders computers with facebook, televisions with sattelite, and Playstation 3s? Is this just the total contents of a minimum security rec room or something? Have you ever even driven by a prison?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
ShumaGorath wrote:Have you ever even driven by a prison?
The one in the town I used to live was a proper prison with 40ft high brick walls about a metre thick - built in 1794 when prisons were real prisons 
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
ShumaGorath wrote:I thought prison work programs were generally opt in? That actually does kinda sound like slavery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:He wasn't yet convicted, so I can see this being legitimate.
That doesn't actually have much bearing on the slavery case. That'd be an entirely different lawsuit were that the basis of it.
It is slavery. You can find more information here.
I'm rooting for this guy to win his case, but I know that he won't. The US prison-industrial complex is far too integrated with your corrupt court system to allow him to win.
62515
Post by: sackville-baggins
There is such a thing as peonage laws. This guy could win.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Its probaly going to come down to whats the written policy of the prison he was in.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Jihadin wrote:Its probaly going to come down to whats the written policy of the prison he was in.
This should not be relevant, for obvious reasons.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
ShumaGorath wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Prison should be a place for rehabilitation of criminals, not the punishment of criminals.
At what point does punishment of criminals happen then?
I'd imagine it would be the whole being locked away from society and having your freedoms restricted.
Agreeable...though with access to Facebook, PS3s and SkyTV does that really count as being 'locked away' from society?
Where does the prison system give offenders computers with facebook, televisions with sattelite, and Playstation 3s? Is this just the total contents of a minimum security rec room or something? Have you ever even driven by a prison?
UK prisons of all kinds. US prisons go with a better system.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Mr Hyena wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Prison should be a place for rehabilitation of criminals, not the punishment of criminals.
At what point does punishment of criminals happen then?
I'd imagine it would be the whole being locked away from society and having your freedoms restricted.
Agreeable...though with access to Facebook, PS3s and SkyTV does that really count as being 'locked away' from society?
Where does the prison system give offenders computers with facebook, televisions with sattelite, and Playstation 3s? Is this just the total contents of a minimum security rec room or something? Have you ever even driven by a prison?
UK prisons of all kinds. US prisons go with a better system.
Is that why we have the worst prison recidivism rates and the largest imprissoned population per capita in the western world? because we're better? I'm going to call you next time I want to know what time it is. You're practically a clock.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
ShumaGorath wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:UK prisons of all kinds. US prisons go with a better system.
Is that why we have the worst prison recidivism rates and the largest imprissoned population per capita in the western world? because we're better? I'm going to call you next time I want to know what time it is. You're practically a clock.
It must be a better system. Why else would so many people be in the system?  (US has the highest incarceration rate in the world... even higher than Russia, the "Great Incarcerator".)
49272
Post by: Testify
There's a prevailing right-wing myth in the UK that prisoners get given daily felatio and whatever techno gadgets they want. It's bs.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Who needs prisons? Just publicly execute the ones who commit capital crimes (rape, third-degree murder, etc.) as examples and have the rest flogged. Or, instead of execution, send the capital criminals to work camps ala Gulag. After trial, mind...before that, incarceration.
43066
Post by: feeder
Tadashi wrote:Who needs prisons? Just execute the ones who commit capital crimes (rape, third-degree murder, etc.) and have the rest flogged. Or, instead of execution, work camps ala Gulag.
Mmmm.... nah. Bad idea.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
feeder wrote:Tadashi wrote:Who needs prisons? Just execute the ones who commit capital crimes (rape, third-degree murder, etc.) and have the rest flogged. Or, instead of execution, work camps ala Gulag.
Mmmm.... nah. Bad idea.
Which part? The public executions? Or the flogging? Or the Gulag?
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Everything you ever say?
29408
Post by: Melissia
We can send the deathrow inmates to mars!
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:We can send the deathrow inmates to mars!
Now why would we want to do that?
29408
Post by: Melissia
To test out mars colonization equipment.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
US Army penal legions! Er, regiments?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
US Army penal legions! Er, regiments?
Against UCMJ. They stuck breaking big rocks into little rocks on thursday's
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Melissia wrote:We can send the deathrow inmates to mars!
Would make a cool reality show! I always felt that the Surreal Life should have allowed shanking.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Start real life Gladiators fight in the coliseum. GLORY FOR ROME!!!
37231
Post by: d-usa
Tadashi wrote:Melissia wrote:We can send the deathrow inmates to mars!
Now why would we want to do that?
Worked out good for Australia, and Mars might be a bit more hospitable than Australia.
49272
Post by: Testify
d-usa wrote:Tadashi wrote:Melissia wrote:We can send the deathrow inmates to mars!
Now why would we want to do that?
Worked out good for Australia, and Mars might be a bit more hospitable than Australia.
The "convicts" sent to Australia were most of the time sent for very petty reasons. The government needed people to send over, so they put pressure on judges to convict people of minor crimes and send them to Oz. It had nothing to do with prison over-crowding or somesuch.
The modern day equivalent would be sending away someone for possession of a small amount of cannabis, or accumulating driving tickets.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Testify wrote:
The modern day equivalent would be sending away someone for possession of a small amount of cannabis, or accumulating driving tickets.
The former should be flogged (unless he/she were addicted, in which case psychiatric care would be prescribed) and the latter should be fined - HEAVILY.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Nah. My paternal great great great grandfather was sent to Australia instead of being hung for armed treason.
He left and lived in the U.S. for a few years before a pardon was issued for the Metis government of Louis Riel.
Edit : Flogging for marijuana possession? Feth...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Edit : Flogging for marijuana possession? Feth...
A fitting punishment, seeing as pushers and dealers ruin the lives of other people...addicts though, get free psychiatric and/or medical care.
37231
Post by: d-usa
But look how good Australia turned out. Just think what we can do with Mars!
49272
Post by: Testify
Tadashi wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:
Edit : Flogging for marijuana possession? Feth...
A fitting punishment, seeing as pushers and dealers ruin the lives of other people...addicts though, get free psychiatric and/or medical care.
I have used and dealt cannabis. You're talking out of your arse.
I think you're thinking of this.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Nah. My paternal great great great grandfather was sent to Australia instead of being hung for armed treason.
Under what circumstances? Was he an Irish/Scottish freedom fighter? And his background?
I doubt he was what we would today consider "criminal scum" - compulsive murderers, rapists, etc.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Testify wrote:Tadashi wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:
Edit : Flogging for marijuana possession? Feth...
A fitting punishment, seeing as pushers and dealers ruin the lives of other people...addicts though, get free psychiatric and/or medical care.
I have used and dealt cannabis. You're talking out of your arse.
I think you're thinking of this.
Sorry, but where I grew up, both are illegal. Its also illegal in Japan and many US states.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Tadashi wrote:]
A fitting punishment, seeing as pushers and dealers ruin the lives of other people...addicts though, get free psychiatric and/or medical care.
A) Pot dealers don't ruin anyone's life. B) Flogging isn't a good way of discouraging a crime that can potentially gets you hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. C) You'd end up with drug cartels arming themselves. Does Mexico sounds like a nice model to emulate? Automatically Appended Next Post: Testify wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:Nah. My paternal great great great grandfather was sent to Australia instead of being hung for armed treason.
Under what circumstances? Was he an Irish/Scottish freedom fighter? And his background?
I doubt he was what we would today consider "criminal scum" - compulsive murderers, rapists, etc.
He was Louis Riel's general during the Red River Rebellion (also known as the North-West Rebellion). He was sentenced to hanging, but after the outcry that followed Riel's hanging, his sentence was commuted in exil.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:
A) Pot dealers don't ruin anyone's life.
A lot of people in the Philippines and in Japan beg to differ.
B) Flogging isn't a good way of discouraging a crime that can potentially gets you hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions.
And I suppose that justifies the Human cost?
C) You'd end up with drug cartels arming themselves. Does Mexico sounds like a nice model to emulate?
As I recall, in my grandfather's time, the Philippine Army didn't have any trouble storming drug cartels hiding out in the mountains and forests. And apparently, they still don't.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Pot is about as dangerous as tobacco.
Actually, it's not quite, seeing as it's not physically addictive.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/19/is-marijuana-addictive-it-depends-how-you-define-addiction/
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Mistaking Opium and Marijuana, maybe? There's no 'human cost' to marijuana, beyond the few casualities that can come out of cartel wars, and possibly cancer in the same levels as tobacco. But marijuana users usually don't smoke in quantities that ressemble what a tobacco user does.
Once again, Tadashi speaks of what he knows not. So fresh...
49272
Post by: Testify
Tadashi wrote:
Sorry, but where I grew up, both are illegal. Its also illegal in Japan and many US states.
It's illegal here too, it's just not really enforced, and for a very good reason. But I won't get into the pros and cons of cannabis use in this thread.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
He was Louis Riel's general during the Red River Rebellion (also known as the North-West Rebellion). He was sentenced to hanging, but after the outcry that followed Riel's hanging, his sentence was commuted in exil.
That's pretty cool man. Always nice to hear some personal family history.
But anyway - sounds more like a political prisoner than a criminal to me, so I think my point still stands. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kovnik Obama wrote:Mistaking Opium and Marijuana, maybe? There's no 'human cost' to marijuana, beyond the few casualities that can come out of cartel wars, and possibly cancer in the same levels as tobacco. But marijuana users usually don't smoke in quantities that ressemble what a tobacco user does.
Speak for yourself.
Seriously though, no one in Britain has ever died as a result of "cannabis wars" or whatever bs the anti-drug crowd pull out.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
I can admit that it's addictive. In about the same level of addiction as caffeine.
I currently cutting down on my usage, and there are a few bad side effects. The vivid nightmares, for starters. But talking about a 'human cost' or 'ruining lives' is fething ridiculous.
43066
Post by: feeder
Tadashi wrote:feeder wrote:Tadashi wrote:Who needs prisons? Just execute the ones who commit capital crimes (rape, third-degree murder, etc.) and have the rest flogged. Or, instead of execution, work camps ala Gulag.
Mmmm.... nah. Bad idea.
Which part? The public executions? Or the flogging? Or the Gulag?
All of it. None of those are demonstrably effective at deterring crime.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:Mistaking Opium and Marijuana, maybe? There's no 'human cost' to marijuana, beyond the few casualities that can come out of cartel wars, and possibly cancer in the same levels as tobacco. But marijuana users usually don't smoke in quantities that ressemble what a tobacco user does.
Once again, Tadashi speaks of what he knows not. So fresh...
No, marijuana in all its forms are illegal in the Philippines. I grew up here, and I know what I'm talking about. Just mere possession could land you in jail...the Army TORCHES all the fields it can find. You think they would do that if it was legal? Opium derivatives, on the other hand, are HEAVILY-CONTROLLED. If not prescribed, and you use it, you still go to jail.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Jihadin wrote:Start real life Gladiators fight in the coliseum. GLORY FOR ROME!!!
One of the surest signs of a decaying society is when its criminal justice system becomes its entertainment.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Kim Kardasian any better?
49272
Post by: Testify
Kovnik Obama wrote:I can admit that it's addictive. In about the same level of addiction as caffeine.
I currently cutting down on my usage, and there are a few bad side effects. The vivid nightmares, for starters. But talking about a 'human cost' or 'ruining lives' is fething ridiculous.
I'd agree, on both counts.
Recently gave up myself, after years of smoking, at my lowest an eigth every two days - at my worst 2 or 3 ounces a week. I still have friends who can't really function without it, but refuse to acknowledge this. I also started again after losing my job - and blew most of my last paycheque on it. I think I'm good now.
So yeah - it's not harmless by any means, but it sure as hell isn't heroin or cocaine - or alcohol.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
azazel the cat wrote:Jihadin wrote:Start real life Gladiators fight in the coliseum. GLORY FOR ROME!!!
One of the surest signs of a decaying society is when its criminal justice system becomes its entertainment.
Agreed...but public executions are not entertainment. They are examples.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Testify wrote:
That's pretty cool man. Always nice to hear some personal family history.
But anyway - sounds more like a political prisoner than a criminal to me, so I think my point still stands.
I'll agree with you, since it's true that it wasn't exactly heinous crimes, although at the time most english-canadian thought he was an insane psychopath (Riel's lawyer told him that he should try the insanity plea. Riel's answer was pretty awesome : ''Life, without the dignity of reason, isn't worth living'')
My ancestor was pretty psycho, tho. He was the one who pressured for Thomas Scotts execution, and when the dude survived the firing squad, he personnaly put a bullet in his face. Seeing as Scott survived that one too, he then dragged him to his prepared coffin, encased him, and then buried him alive and screaming. Knowing Scott for the utter donkey-cave he was, I think it's pretty badass of him.
Speak for yourself.
Yeah, some users definitly go overboard in ways I never could. Still, I think it's more common for cigarette users to goe through 2 packs a day then for pot smokers to go through 24 joints a day (God would that put me in a coma  )
49272
Post by: Testify
Kovnik Obama wrote:Testify wrote:
That's pretty cool man. Always nice to hear some personal family history.
But anyway - sounds more like a political prisoner than a criminal to me, so I think my point still stands.
I'll agree with you, since it's true that it wasn't exactly heinous crimes, although at the time most english-canadian thought he was an insane psychopath (Riel's lawyer told him that he should try the insanity plea. Riel's answer was pretty awesome : ''Life, without the dignity of reason, isn't worth living'')
My ancestor was pretty psycho, tho. He was the one who pressured for Thomas Scotts execution, and when the dude survived the firing squad, he personnaly put a bullet in his face. Seeing as Scott survived that one too, he then dragged him to his prepared coffin, encased him, and then buried him alive and screaming. Knowing Scott for the utter donkey-cave he was, I think it's pretty badass of him.
You had my symapathy until I googled him - turns out he's an Orangeman
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Speak for yourself.
Yeah, some users definitly go overboard in ways I never could. Still, I think it's more common for cigarette users to goe through 2 packs a day then for pot smokers to go through 24 joints a day (God would that put me in a coma )
Day 1 - smoke until you make yourself comatose and sick
Day 2 - do the same
Carry on about about 7-10 days.
After that, your resistance is gone - you can basically smoke an infinite amount without being sick or going comatose.
Depressing thing is, I found this out when I should have been in lectures. Shockingly, I failed
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote:azazel the cat wrote:Jihadin wrote:Start real life Gladiators fight in the coliseum. GLORY FOR ROME!!!
One of the surest signs of a decaying society is when its criminal justice system becomes its entertainment.
Agreed...but public executions are not entertainment. They are examples.
Show someone being killed in public, and they will enjoy it. People like blood. Public executions feed that urge. Much as I disagree with capital punishment, in the USA (and in most countries actually) at least it's carried out in private.
37231
Post by: d-usa
azazel the cat wrote:Jihadin wrote:Start real life Gladiators fight in the coliseum. GLORY FOR ROME!!!
One of the surest signs of a decaying society is when its criminal justice system becomes its entertainment.
What about when all their entertainers end up in the criminal justice system
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Testify wrote:
Show someone being killed in public, and they will enjoy it. People like blood. Public executions feed that urge. Much as I disagree with capital punishment, in the USA (and in most countries actually) at least it's carried out in private.
Not if you announce their crimes first...
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Testify wrote:You had my symapathy until I googled him - turns out he's an Orangeman
Thomas Scott was an Orangist. My ancestor was the one who executed him. His name was Ambroise-Dydime Lépine. Or are people sympathetic to Orangist, now? Humm.. Oranges...
49272
Post by: Testify
Tadashi wrote:Testify wrote:
Show someone being killed in public, and they will enjoy it. People like blood. Public executions feed that urge. Much as I disagree with capital punishment, in the USA (and in most countries actually) at least it's carried out in private.
Not if you announce their crimes first...
No. Violence is violence. The Romans used it to pacify people - we in more civilised times try to repress that instinct.
Fun fact - the same thing that makes people watch murderers be executed, is the same instinct that made them kill in the first place. We're better than that - you're better than that.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Testify wrote:You had my symapathy until I googled him - turns out he's an Orangeman
Thomas Scott was an Orangist. My ancestor was the one who executed him. His name was Ambroise-Dydime Lépine. Or are people sympathetic to Orangist, now? Humm.. Oranges...
Then I may have understood - I am completely hammered. I hate Orangemen
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Testify wrote:Day 1 - smoke until you make yourself comatose and sick
Day 2 - do the same
Carry on about about 7-10 days.
After that, your resistance is gone - you can basically smoke an infinite amount without being sick or going comatose.
Depressing thing is, I found this out when I should have been in lectures. Shockingly, I failed
I'm happy I always remained a lightweight, even tho my usage was pretty constant. Oh and I went through my Law certificate completely hazed, just don't do that during the exams.
Now if the damn nightmares could just feth off, I'd be happy. Last night I killed an entire village with a pitchfork. And there wasn't any detail missing ; HD quality, surround sound, the works. Wasn't fun. Automatically Appended Next Post: Testify wrote:
Then I may have understood - I am completely hammered. I hate Orangemen
They seem pretty hateful. Wasn't there a story about a stoning of school kids a few years ago. Or was that the Catholics... Growing up, Northern Ireland seems a bit fethed up to me...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Testify wrote:Tadashi wrote:Testify wrote:
Show someone being killed in public, and they will enjoy it. People like blood. Public executions feed that urge. Much as I disagree with capital punishment, in the USA (and in most countries actually) at least it's carried out in private.
Not if you announce their crimes first...
No. Violence is violence. The Romans used it to pacify people - we in more civilised times try to repress that instinct.
Fun fact - the same thing that makes people watch murderers be executed, is the same instinct that made them kill in the first place. We're better than that - you're better than that.
It certainly seems a lot better than wasting tax money on the dregs of society.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Seems to be working in the middle east...beheading...losing a hand....caning...few stoning...and its 2012
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Rehabilitating those who can be and ostracising those who can't seems like a waste of money? Making a better society is a waste of money?
Yeah, file that under Tadashi's droppings of pure wisdom.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Jihadin wrote:Seems to be working in the middle east...beheading...losing a hand....caning...few stoning...and its 2012
Yeah...and they hang people in Japan too. Not to mention gas chambers and electric chairs in a few states. Kovnik Obama wrote:Rehabilitating those who can be and ostracising those who can't seems like a waste of money? Making a better society is a waste of money?
Yeah, file that under Tadashi's droppings of pure wisdom.
The stability of a state depends on harsh punishment.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Jihadin wrote:Seems to be working in the middle east...beheading...losing a hand....caning...few stoning...and its 2012
I would venture that those middle-east countries your refering to are at about the same social developpment level as we were 2500 years ago, and would be rather much more violent then ours.
Modernity isn't proportionnaly distributed across the world.
Oh, but wait, that's gonna be interpreted as Western elitism. Oh but wait, the West IS the elite. Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote:
The stability of a state depends on harsh punishment.
Yeah, and Norway is in such a state of constant chaos. 
49272
Post by: Testify
Tadashi wrote:
It certainly seems a lot better than wasting tax money on the dregs of society.
A modern capitalist society is incredibly good at generating wealth. If you are not prepared to expand some of that in order to preserve the life of a human being, then I don't want to live in the same society as you.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
I'm happy I always remained a lightweight, even tho my usage was pretty constant. Oh and I went through my Law certificate completely hazed, just don't do that during the exams.
Now if the damn nightmares could just feth off, I'd be happy. Last night I killed an entire village with a pitchfork. And there wasn't any detail missing ; HD quality, surround sound, the works. Wasn't fun.
Yeah I have plenty of friends who've succeeded while smoking lots of weed...I just like to blame my own lack of success on it
I'm guessing that you're a young man of a certain age. Violent thoughts/impulses are a part of growing up. Has less to do with weed and more to do with being, fundamentally, an animal.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
They seem pretty hateful. Wasn't there a story about a stoning of school kids a few years ago. Or was that the Catholics... Growing up, Northern Ireland seems a bit fethed up to me...
Nope, that was them. Throwing rocks at schoolkids.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Saudi beheading a drifter....another one got life and 3K worth of the cane...Pretty modern there. Execution is determined by the culture. Who are we to judge  Might be barbaric to us but then its not to them
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yeah, and Norway is in such a state of constant chaos.
A vast military and information control are the keys to suppressing 'anti-government' forces. As long as the public has no problems to complain about, you have order, stability, and peace.
49272
Post by: Testify
Tadashi wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yeah, and Norway is in such a state of constant chaos.
A vast military and information control are the keys to suppressing 'anti-government' forces. As long as the public has no problems to complain about, you have order, stability, and peace.
Or, you know...a democratic state of government that's capable of responding to the wishes and changing attitudes of citizens.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Testify wrote:Tadashi wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote: Yeah, and Norway is in such a state of constant chaos.
A vast military and information control are the keys to suppressing 'anti-government' forces. As long as the public has no problems to complain about, you have order, stability, and peace.
Or, you know...a democratic state of government that's capable of responding to the wishes and changing attitudes of citizens.
Except it would take longer to get anything done. With a vast military and information control, you don't need to negotiate. 'Suppression', orbital weaponry, garrisons and provisional governments, deportation of subversives to space colonies, we could unite the world in a matter of years as opposed to a century. And its not like the UN/Federation/World Parliament/Congress wasn't democratically elected. Granted, it would be dominated by the 'sponsor nations' and their allies, but hey, its for a good cause.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Tadashi...you related to BaronVeigh? 
49272
Post by: Testify
Tadashi wrote:Testify wrote:Tadashi wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yeah, and Norway is in such a state of constant chaos.
A vast military and information control are the keys to suppressing 'anti-government' forces. As long as the public has no problems to complain about, you have order, stability, and peace.
Or, you know...a democratic state of government that's capable of responding to the wishes and changing attitudes of citizens.
Except it would take longer to get anything done. With a vast military and information control, you don't need to negotiate. 'Suppression', orbital weaponry, garrisons and provisional governments, deportation of subversives to space colonies, we could unite the world in a matter of years as opposed to a century.
The West threw in their lot with democracy 2,500 years ago (deliberate pun). Bit late to turn back now
Ask presidant Assad how well suppression works. Or Gadaffi. Or Mubarak. See my point?
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Jihadin wrote:Tadashi...you related to BaronVeigh?
Who's that? Testify wrote:
Ask presidant Assad how well suppression works. Or Gadaffi. Or Mubarak. See my point?
They didn't have information control...when I mean control, I mean CONTROL. The media always puts the government in a good light (even heavy casualties result in a complete government victory), supercomputers filter the networks for subversive information, and so on...
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Testify wrote:
I'm guessing that you're a young man of a certain age. Violent thoughts/impulses are a part of growing up. Has less to do with weed and more to do with being, fundamentally, an animal.
Nah, I'm closer to 30 now. Well that's still young . And yeah, the impulse might be natural, but the vividity of the dreams aren't. And it always become like this when I stop smoking before going to bed. Weed represses my dreams, and then it goes in overdrive when I don't smoke. And it's always fething nightmares. The other night I was a journalist (a chick too...  ) who had agreed at getting tortured if she could interview the mad doctor that was cutting her/me apart. I dreamed the sound and smell of the saw going through my bones...
Nope, that was them. Throwing rocks at schoolkids.
Fuuuuu... That brings the RAGE! to a critical mass... Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:Saudi beheading a drifter....another one got life and 3K worth of the cane...Pretty modern there. Execution is determined by the culture. Who are we to judge Might be barbaric to us but then its not to them
Yeah, but cultural relativism stops being relevent when you realise the principle behind Humanism isn't the product of a culture, but a constant trend amongst nations that aren't ultra-traditionnal or totalitarian.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote: The other night I was a journalist (a chick too... ) who had agreed at getting tortured if she could interview the mad doctor that was cutting her/me apart. I dreamed the sound and smell of the saw going through my bones...
I feel sick...
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Tadashi wrote:
They didn't have information control...when I mean control, I mean CONTROL. The media always puts the government in a good light (even heavy casualties result in a complete government victory), supercomputers filter the networks for subversive information, and so on...
Sad to see your still a fascist... : 
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:Tadashi wrote:
They didn't have information control...when I mean control, I mean CONTROL. The media always puts the government in a good light (even heavy casualties result in a complete government victory), supercomputers filter the networks for subversive information, and so on...
Sad to see your still a fascist... :
Its for the greater good...no pun intended.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Jihadin wrote:Saudi beheading a drifter....another one got life and 3K worth of the cane...Pretty modern there. Execution is determined by the culture. Who are we to judge Might be barbaric to us but then its not to them
Oh and let me just add, execution isn't absolutely wrong. For the sake of ideal integrity humanists and liberals tend to think it is, but there's a good argument for social self-defense, in some cases.
Public execution, on the other hand, that's simply backwards. That assumes that adults need a constant reminder of the horrifying consequences of crimes, when, honestly, a good education and a good upbringing will usually settle that early. And there are downside to being constantly exposed to gore.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Kovnik Obama wrote:And there are downside to being constantly exposed to gore.
... the amount of clothes I have to burn to destroy the eviden... erm... carry on! 
50512
Post by: Jihadin
And there are downside to being constantly exposed to gore.
That you become desentized to the sight and accept as a normal everyday sight
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Tadashi wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yeah, and Norway is in such a state of constant chaos.
A vast military and information control are the keys to suppressing 'anti-government' forces. As long as the public has no problems to complain about, you have order, stability, and peace.
Canada always as stuff to complain about, yet when it comes the time where another nation would attempt to assassinate it's leaders, we merely hit ours with pies. Yet somehow, we manage to not descend into anarchy, despite the lack of military control or fascist regimes
Tadashi, your freshman views on fascism betray your adolescence. I would recommend reading some Hobbes while listening to Woody Guthrie.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
azazel the cat wrote:
Tadashi, your freshman views on fascism betray your adolescence. I would recommend reading some Hobbes while listening to Woody Guthrie.
I hate Hobbes...I prefer to read Nietszche. And I was born, raised, and live in a country where democracy is a failure, and a mere facade over an oligarchic plutocracy. You must forgive me, but my subconscious has already given up on democracy as a lost cause, and what the world and humanity truly needs is unification and leadership.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Lets not bring up Heinlien Federation even though it appeals to quite a few of us
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Jihadin wrote:Lets not bring up Heinlien Federation even though it appeals to quite a few of us
I would pick Heinlein's Federation over the Imperium or any fictional state...an ideal government ruled by a meritocratic oligarchy. Good call!
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Tadashi wrote:azazel the cat wrote:
Tadashi, your freshman views on fascism betray your adolescence. I would recommend reading some Hobbes while listening to Woody Guthrie.
I hate Hobbes...I prefer to read Nietszche. And I was born, raised, and live in a country where democracy is a failure, and a mere facade over an oligarchic plutocracy. You must forgive me, but my subconscious has already given up on democracy as a lost cause, and what the world and humanity truly needs is unification and leadership.
I too am a fan on Nietzsche; he meshes very well with Hobbes... Not so well with fascism. In fact, he was pretty sternly against it.
And forgive me, but which country are you referring to?
51396
Post by: Tadashi
azazel the cat wrote:
I too am a fan on Nietzsche; he meshes very well with Hobbes... Not so well with fascism. In fact, he was pretty sternly against it.
I know, ironic isn't it? But the Ubermensch is very compelling, and the idea of the Last Man disgusting.
And forgive me, but which country are you referring to?
The Philippines.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Tadashi wrote:azazel the cat wrote:
I too am a fan on Nietzsche; he meshes very well with Hobbes... Not so well with fascism. In fact, he was pretty sternly against it.
I know, ironic isn't it? But the Ubermensch is very compelling, and the idea of the Last Man disgusting.
And forgive me, but which country are you referring to?
The Philippines.
Ah, thanks. Those little flags aren't appearing for me at the moment.
Hey, is that weird Mentos thing about National Night legit, or is that just the most random BS ever created?
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Insanity, pure and simple.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
azazel the cat wrote:
Tadashi, your freshman views on fascism betray your adolescence. I would recommend reading some Hobbes while listening to Woody Guthrie.
I think this Hobbes would serve him better:
Along with a girlfriend.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
rubiksnoob wrote:
Along with a girlfriend.
The person I seek does not exist...or rather, the person with the characteristics I seek does not exist.
29408
Post by: Melissia
So you're looking for an anime character?
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:So you're looking for an anime character?
No...just a woman with the characteristics portrayed...don't trust most women these days that much...my godfather/uncle was reduced from a successful businessman to a depressed hermit by one.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Gold digger
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Jihadin wrote:Gold digger
Yup...they were engaged, then she ran off with a rich old man. My dad was furious, and it was all mom could do to calm him down (though she was angry, but in a cold and somewhat terrifying way). She was the one who impressed on me that people like that should just die with a bullet in their back (her father - my maternal grandfather - was a career soldier, so deserters and cowards don't really impress her).
29408
Post by: Melissia
You know, if I stated that I don't trust men just because a man betrayed my mother or something, I would be instantly attacked as a man-hating psycho lesbian or something.
So on the basis of consistency, can I throw the term "misogynist" around here?
27391
Post by: purplefood
Melissia wrote:You know, if I stated that I don't trust men just because a man betrayed my mother or something, I would be instantly attacked as a man-hating psycho lesbian or something.
So on the basis of consistency, can I throw the term "misogynist" around here?
I think paranoid is more the word for both instances but yeah sure that works just as well.
49272
Post by: Testify
purplefood wrote:Melissia wrote:You know, if I stated that I don't trust men just because a man betrayed my mother or something, I would be instantly attacked as a man-hating psycho lesbian or something.
So on the basis of consistency, can I throw the term "misogynist" around here?
I think paranoid is more the word for both instances but yeah sure that works just as well.
Paranoia stems from a damaged brain's inability to process information correctly, and is a symptom of schizophrenia. I think that's a bit harsh.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Testify wrote:purplefood wrote:Melissia wrote:You know, if I stated that I don't trust men just because a man betrayed my mother or something, I would be instantly attacked as a man-hating psycho lesbian or something.
So on the basis of consistency, can I throw the term "misogynist" around here?
I think paranoid is more the word for both instances but yeah sure that works just as well.
Paranoia stems from a damaged brain's inability to process information correctly, and is a symptom of schizophrenia. I think that's a bit harsh.
You say that and yet distrusting all women because one of them did something bad to your uncle is kinda odd...
29408
Post by: Melissia
If one said "a black guy stole something from me so I don't trust any black guys" they'd be declared racist, and rightfully so.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Okay yeah misogynist is good for it...
29408
Post by: Melissia
Not trying to condemn him, just want t o say, it's not a good belief. It's rather hateful to distrust an entire group based off of the actions of a single person.
[insert people trying to claim I do this]
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
azazel the cat wrote:
Tadashi, your freshman views on fascism betray your adolescence. I would recommend reading some Hobbes while listening to Woody Guthrie.
I did just about the same suggestion on the last thread fight we had. It's not gonna go far.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote:
I hate Hobbes...I prefer to read Nietszche. And I was born, raised, and live in a country where democracy is a failure, and a mere facade over an oligarchic plutocracy. You must forgive me, but my subconscious has already given up on democracy as a lost cause, and what the world and humanity truly needs is unification and leadership.
You were born, raised and live in a country which still adores it's last dictator, a man who went down in the annals of history as the men who stole the most money from a State. It's sad to say, but the Philippino culture needs to change. The prevalant attitude amongst the many (if not all) philippinos I've met was that if you could screw over somebody and get away with it, you deserved praises. Not a good start for democracy. Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote:
I know, ironic isn't it? But the Ubermensch is very compelling, and the idea of the Last Man disgusting..
Once more, the Ubermensch was a moral concept. And a very childish one at that.
29408
Post by: Melissia
To be honest, the Ubermensch is probaly misunderstood by both of you.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Melissia wrote:To be honest, the Ubermensch is probaly misunderstood by both of you.
To be honest, they're both pretty depressing ideas...
29408
Post by: Melissia
Depends on how you look at it.
For example, both Batman and the Joker are ubermensch figures-- merely different interpretations of the coincept.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Melissia wrote:To be honest, the Ubermensch is probaly misunderstood by both of you.
Other than saying that it was a moral concept, which it is, I doubt that you could've gleaned much from my understanding of Nietzsche. My views are in line with Hoffman's, which is pretty much the authority on Nieztsche in the english world.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
To be honest people have been reading Nietzsche for over a century and scholars still can't agree what the feth he was on about.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
LordofHats wrote:To be honest people have been reading Nietzsche for over a century and scholars still can't agree what the feth he was on about.
Well that's more the rule than the exception for 'postmodern' philosophers.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:Not trying to condemn him, just want t o say, it's not a good belief. It's rather hateful to distrust an entire group based off of the actions of a single person.
[insert people trying to claim I do this]
Look, I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I've known the man since I was a kid...seeing him broken like that...its not that I hate women, I just can't bring myself to open up to the point I'd entrust my future to one unless I can be sure of her loyalty (sorry, but I can't find a better word) to me personally. Melissia wrote:Depends on how you look at it.
For example, both Batman and the Joker are ubermensch figures-- merely different interpretations of the coincept.
I always saw the Ubermensch as a being beyond humanity, with man being a bridge between the ape and the Ubermensch. He/she would be a god for all intents and purposes to lesser beings.
49272
Post by: Testify
LordofHats wrote:To be honest people have been reading Nietzsche for over a century and scholars still can't agree what the feth he was on about.
Have you ever tried to read Nietzsche? And people say Mein Kamf is bad...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Testify wrote:LordofHats wrote:To be honest people have been reading Nietzsche for over a century and scholars still can't agree what the feth he was on about.
Have you ever tried to read Nietzsche? And people say Mein Kamf is bad...
I have...its kinda complicated, but it boils down to that since man has 'killed' God through science and technology, man must now take God's place as the Ubermensch...the Ubermensch is beyond good and evil, and has the ability, knowledge, and power to create a new world with new laws, traditions, and cultures. It was very symbolic, and it did make my head hurt, and I had to read it many times, but this is what I ultimately came up with.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Tadashi wrote:
I always saw the Ubermensch as a being beyond humanity, with man being a bridge between the ape and the Ubermensch. He/she would be a god for all intents and purposes to lesser beings.
Not really. The Ubermensch was largely interpreted to mean a figure who could create his own sets of morals and impose them on the 'degenerated' morals of other-worldliness (all the sets of morals that promise acheivement beyond human existence, i.e. Christianity) and those of this-worldliness that emulates the ideals of other-worldliness (statism). It was often depicted as amoral elitism, but since the Ubermensch sets down a sets of morals, you can't really say it's amoral. The figure often cited as example is Napoleon Bonaparte, since his 'lack' of conventional morals allowed him to make Europe his bitch. It has no 'evolutionnary' meaning, other than perhaps Nietzsche considered priests as thouroughly pathetic and inferior beings. Edit : Funnily enough, it's probable that Nieztsche would have denounced transhumanism as another form of 'other-worldliness'.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Testify wrote:LordofHats wrote:To be honest people have been reading Nietzsche for over a century and scholars still can't agree what the feth he was on about.
Have you ever tried to read Nietzsche? And people say Mein Kamf is bad...
I have... hence, the sig. And I really think that you should clarify your statement, because Nietzsche is often misunderstood to be associated with the Nazi party because of the mistranslations of Ubermensch.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Tadashi wrote:
I always saw the Ubermensch as a being beyond humanity, with man being a bridge between the ape and the Ubermensch. He/she would be a god for all intents and purposes to lesser beings.
Not really. The Ubermensch was largely interpreted to mean a figure who could create his own sets of morals and impose them on the 'degenerated' morals of other-worldliness (all the sets of morals that promise acheivement beyond human existence, i.e. Christianity) and those of this-worldliness that emulates the ideals of other-worldliness (statism). It was often depicted as amoral elitism, but since the Ubermensch sets down a sets of morals, you can't really say it's amoral.
The figure often cited as example is Napoleon Bonaparte, since his 'lack' of conventional morals allowed him to make Europe his bitch.
It has no 'evolutionnary' meaning, other than perhaps Nietzsche considered priests as thouroughly pathetic and inferior beings.
Edit : Funnily enough, it's probable that Nieztsche would have denounced transhumanism as another form of 'other-worldliness'.
I've always read Zarathustra and the concept of the Ubermensch as something that syncs very well with Tsunetomo Yamamoto's Hagakure in that both strive to allow man to rise above the yoke of otherworldliness by way of discarding all morality that does not allow one to strive towards their own ...greatness isn't the right word, but it's the first one that comes ot mind... I hesitate to use the term arete, but that may fit as well.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Not really. The Ubermensch was largely interpreted to mean a figure who could create his own sets of morals and impose them on the 'degenerated' morals of other-worldliness (all the sets of morals that promise acheivement beyond human existence, i.e. Christianity) and those of this-worldliness that emulates the ideals of other-worldliness (statism). It was often depicted as amoral elitism, but since the Ubermensch sets down a sets of morals, you can't really say it's amoral.
The figure often cited as example is Napoleon Bonaparte, since his 'lack' of conventional morals allowed him to make Europe his bitch.
It has no 'evolutionnary' meaning, other than perhaps Nietzsche considered priests as thouroughly pathetic and inferior beings.
Wouldn't that make all conquerors and revolutionaries as 'supermen' then?
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
I think the Ubermensch runs a deli down the street, and the Hobbes I read is the one that comes with Calvin.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
azazel the cat wrote:I've always read Zarathustra and the concept of the Ubermensch as something that syncs very well with Tsunetomo Yamamoto's Hagakure in that both strive to allow man to rise above the yoke of otherworldliness by way of discarding all morality that does not allow one to strive towards their own ...greatness isn't the right word, but it's the first one that comes ot mind... I hesitate to use the term arete, but that may fit as well.
Arete is perfectly correct, as long as it doesn't have any ''metaphysical'' meaning to it.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:azazel the cat wrote:I've always read Zarathustra and the concept of the Ubermensch as something that syncs very well with Tsunetomo Yamamoto's Hagakure in that both strive to allow man to rise above the yoke of otherworldliness by way of discarding all morality that does not allow one to strive towards their own ...greatness isn't the right word, but it's the first one that comes ot mind... I hesitate to use the term arete, but that may fit as well.
Arete is perfectly correct, as long as it doesn't have any ''metaphysical'' meaning to it.
Isn't the Ubermensch supposed to rise above the limits of society? Isn't that the whole point? To keep seeking to find and break your existing limits, and then the new ones, and then the new ones, and so on? In contrast to the Last Man, who is content with his life, limits, and society?
53251
Post by: xole
rubiksnoob wrote:I think the Ubermensch runs a deli down the street, and the Hobbes I read is the one that comes with Calvin.
That's quite enough. Thomas Hobbes and John Calvin are what the two characters are based on, after all. And the author got them right.
I'll be honest I didn't bother to read how this thread got from slavery to Nietzsche
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Tadashi wrote:
Wouldn't that make all conquerors and revolutionaries as 'supermen' then?
Not quite, but it's pretty well implied in all his litterature that Nietzsche had a soft spot for conquerors. He portrayed the conqueror archetype through racial terms, 'the blond beast' (a.k.a the Aryan), who'se happiness and simple affirmation of himself lead to naturally be the 'noble' in his culture. Because pretty much everything he did was a joyous affirmation of his natural strenght, the blond beast ended up warring, and leading his people. The 'Jew', or the 'slave', was it's opposite archetype, someone who would rule by laws, by tradition, and who would spend his life groveling at the beast's feet all the while resenting himself for being miserable. Christianity was the 'masterplan' of the slave, a way to inverse roles by making everyone resent there existence and strive for the existence that came after this one. Nietzsche diagnosed that the masterplan had pretty much worked, although it was in great danger of failing because of the rise of empiricism. He hated Christianity with a fervour, so he certainly would've picked the 'blond beast' over the slave as a leader. But he admitted that between the two, the slave was much more interesting, much more cunning, and had completely beat the beast's for the last 2000 years. He didn't want the Ubermensch to be simply the Aryan, in the more common, german meaning, but he wished that the european man had more 'aryan' blood his veins, so to speak. (the culture in which he was brought up was utterly depressing) The Ubermensch was the one who would go beyond that dichotomy. An intelligent, interesting man who could slaughter an entire town and come out laughing and joyfull (paraphrasing here, I remember that passage), and who could sets his morals according to his needs, without coming out as a pathetic, self-serving being. Basically, Rambo-Jesus. You see why I think it's a bit childish? It's pretty much a complete paradox, and doesn't really fix the moral problems created by 'the masterplan'.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:
You see why I think it's a bit childish? It's pretty much a complete paradox, and doesn't really fix the moral problems created by 'the masterplan'.
If I remember Philosophy class right, the superman is supposed to be a paradox, because while he seeks to break his limits and surpass them, and then find his new limits and surpass them as well, and so, he must also accept that history is an endless repetition of events: joy, sadness, pain, pleasure, victory, defeat, etc., he cannot escape them. Ironically, that is what makes him superior - despite knowing his struggle is futile, the superman still strives to be better, as opposed to the Last Man who is content with his mundane existence.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Tadashi wrote:I've known the man since I was a kid...seeing him broken like that...its not that I hate women, I just can't bring myself to open up to the point I'd entrust my future to one unless I can be sure of her loyalty (sorry, but I can't find a better word) to me personally.
You act like that somehow redeems your mistrust and justifies it. It's still misogyny, and an unhealthy view on life-- something that you will need to overcome for your own sake.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
But it's much more fun to be a tragic figure!
Well, this thread has made me decide I want to go and read about some Ubermensch.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Da Boss wrote:But it's much more fun to be a tragic figure!
Well, this thread has made me decide I want to go and read about some Ubermensch.
Try The Birth of Tragedy, Beyond Good and Evil, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. BTW, be prepared for major headaches, just in case. Melissia wrote:
It's still misogyny, and an unhealthy view on life-- something that you will need to overcome for your own sake.
If you mean I won't have a family of my own, I've already accepted that possible (and very likely) future. Kovnik Obama wrote:
You were born, raised and live in a country which still adores it's last dictator, a man who went down in the annals of history as the men who stole the most money from a State. It's sad to say, but the Philippino culture needs to change. The prevalant attitude amongst the many (if not all) philippinos I've met was that if you could screw over somebody and get away with it, you deserved praises. Not a good start for democracy.
Regardless of the cost, Marcos has done more for the country than any elected official has...ends justify the means: in other words - politics.
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, I meant that it is psychologically unhealthy to actively distrust half of the human population for such an arbitrary and rather stupid reason.
5534
Post by: dogma
Tadashi wrote:Ironically, that is what makes him superior - despite knowing his struggle is futile, the superman still strives to be better, as opposed to the Last Man who is content with his mundane existence.
Futility is not at all related to the concept of Übermensch. In fact, futility is essentially the precursor to the existence of the Last Man.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:No, I meant that it is psychologically unhealthy to actively distrust half of the human population for such an arbitrary and rather stupid reason.
I don't distrust them to the point that I can't work or interact with them...I just don't trust them to be part of my personal life without a complete guarantee. dogma wrote:Tadashi wrote:Ironically, that is what makes him superior - despite knowing his struggle is futile, the superman still strives to be better, as opposed to the Last Man who is content with his mundane existence.
Futility is not at all related to the concept of Übermensch. In fact, futility is essentially the precursor to the existence of the Last Man.
I meant that despite the fact that history is an endless repetition of events (and therefore, seeming hopelessness), the Ubermensch continues his/her endless pursuit of perfection. The Last Man gives in to the futility, and accepts his/her place. The Ubermensch accepts the futility, but not his/her place, and continues to seek and break his/her limits regardless of the difficulty of doing so.
29408
Post by: Melissia
You expect me to think that somehow makes a difference. I meant that despite the fact that history is an endless repetition of events
It's not.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:You expect me to think that somehow makes a difference.
No, not really. But being alone isn't so bad...and besides, in the absence of certainty, caution is the wise man's preserve.
I meant that despite the fact that history is an endless repetition of events
It's not.
Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
xole wrote:rubiksnoob wrote:I think the Ubermensch runs a deli down the street, and the Hobbes I read is the one that comes with Calvin.
That's quite enough. Thomas Hobbes and John Calvin are what the two characters are based on, after all. And the author got them right.
I'll be honest I didn't bother to read how this thread got from slavery to Nietzsche
I am aware, twas simply a jest. Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi, if you feel women are too untrustworthy for personal relationships, perhaps you should consider pursuing a relationship with a man! We are making leaps and bounds in securing equal rights for same-sex couples here in the states (well, trips and shuffles really, but it's progress!) and the benefits are limitless! (unless you work for certain corporations or live in certain states.)
27391
Post by: purplefood
Tadashi wrote:Melissia wrote:You expect me to think that somehow makes a difference.
No, not really. But being alone isn't so bad...and besides, in the absence of certainty, caution is the wise man's preserve.
I meant that despite the fact that history is an endless repetition of events
It's not.
Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.
That's pretty vague... to the point where it's really very silly.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
rubiksnoob wrote: Tadashi, if you feel women are too untrustworthy for personal relationships, perhaps you should consider pursuing a relationship with a man! We are making leaps and bounds in securing equal rights for same-sex couples here in the states (well, trips and shuffles really, but it's progress!) and the benefits are limitless! (unless you work for certain corporations or live in certain states.)
I'd sooner eat my grandfather's gun. purplefood wrote:
That's pretty vague... to the point where it's really very silly.
As a general description, it works well enough.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Tadashi wrote:Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.
A pointless list of pseudo-philosophical claptrap.
Tell me then, at which point in history did we have the freaking internet? The human race has moved out of the cycle of history, forging our own history. There are a damned sight many things, and I'm not just talking about technology, that exist today that haven't existed before in human society.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:Tadashi wrote:Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.
A pointless list of pseudo-philosophical claptrap. Tell me then, at which point in history did we have the freaking internet? The human race has moved out of the cycle of history, forging our own history. There are a damned sight many things, and I'm not just talking about technology, that exist today that haven't existed before in human society.
As I said, its a general description...if its specifics, history does not repeat, but if in general, events from the past will always happen in different forms and manners in the future. War, disease, famine, and most importantly, Human nature is still there.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description
No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to eachother. It's a stupid philosophy.
27391
Post by: purplefood
(That's) What she said...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description
No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.
Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Tadashi wrote:Melissia wrote:Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description
No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.
Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.
Probably not...
I mean we haven't reintroduced slavery or repealed women's rights.
Last time i checked England wasn't purging the Scottish culture or invading France.
The Nordic countries aren't pillaging the east English coast and no one has discovered electricity recently...
49272
Post by: Testify
azazel the cat wrote:Testify wrote:LordofHats wrote:To be honest people have been reading Nietzsche for over a century and scholars still can't agree what the feth he was on about.
Have you ever tried to read Nietzsche? And people say Mein Kamf is bad...
I have... hence, the sig. And I really think that you should clarify your statement, because Nietzsche is often misunderstood to be associated with the Nazi party because of the mistranslations of Ubermensch.
I wasn't referring to its association with the nazi party, I was referring to it being nigh-on unreadable.
29408
Post by: Melissia
if Humans remain the same as they are
We haven't.
Humans have changed drastically over the course of history.
53251
Post by: xole
Tadashi wrote:Melissia wrote:Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description
No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.
Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.
Look, I'm sorry if you majored in history.
41728
Post by: Dakkadan
Let's say a Twinkie represents the normal amount of phylosphical psycho-babble in the Dakka Dakka forums. Based on this thread, it would be a Twinkie... thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats a big tweenkie.
And remember, believe it or not tweekenies do in fact have a shelf life.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Melissia wrote:Tadashi wrote:Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.
A pointless list of pseudo-philosophical claptrap.
Tell me then, at which point in history did we have the freaking internet? The human race has moved out of the cycle of history, forging our own history. There are a damned sight many things, and I'm not just talking about technology, that exist today that haven't existed before in human society.
Atlantis had internet. But it was just a bunch of porn and nonsen....wait a minute!
49272
Post by: Testify
Melissia wrote:Tadashi wrote:Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.
A pointless list of pseudo-philosophical claptrap.
Tell me then, at which point in history did we have the freaking internet? The human race has moved out of the cycle of history, forging our own history. There are a damned sight many things, and I'm not just talking about technology, that exist today that haven't existed before in human society.
I rarely find myself support you, but there is truth in this.
Compare the 2000s recession to the 1930s recession - one of them caused a catastrophic depression, the other didn't. The difference being, in the 21st century politicians adhered to Keynes' teachings, borrowing money on the bond market to stimulate domestic demand, as well as, in general, avoiding protectionism (rumours that the bank of england printed money to devalue the pount are entirely unsubstantiated, of course).
Also just look at war - invading and occupying another sovereign nation is more or less impossible. You can no longer march into another country, set up a friendly puppet and let them get on with it. Nationalism has changed humanity forever. Automatically Appended Next Post: Bromsy wrote:
Atlantis had internet. But it was just a bunch of porn and nonsen....wait a minute!
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but less than 1% of the internet is porn. Most of it is commercial.
29408
Post by: Melissia
We also have changed, physically speaking . As a species, we are taller and stronger than ever before, for example. And that's just referring to changes within the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species-- not even getting into the difference between humanity and our genetic ancestors. We haven't gone back, and we aren't going back. There's no biological impetus to go back. Even in mass extinction scenarios, life doesn't start a cycle over again, it finds a way to overcome th extinction scenario and continues growing.
Technology has improved, consistently-- not cyclically, but irreversibly. Human knowledge and understanding is growing, not cyclical. And our society itself has changed, as well-- our societies look very little like what they did so long ago.
History might appear to be in cycles to someone who takes a very shallow, superficial view of it. But it's a worthless viewpoint. Humanity may have a problem with exceptionalism (IE, I know this happened in the past, but it won't happen to me), but we actually DO learn from our mistakes. It's one of the most important aspects of science, in fact it's probably by far the most important one.
7926
Post by: youbedead
Testify wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:
Atlantis had internet. But it was just a bunch of porn and nonsen....wait a minute!
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but less than 1% of the internet is porn. Most of it is commercial.
It's actually 4% of sites and 13% of internet searches, with the most popular being livejasmin which accounts for 2.5% of all internet users in a month. Though I dont know how much actual bandwidth is used for porn as we don't have any data on downloads or p2p
51396
Post by: Tadashi
I pray you are all right...for all our sakes.
19819
Post by: walker90234
Having read through this whole thread, I have a feeling Tadashi would get on extremely well with O'Brein...
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Tadashi wrote:The Last Man gives in to the futility, and accepts his/her place. The Ubermensch accepts the futility, but not his/her place, and continues to seek and break his/her limits regardless of the difficulty of doing so.
That's about how I've always read it. (hence why I think it works so nicely in tandem with the Hagakure). The Ubermensch embarks on an endless quest in striving for a level of perfection that cannot be attained: but it is the path and the struggle that defines the Ubermensch, setting him apart from the complacency of the Last Man.
purplefood wrote:Tadashi wrote:Melissia wrote:Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description
No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.
Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.
Probably not...
I mean we haven't reintroduced slavery or repealed women's rights.
no one has discovered electricity recently...
This entire thread started as a discussion about the slavery and indentured servitude forced upon citizens as a result of the USA's prison-industrial complex which encourages recidivism in order to constantly feed institutions like Unicor.
Also, there are many attempts, to varying degrees of success, to repeal women's rights.
And we search for new energy sources all the time.
Dakkadan wrote:Let's say a Twinkie represents the normal amount of phylosphical psycho-babble in the Dakka Dakka forums. Based on this thread, it would be a Twinkie... thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
Your inability to spell seriously undercuts any wit you might derive from quoting Ghostbusters.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
azazel the cat wrote:Tadashi wrote:The Last Man gives in to the futility, and accepts his/her place. The Ubermensch accepts the futility, but not his/her place, and continues to seek and break his/her limits regardless of the difficulty of doing so.
That's about how I've always read it. (hence why I think it works so nicely in tandem with the Hagakure). The Ubermensch embarks on an endless quest in striving for a level of perfection that cannot be attained: but it is the path and the struggle that defines the Ubermensch, setting him apart from the complacency of the Last Man.
It doesn't matter how hard it is, the Ubermensch will continue his/her endless and paradoxical pursuit of perfection. By breaking his/her limits, he/she becomes perfect, but at the same time, he/her becomes imperfect, because new limits are created. And so the quest continues, to break those new limits, and those that come after, and so on...
11029
Post by: Ketara
Tadashi wrote:Melissia wrote:Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description
No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.
Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.
Melissia wrote:
History might appear to be in cycles to someone who takes a very shallow, superficial view of it. But it's a worthless viewpoint. Humanity may have a problem with exceptionalism (IE, I know this happened in the past, but it won't happen to me), but we actually DO learn from our mistakes. It's one of the most important aspects of science, in fact it's probably by far the most important one.
Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?
xole wrote:
Look, I'm sorry if you majored in history.
Please don't associate actual history with what's being disseminated in this thread. It makes E.H. Carr cry.
The sad thing was that I came into this thread actually wanting to post about the original topic.
41728
Post by: Dakkadan
Azazel the cat wrote:
Your inability to spell seriously undercuts any wit you might derive from quoting Ghostbusters.
Hey Smarty pants I'm typing this from my phone. Think about that before you judge my twinky quote. I have large thumbs man! LARGE THUMBS!! Also I don't believe I can derive wit from my own statements. You can but I don't believe I can. I mean I might be able to derive wit from your statements. But you couldn't in turn do the same for yourself. Of course all of this misses my point about how dumb armchair philosophy sounds in general.
53251
Post by: xole
Ketara wrote:
xole wrote:
Look, I'm sorry if you majored in history.
Please don't associate actual history with what's being disseminated in this thread. It makes E.H. Carr cry.
The sad thing was that I came into this thread actually wanting to post about the original topic.
It's just something I say to people when they say the whole "history repeats itself" thing.
There was an original topic?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Ketara wrote:
Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?
Huh. And here I was, thinking that you could define 'history' as just one bloody thing after another...
Dakkadan wrote:Azazel the cat wrote:
Your inability to spell seriously undercuts any wit you might derive from quoting Ghostbusters.
Hey Smarty pants I'm typing this from my phone. Think about that before you judge my twinky quote. I have large thumbs man! LARGE THUMBS!! Also I don't believe I can derive wit from my own statements. You can but I don't believe I can. I mean I might be able to derive wit from your statements. But you couldn't in turn do the same for yourself. Of course all of this misses my point about how dumb armchair philosophy sounds in general.
Yeah, that should've read "... we might derive...". I'll quietly note the irony of my post, and begin to take my foot out of my mouth. I, too, have large thumbs... although that still does not explain how you accidentally typed in a phonetic spelling, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and merely assume you were screaming "damn you, autocorrect!" after posting!
semi-
But you really must explain to me what kind of philosophy it is that you are accustomed to, as I'm not really aware of any kind that cannot be discussed from the comfort of an armchair. Such is its nature.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
azazel the cat wrote:Ketara wrote:
Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?
Huh. And here I was, thinking that you could define 'history' as just one bloody thing after another...
his·to·ry (hst-r)
n. pl. his·to·ries
1.
a. A usually chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings.
b. A formal written account of related natural phenomena: a history of volcanoes.
c. A record of a patient's medical background.
d. An established record or pattern of behavior: an inmate with a history of substance abuse.
2. The branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events: "History has a long-range perspective" (Elizabeth Gurley Flynn).
3.
a. The past events relating to a particular thing: The history of their rivalry is full of intrigue.
b. The aggregate of past events or human affairs: basic tools used throughout history.
c. An interesting past: a house with history.
d. Something that belongs to the past: Their troubles are history now.
e. Slang One that is no longer worth consideration: Why should we worry about him? He's history!
4. A drama based on historical events: the histories of Shakespeare.
That should clear things up... azazel the cat wrote:
But you really must explain to me what kind of philosophy it is that you are accustomed to, as I'm not really aware of any kind that cannot be discussed from the comfort of an armchair. Such is its nature.
I don't think he has any.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Tadashi wrote:
That should clear things up...
Thank you for enlightening me. The substantial discussion on the nature of history, raging from Elton, to Carr, to Marx have all been overthrown by your brilliant and masterly summation. No doubt they'll be around personally to award your Nobel peace prize first thing in the morning.
/sarcasm.
Tip:- I actually know what I'm talking about here. Go and pick up Jordanova's 'History in Practice' and get a basic summary of the field you're shoving your foot into before trying to argue it. I know I'm coming off as slightly snarky here(apologies for that I guess), but people arguing loudly and completely incorrectly with each other on something neither knows anything about has always irritated me slightly.
azazel the cat wrote:Ketara wrote:
Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?
Huh. And here I was, thinking that you could define 'history' as just one bloody thing after another...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
The dictionary will be sufficient.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Tadashi wrote:The dictionary will be sufficient.
Then your knowledge of the subject will always be comparable to that of someone who can be safely regarded as entirely ignorant on the affair. I always find it a shame when people close off their minds to learning.
That I can live with though, as I expect Melissia will probably care at least enough to briefly scan a book review or something and find out more, so I guess this wasn't a complete waste of time.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Ketara wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:Ketara wrote:
Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?
Huh. And here I was, thinking that you could define 'history' as just one bloody thing after another...
Those of us with History degrees must maintain our wit, lest we just end up telling stories that never end.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Ketara wrote:Tadashi wrote:The dictionary will be sufficient.
Then your knowledge of the subject will always be comparable to that of someone who can be safely regarded as entirely ignorant on the affair. I always find it a shame when people close off their minds to learning. That I can live with though, as I expect Melissia will probably care at least enough to briefly scan a book review or something and find out more, so I guess this wasn't a complete waste of time.
Meh...I'm a scientist...the past only means as much as its contributions/uses...if it has no use for me, then it should just be forgotten.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Man, that sounds almost like the caricature of scientists often used in Post apocalyptic stories (or even by Malcolm in Jurassic Park).
11029
Post by: Ketara
Tadashi wrote:Ketara wrote:Tadashi wrote:The dictionary will be sufficient.
Then your knowledge of the subject will always be comparable to that of someone who can be safely regarded as entirely ignorant on the affair. I always find it a shame when people close off their minds to learning.
That I can live with though, as I expect Melissia will probably care at least enough to briefly scan a book review or something and find out more, so I guess this wasn't a complete waste of time.
Meh...I'm a scientist...the past only means as much to me what it can contribute to the future...if it has no use for me, then it should just be forgotten.
Then for a parallel, I direct you to Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' for a comparable postmodernist equivalent to Carr.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
I do not understand the need for all this justification of history, whether of world events or of scientific progress...at the end of the day, the former is judged by the dominant powers, and the latter by the results. Nothing else truly matters...its consequentialist, but it is the truth.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Tadashi wrote:I do not understand the need for all this justification of history, whether of world events or of scientific progress...at the end of the day, the former is judged by the dominant powers, and the latter by the results. Nothing else truly matters...its consequentialist, but it is the truth.
No. That is an opinion entirely empty of substance, dressed up to look philosophical in an attempt to make it sound like it means something. Which it doesn't.
Read some books, and you'll have an opinion where there's something to debate with. Rather than telling me that 1+1 =0, because the government controls what you think, and querying why we ever bother thinking about anything.
This is one of those times where I miss Dogma.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Ketara wrote:Tadashi wrote:I do not understand the need for all this justification of history, whether of world events or of scientific progress...at the end of the day, the former is judged by the dominant powers, and the latter by the results. Nothing else truly matters...its consequentialist, but it is the truth.
No. That is an opinion entirely empty of substance, dressed up to look philosophical in an attempt to make it sound like it means something. Which it doesn't.
Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust, and why First World countries and multi-national companies can pillage Third World countries despite all the outcry without fear of true reprisal, or when scientific principles and technological innovations that are initially condemned at first use become accepted in time.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Tadashi wrote:
Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust
What you're attempting there is a vague derivation on a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, who is attributed as having said, '“History is written by the winners.”
You'll note Napoleon won most of his battles personally. He isn't generally regarded as particularly just today. See what I did there? I'm sure you can extrapolate the rest of the reasoning that must follow on from that.
and why First World countries and multi-national companies can pillage Third World countries despite all the outcry without fear of true reprisal
Not sure what this has to do with anything, least of all History. Way to bring in pointless highly emotive stuff that completely reinforces what you're saying.
, or when scientific principles and technological innovations that are initially condemned at first use become accepted in time.
The first even vaguely related thing to anything I've ever said, and I get the feeling it was by accident. The answer to this though, is contained with the book I recommended before, Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. Seriously, read it. It's all about the changing of scientific paradigms, and was the first publication to come up with the concept.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Ketara wrote:Tadashi wrote:
Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust
What you're attempting there is a vague derivation on a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, who is attributed as having said, '“History is written by the winners.”
You'll note Napoleon won most of his battles personally. He isn't generally regarded as particularly just today. See what I did there? I'm sure you can extrapolate the rest of the reasoning that must follow on from that.
Yes...but America is. Guess who's the dominant military power at the moment?
and why First World countries and multi-national companies can pillage Third World countries despite all the outcry without fear of true reprisal
Not sure what this has to do with anything, least of all History. Way to bring in pointless highly emotive stuff that completely reinforces what you're saying.
.
The world is consequentalist...it doesn't matter whether what you do is right and wrong, if enough people (or the right ones) think you're right, then matter how much other people make noise, nothing will change. That's just how twisted the world is.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Tadashi wrote:
Yes...but America is. Guess who's the dominant military power at the moment?
And surprisingly enough, current affairs publications and the vast majority of history journals and publications can be critical of America! It's almost as if the Government doesn't vet everything that's published across the world for stuff they don't like.....wait.
Follow the reasoning along past that point though, and you may come to realise that 'winners' come and go. Governments rarely make history, and even when they do and enforce it through diktat, other people write history. And then when that Government is gone, historians go back and re-evaluate the history of that era. And revise. And challenge.
History is a creation of historians, that we tend to hope has a basis in past affairs. History is a selective cherry picking of assumed facts under a suspect methodology based upon what the historian wants to look at and drive as their agenda.
It's still tremendously good fun to do though.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're fiction writers, but we're far from a science. Then again, if you pick up that book by Thomas Kuhn I keep recommending, you'll discover not even science is a science.
The world is consequentalist...it doesn't matter whether what you do is right and wrong, if enough people (or the right ones) think you're right, then matter how much other people make noise, nothing will change. That's just how twisted the world is.
Irrelevant teenage bulltwaddle.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
MrDwhitey wrote:Man, that sounds almost like the caricature of scientists often used in Post apocalyptic stories (or even by Malcolm in Jurassic Park).
There's actually a philosophical trend that pretty much sums his point of view ; hypermodernism. The cultural landscape is seen as cluttered with artefacts of the past that don't have much current value since the context of the past was 'poorer' than ours. What matters is the information value of any cultural factoid, which 'decays' with time.
Not many authors to it's name... It's pretty much ((disgust with postmodernism) + (theory of communicational agency a la Habermas))
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Ketara wrote:Tadashi wrote:
Yes...but America is. Guess who's the dominant military power at the moment?
And surprisingly enough, current affairs publications and the vast majority of history journals and publications can be critical of America!It's almost as if the Government doesn't vet everything that's published across the world for stuff they don't like.....wait. Follow the reasoning along past that point though, and you may come to realise that 'winners' come and go. Governments rarely make history, and even when they do and enforce it through diktat, other people write history. And then when that Government is gone, historians go back and re-evaluate the history of that era. And revise. And challenge. History is a creation of historians, that we tend to hope has a basis in past affairs. History is a selective cherry picking of assumed facts under a suspect methodology based upon what the historian wants to look at and drive as their agenda. It's still tremendously good fun to do though.
Some things are better left forgotten...
The world is consequentalist...it doesn't matter whether what you do is right and wrong, if enough people (or the right ones) think you're right, then matter how much other people make noise, nothing will change. That's just how twisted the world is.
Irrelevant teenage bulltwaddle.
Reality is harsh in the Third World...not that you would understand, having a relatively easy life in the First World.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Tadashi wrote:Ketara wrote:Tadashi wrote:
Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust
What you're attempting there is a vague derivation on a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, who is attributed as having said, '“History is written by the winners.” You'll note Napoleon won most of his battles personally. He isn't generally regarded as particularly just today. See what I did there? I'm sure you can extrapolate the rest of the reasoning that must follow on from that.
Yes...but America is. Guess who's the dominant military power at the moment?
Considering that this thread is about someone suing the US prison system for slavery, I don't think the argument can be put forth that the US is considered just. A lot of its policies during the 20th century were decidedly unjust and the fallout from those policies is still there in the populations who endured them.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
A Town Called Malus wrote:Tadashi wrote:Ketara wrote:Tadashi wrote:
Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust
What you're attempting there is a vague derivation on a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, who is attributed as having said, '“History is written by the winners.”
You'll note Napoleon won most of his battles personally. He isn't generally regarded as particularly just today. See what I did there? I'm sure you can extrapolate the rest of the reasoning that must follow on from that.
Yes...but America is. Guess who's the dominant military power at the moment?
Considering that this thread is about someone suing the US prison system for slavery, I don't think the argument can be put forth that the US is considered just.
A lot of its policies during the 20th century were decidedly unjust and the fallout from those policies is still there in the populations who endured them.
True...but it is just in the US' eyes. And as long they hold the power, nothing in this world can change that.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Tadashi wrote:
Some things are better left forgotten...
wut?
Did this turn into a fiction thread on the Necrons whilst I wasn't looking?
Reality is harsh in the Third World...not that you would understand, having a relatively easy life in the First World.
Yeah sure. Because your perspective is that much greater than mine, right? You with your 40K and internet connection?
Curiously enough, I actually lived in Zimbabwe for several years. Saw some very nasty stuff, probably far worse than anything you've seen. So I'm afraid pulling that one on me doesn't work, and simply shows you to be desperate to try and claim some kind of higher ground, since you can't justify your terrible logic, empty philosophical posturing., and lack of respective knowledge on the field of history with words.
EDIT;-
Tadashi wrote:
True...but it is just in the US' eyes. And as long they hold the power, nothing in this world can change that.
Dear Lord. You're joking right? I'm actually starting to believe you have to be. No-one could be this serious about teenage philosophy.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Ketara wrote:
Tadashi wrote:
True...but it is just in the US' eyes. And as long they hold the power, nothing in this world can change that.
Dear Lord. You're joking right? I'm actually starting to believe you have to be. No-one could be this serious about teenage philosophy.
You really think US policy will change because people are noisy? That the whole world condemns their actions?
11029
Post by: Ketara
Tadashi wrote:Ketara wrote:
Tadashi wrote:
True...but it is just in the US' eyes. And as long they hold the power, nothing in this world can change that.
Dear Lord. You're joking right? I'm actually starting to believe you have to be. No-one could be this serious about teenage philosophy.
You really think US policy will change because people are noisy? That the whole world condemns their actions?
A. The whole world has never condemned anything collectively.
B. This has nothing to do with the nature of history, and is irrelevant, and
C. In a democracy, people can consider a Government policy unjust, ergo government policy does not decide justness.
Are we about done with this utterly, utterly ridiculous line of reasoning here? You've jumped about more than someone opposed to gay marriage looking for a reason, any reason, why you can pretend you're not just plain ignorant on the subject of history and its nature. Give it up already, and preserve what little dignity you have left.
I should probably be nicer than this, but people defending ignorance is the most absurd thing. It's not like it costs anyone anything to say, 'Fair enough, I don't really know much about it', and you have that much more respect for those that do.
Like I said Melissia might get a bit annoyed with me if I spoke to her like I am to you now (and rightly so, I'm being more than a bit condescending), but at least she'd go and pick up a book and learn something so she could argue with me properly.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Sorry, to stubborn to give up.
History is simply the chronological arrangement of past events and the study of their effects on the present, nothing more and nothing less.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Call it quits and leave the past discussion to stand on its own merits then?
EDIT:- Oh God. You just edited in more bad reasoning. I'll copy pasta from before:-
History is a creation of historians, that we tend to hope has a basis in past affairs. History is a selective cherry picking of assumed facts under a suspect methodology based upon what the historian wants to look at and drive as their agenda.
It's still tremendously good fun to do though.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're fiction writers, but we're far from a science. Then again, if you pick up that book by Thomas Kuhn I keep recommending, you'll discover not even science is a science.
Other than that, I give up. Congratulations. Enjoy your state of blissful ignorance. No doubt it will serve you well in life, even if it means people stop wanting to talk things over with you.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Ketara wrote:
Other than that, I give up. Congratulations. Enjoy your state of blissful ignorance. No doubt it will serve you well in life, even if it means people stop wanting to talk things over with you.
It'll certainly make life easier...I can do 'unethical' experiments without fear from my conscience, knowing such things had been done in the past, and accepted as necessary.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
You know, in the event you weren't just an angsty teen with to much 40k on his mind, it'd be fairly easy to track you down and report you to authorities, right?
I know this has been offered before as a remedy for your condition, but how about stopping this 40k spanking, go out to a bar and make out with one of those slutty philippino chicks that turns out to be a philippino dude? It'll do you wonders.
7926
Post by: youbedead
Ketara wrote:Tadashi wrote:
Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust
What you're attempting there is a vague derivation on a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, who is attributed as having said, '“History is written by the winners.”
You'll note Napoleon won most of his battles personally. He isn't generally regarded as particularly just today. See what I did there? I'm sure you can extrapolate the rest of the reasoning that must follow on from that.
and why First World countries and multi-national companies can pillage Third World countries despite all the outcry without fear of true reprisal
Not sure what this has to do with anything, least of all History. Way to bring in pointless highly emotive stuff that completely reinforces what you're saying.
, or when scientific principles and technological innovations that are initially condemned at first use become accepted in time.
The first even vaguely related thing to anything I've ever said, and I get the feeling it was by accident. The answer to this though, is contained with the book I recommended before, Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. Seriously, read it. It's all about the changing of scientific paradigms, and was the first publication to come up with the concept.
If he is a beginner to historical writing then I would probably recommend the Ascent of Science by Brian Silver, I found it much easier to read for a layman while discussing similar concepts. Oh and also pick up What If edited by Robert Crwoley it has nothing to do with the subject at hand but its quite a brilliant collection of what if scenarios
49272
Post by: Testify
Tadashi wrote:
Meh...I'm a scientist...the past only means as much as its contributions/uses...if it has no use for me, then it should just be forgotten.
What sort of scientist are you?
53251
Post by: xole
Testify wrote:Tadashi wrote:
Meh...I'm a scientist...the past only means as much as its contributions/uses...if it has no use for me, then it should just be forgotten.
What sort of scientist are you?
A movie scientist
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Tadashi wrote:
The world is consequentalist...it doesn't matter whether what you do is right and wrong, if enough people (or the right ones) think you're right, then matter how much other people make noise, nothing will change. That's just how twisted the world is.
Irrelevant teenage bulltwaddle.
Reality is harsh in the Third World...not that you would understand, having a relatively easy life in the First World.
Where do you live?
And, if I may ask, how much does your family make in a year?
53251
Post by: xole
The only thing that could make this thread better is CAPS LOCK
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Testify wrote:Tadashi wrote:
Meh...I'm a scientist...the past only means as much as its contributions/uses...if it has no use for me, then it should just be forgotten.
What sort of scientist are you?
Third year material science and engineering. LoneLictor wrote:Tadashi wrote:
The world is consequentalist...it doesn't matter whether what you do is right and wrong, if enough people (or the right ones) think you're right, then matter how much other people make noise, nothing will change. That's just how twisted the world is.
Irrelevant teenage bulltwaddle.
Reality is harsh in the Third World...not that you would understand, having a relatively easy life in the First World.
Where do you live? And, if I may ask, how much does your family make in a year?
I am not obliged to answer those questions. I live in the Philippines, and that's the last I will say on the matter. Kovnik Obama wrote: I know this has been offered before as a remedy for your condition, but how about stopping this 40k spanking, go out to a bar and make out with one of those slutty philippino chicks that turns out to be a philippino dude? It'll do you wonders.
Disgusting...keep that filth away from me.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
Tadashi wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
I know this has been offered before as a remedy for your condition, but how about stopping this 40k spanking, go out to a bar and make out with one of those slutty philippino chicks that turns out to be a philippino dude? It'll do you wonders.
Disgusting...keep that filth away from me.
Taddy, my man. . . you don't trust girls and you don't like dudes; you aren't leaving yourself with a whole lot of options!
51396
Post by: Tadashi
rubiksnoob wrote:Tadashi wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote: I know this has been offered before as a remedy for your condition, but how about stopping this 40k spanking, go out to a bar and make out with one of those slutty philippino chicks that turns out to be a philippino dude? It'll do you wonders.
Disgusting...keep that filth away from me.
Taddy, my man. . . you don't trust girls and you don't like dudes; you aren't leaving yourself with a whole lot of options!
I've already resigned myself to a lonely future, unless a woman with the characteristics I'm looking for appears (which is impossible).
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
Tadashi wrote:rubiksnoob wrote:Tadashi wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote: I know this has been offered before as a remedy for your condition, but how about stopping this 40k spanking, go out to a bar and make out with one of those slutty philippino chicks that turns out to be a philippino dude? It'll do you wonders.
Disgusting...keep that filth away from me.
Taddy, my man. . . you don't trust girls and you don't like dudes; you aren't leaving yourself with a whole lot of options!
I've already resigned myself to a lonely future, unless a woman with the characteristics I'm looking for appears (which is impossible).
Yeah, that's not the best attitude to venture out into the world with. No one likes lonely. Especially if you're going to live forever. And please don't make me break out the forever alone guy.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
rubiksnoob wrote: Yeah, that's not the best attitude to venture out into the world with. No one likes lonely. Especially if you're going to live forever.
Meh...if you live forever, find someone who will remain loyal no matter what, or none at all. And I'd rather be lonely than broken-hearted.
And please don't make me break out the forever alone guy.
Who's that?
53251
Post by: xole
Welcome to the internet. I refuse to believe you amassed 3kish posts without coming across Mr. Forever Alone.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Hey you were the one saying that no women had the characteristics you were looking for, so I assumed it was the dangly crotch parts.
Now I lean toward Melissia's initial suggestion : anime chicks. Or blond elves.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:Hey you were the one saying that no women had the characteristics you were looking for, so I assumed it was the dangly crotch parts.
Now I lean toward Melissia's initial suggestion : anime chicks. Or blond elves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belldandy
Her characteristics would be ideal, and therefore impossible.
Here's an idea...let's make an AI with her characteristics, and imprint it on a custom-engineered Human body. But no, even I wouldn't go that far...it wouldn't be love at all.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
Tadashi wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:Hey you were the one saying that no women had the characteristics you were looking for, so I assumed it was the dangly crotch parts.
Now I lean toward Melissia's initial suggestion : anime chicks. Or blond elves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belldandy
Her characteristics would be ideal, and therefore impossible.
Here's an idea...let's make an AI with her characteristics, and imprint it on a custom-engineered Human body. But no, even I wouldn't go that far...it wouldn't be love at all.
Love also isn't finding a perfect person.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
rubiksnoob wrote:Tadashi wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:Hey you were the one saying that no women had the characteristics you were looking for, so I assumed it was the dangly crotch parts.
Now I lean toward Melissia's initial suggestion : anime chicks. Or blond elves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belldandy
Her characteristics would be ideal, and therefore impossible.
Here's an idea...let's make an AI with her characteristics, and imprint it on a custom-engineered Human body. But no, even I wouldn't go that far...it wouldn't be love at all.
Love also isn't finding a perfect person.
Actually it is...the person you love would be perfect for you, even if she isn't for others.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
Tadashi wrote:rubiksnoob wrote:Tadashi wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:Hey you were the one saying that no women had the characteristics you were looking for, so I assumed it was the dangly crotch parts.
Now I lean toward Melissia's initial suggestion : anime chicks. Or blond elves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belldandy
Her characteristics would be ideal, and therefore impossible.
Here's an idea...let's make an AI with her characteristics, and imprint it on a custom-engineered Human body. But no, even I wouldn't go that far...it wouldn't be love at all.
Love also isn't finding a perfect person.
Actually it is...the person you love would be perfect for you, even if she isn't for others.
Or he. . . you never know!!!
53251
Post by: xole
Searching for perfection is a waste of time, as it is a concept that doesn't exist...Especially when you are looking for that concept in an anime.
If being unhappy makes you happy, then that's ok. Just don't angst too much.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Dude.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude.
Here's a very valuable life hint you'll thank me for later. Find a park. Start the habit of jogging early in the morning. Admire the scandidly clad creatures.
It'll do you wonders. Really.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote: Dude. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude. Here's a very valuable life hint you'll thank me for later. Find a park. Start the habit of jogging early in the morning. Admire the scandidly clad creatures. It'll do you wonders. Really.
You think I don't do the last one? But I will not commit to nothing less than the ideal - which does not exist. As I said, better alone than broken. rubiksnoob wrote: Or he. . . you never know!!!
I'd sooner die. xole wrote:Searching for perfection is a waste of time, as it is a concept that doesn't exist...Especially when you are looking for that concept in an anime.
If being unhappy makes you happy, then that's ok. Just don't angst too much.
The concept is called yamato nadeshiko.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Honestly? Nope. I've been broken a few times. Hell I've dated a hooker, for christ's sake (dated, not contracted). I like my women with a fair share of crazy, which implies that at some point I'll get hurt.
2-3 weeks later, you'll be fine. Especially once you realize that you don't have to marry every single one of them...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:Honestly? Nope. I've been broken a few times. Hell I've dated a hooker, for christ's sake (dated, not contracted). I like my women with a fair share of crazy, which implies that at some point I'll get hurt.
2-3 weeks later, you'll be fine. Especially once you realize that you don't have to marry every single one of them...
NEVER!!! (brandishes katana wildly)
*Ahem* I have standards too...why do you think I rejected the idea of an AI-imprinted custom female?
53251
Post by: xole
Tadashi wrote:The concept is called yamato nadeshiko.
Belldandy has some criticism as a feminine character.
And as to the concept, look at how Japan is doing on a social level. While I'm using a fallacy, I still don't particularly want any of their concepts.
@ Kovnik
Right now I'm aiming at a girl with purple hair. Should be a...fun time. Fun time indeed.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
xole wrote:Tadashi wrote:The concept is called yamato nadeshiko.
Belldandy has some criticism as a feminine character.
I know...but I don't care. That's my ideal, and one of the few I will not compromise on. Even if the price is being alone for the rest of my life.
5534
Post by: dogma
Tadashi wrote:
You think I don't do the last one? But I will not commit to nothing less than the ideal - which does not exist. As I said, better alone than broken.
I'll give you one thing, you give Nietzsche a run for his money in terms of angst.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
dogma wrote:Tadashi wrote:
You think I don't do the last one? But I will not commit to nothing less than the ideal - which does not exist. As I said, better alone than broken.
I'll give you one thing, you give Nietzsche a run for his money in terms of angst.
The Ubermensch is an ideal state, and one I dearly seek to be.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
xole wrote:
@ Kovnik
Right now I'm aiming at a girl with purple hair. Should be a...fun time. Fun time indeed.
You have her in sights, or is it just a requirement like ''the next one will have purple hair''. Cuz that would be a rather rare commodity.
One of my favourite one is girls who dress medieval. Something about doing a girl in a princess dress... That's a rare one too.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
He was paying for his room and board.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Who was paying for room and board?
53251
Post by: xole
Kovnik Obama wrote:xole wrote:
@ Kovnik
Right now I'm aiming at a girl with purple hair. Should be a...fun time. Fun time indeed.
You have her in sights, or is it just a requirement like ''the next one will have purple hair''. Cuz that would be a rather rare commodity.
One of my favourite one is girls who dress medieval. Something about doing a girl in a princess dress... That's a rare one too.
In sights. Very rare indeed. I'm not actually that picky, but she caught my eye.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
xole wrote:
In sights. Very rare indeed. I'm not actually that picky, but she caught my eye.
Wish you the best luck in your hunt then! Yeah, that'd be fun 
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians
THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians
THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.
I would ask you to quantify precisely what you are considering as 'history', under that particular objection.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians
THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.
I would ask you to quantify precisely what you are considering as 'history', under that particular objection.
Oral traditions...specifically those maintained by indigenous peoples and such.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians
THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.
I would ask you to quantify precisely what you are considering as 'history', under that particular objection.
Would you consider the origin of the universe history? The origin of a galaxy, or a star? Of our planet? Of life? I admit that for the most part, I'm mostly unconcerned with written history unless it directly relates to the subject at hand-- although historical fiction can be quite fun to read, see RotTK. I find the "history" of the natural world to be fascinating (as long as I can study it from behind many protective layers of technology ).
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote: I find the "history" of the natural world to be fascinating (as long as I can study it from behind many protective layers of technology ).
Or you can just go to a museum.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I'd rather attend lectures by Neil Degrasse Tyson or Brian Edward Cox than go to the average museum.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:I'd rather attend lectures by Neil Degrasse Tyson or Brian Edward Cox than go to the average museum.
Even the Smithsonian or the Louvre (art can arguably be considered as a form of history in itself) or any other famous museum in the world?
29408
Post by: Melissia
For the most part, yes.
The opportunity to ask questions directly to a researcher at cutting edge of their field is something I would not want to pass up.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:
The opportunity to ask questions directly to a researcher at cutting edge of their field is something I would not want to pass up.
Well, I can't argue with that.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.
Well that's why its called written history. You know. Ignoring that historians regularly engage in the study and development of histories for times before written history. Problem though is that the majority of research concerning pre-history is undertaken not by historians and more by other fields; Anthropology, Paleontology, Archeology, etc. People in those fields of course work with historians regularly, but there's a reason the distinction is there for written history vs prehistory. The skills sets needed change when writing systems are involved.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians
THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.
I would ask you to quantify precisely what you are considering as 'history', under that particular objection.
Would you consider the origin of the universe history? The origin of a galaxy, or a star? Of our planet? Of life?
I admit that for the most part, I'm mostly unconcerned with written history unless it directly relates to the subject at hand-- although historical fiction can be quite fun to read, see RotTK. I find the "history" of the natural world to be fascinating (as long as I can study it from behind many protective layers of technology ).
The origin of the Universe was a past event, not history. The same goes for the origins of life and planets. History is something manufactured by mankind. It cannot exist separately from it.
Unless of course, you were referring to a scientist attempting to chart the origins of the Universe?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:The origin of the Universe was a past event, not history.
I find that distinction arbitrary and nonsensical. Claiming that human history is the only thing that can be called history is far too homocentrist for me.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:I find that distinction arbitrary and nonsensical. Claiming that human history is the only thing that can be called history is far too homocentrist for me.
Ignoring that history exactly refers to human history in its proper context. It's been highly generalized by the public and by other fields but within history, humanity and it's past is still the point (there's not much of a reason for historians to go beyond that). Prehistory is covered by other fields of research which the few historians only really involving themselves in the earliest of human or prehuman societies.
It's not homocentrist. It's what the word means academically. Shuman and I went at it in another thread a month or so back. What common folk think of as history is very different from what historians are actually doing.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:The origin of the Universe was a past event, not history.
I find that distinction arbitrary and nonsensical. Claiming that human history is the only thing that can be called history is far too homocentrist for me.
I would agree...if you want to focus on Human History, then do so. But the universe (and many other things besides) has a history of its own, and one we barely (if even barely) have begun to know. Hell, even Human History is general - there are so many divisions among us, that Human History can be divided into several fields and areas. Ketara wrote:
The origin of the Universe was a past event, not history. The same goes for the origins of life and planets. History is something manufactured by mankind. It cannot exist separately from it.
Why do you insist so much on the philosophical definition of history when the english definition is the one that is generally accepted by everyone else?
44069
Post by: p_gray99
LordofHats wrote:Melissia wrote:I find that distinction arbitrary and nonsensical. Claiming that human history is the only thing that can be called history is far too homocentrist for me.
Ignoring that history exactly refers to human history in its proper context. It's been highly generalized by the public and by other fields but within history, humanity and it's past is still the point (there's not much of a reason for historians to go beyond that). Prehistory is covered by other fields of research which the few historians only really involving themselves in the earliest of human or prehuman societies.
It's not homocentrist. It's what the word means academically. Shuman and I went at it in another thread a month or so back. What common folk think of as history is very different from what historians are actually doing.
This is exactly the reason that there is such a thing as pre-history, yet no such thing as a time before the universe (if you believe that time started with the universe, as many people both theist and atheist do).
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Tadashi wrote:Why do you insist so much on the philosophical definition of history when the english definition is the one that is generally accepted by everyone else?
Because the word 'the past' already exists (well technically that's a phrase) and there's no need to muddle what is essentially a human construct to explain human actors and events to mean the same thing.
The generalized definition works fine if you want to be general about something, but that's about it. Like I said. There's a major disconnect between academics and non-academics when it comes to history. Go check out the Greek word histor from which history is derived. It means inquiry. The old English Historae which literally means 'story' or 'narrative.' It's not until the beginning of the field of Natural History that we start to see the word used in a context disconnected from the human race, and I personally blame that development with muddling what the word means down to near uselessness.
5534
Post by: dogma
Tadashi wrote:But the universe (and many other things besides) has a history of its own, and one we barely (if even barely) have begun to know.
The universe has nothing. Unless your name is Spinoza it cannot possess anything, because it isn't conscious.
History is imposed by humans, it doesn't exist separately. In this way its much like "meaning" and "value".
29408
Post by: Melissia
While I'd rather not be put on the same level as Tadashi, I don't think I'll ever agree with the definition of "history" only being relative to human history or written history or what not.
History is, generally, the study of past events, or more simply "the past", considered from our perspective in the timeline. We don't know the entirety of history, but that's half the fun...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:History is, generally, the study of past events, or more simply "the past"
That's 100% correct. Problem is that the study is usually limited to human events and the human past, as properly history is a human construct to explain humanities past. There's no need for a 'history of dinosaurs' as Paleontologists already research and produce timelines for the dinosaurs, making a history of them redundant, not to mention somewhat improper as the tools for paleontology and history are very different.
The word natural history is in a sense ingenious, cause it describes perfectly what people of that time were doing; history but instead of humans. doing the same thing for the natural world instead. The problem is that their usage of history in these sense muddled the word and produced the now super generalized definition where history means anything that ever happened ever i.e. the past which isn't what history is.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Except, it is what history is.
I still have no reason to accept homocentrism.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:Except, it is what history is.
History:
a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle:
History is a study of the past, not the past itself. It's an important distinction, as is the distinction that history proper is about people. Not everything that has ever been. Of course the 'usually written as a chronological account' is kind of going out the window. Lots of historians don't deal with things chronologically anymore cause its not always convenient, especially in global or comparative history.
I still have no reason to accept homocentrism.
No one is saying you have to accept your red herring (which btw puts a very different image in my head than what you intend XD). History doesn't exist to make humanity the special species of forever anymore than Ornithology exists to make birds super special awesome. Its a faulty way of looking at the issue.
This discussion has nothing to do with homocentrism. It's about the difference between what most people think history is and what historians say history is.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
LordofHats wrote:
I still have no reason to accept homocentrism.
No one is saying you have to accept your red herring (which btw puts a very different image in my head than what you intend XD).
That's homo-eroticism you're thinking of
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Actually I have this weird image of two dudes in the middle of this circle making out @_@ But yeah maybe we should just use Anthropocentrism instead to avoid any weird mental imagery
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:The origin of the Universe was a past event, not history.
I find that distinction arbitrary and nonsensical. Claiming that human history is the only thing that can be called history is far too homocentrist for me.
Human history is not the only thing that can be called history. Don't be so quick to erect strawmen. Allow me to go into some detail.
Things occur within time and space. Events, if you will. The origin of the Universe is one of those past events. It occurred. Such a thing is not history, any more than me turning on the speakers on my computer, or my cat going to the toilet in my garden is history. If any past event can be considered history, then the actions of everything that has ever happened anyone can be called history. If you choose to believe that everything ever happened is history, then the word history just becomes defined as anything that has ever occurred or happened (or indeed, is occurring or happening).
This is somewhat nonsensical. Me eating a biscuit is not history, it is me eating a biscuit. In the same way, the origin of the Universe is not history, it is the origin of the Universe.
If I say to someone that I am studying history, I am not saying that I am studying every single past event in existence, from a skin cell breaking off my body ten minutes ago, to the continuing progress of a molecule of H2O currently attached to an elderflower in Northern Bavaria. These things are events, and these occurred. That does not make them history.
History is defined by the historian. History is whatever a historian chooses to study. A historian will assemble different 'events' and weave them into a narrative called 'history'. There is no objective assembly of past events that is theoretically any more important or worthy of the title 'history' than any other set of events. The charting of the movements of some electrons is objectively no more important than the rise and fall of Hitler.
Not only this, but 'history', or the past events that we choose to connect tend to be inherently tainted with the perspective of the person assembling them and what it is possible for them to know and think. I can never truly know what went through Tirpitz's mind with regards to the British Navy. I can read his papers, watch a recording of the man, peruse his correspondence and so forth. I can hope that this will let me get close to knowing what he thought. But there is a fundamental disconnect that prevents my account of this 'past event', my 'history', ever being a true accounting of what happened. Mainly the fact that I cannot see into his mind and know his thoughts. I can guess at them, but I can never know for sure. Not only that, but my interpretation of his mind is based upon my own experiences. I will process whatever I find out about him through my own understanding of casuality and culture. I may guess he did one thing for a certain reason, because that's how people today behave. But I have no guarantee that was it, or that he thought like that.
To give a better example for that last point, a man from two hundred years ago writing on the character of another man from three hundred years ago might judge him a sound good man, despite knowing he beat his wife. Because that was still considered appropriate then. Today, the man from three hundred years ago would be considered a misogynistic bastard, when he is refracted through my mind and understanding. My concepts of morality and what I know to be right and wrong (ever changing things), will have affected my perception and judgement of that man from three hundred years ago.
This can apply equally to a history of science. I could attempt to write a history of phlogiston in 1700. Refracted through my mind, it would seem a sensible, logical and scientific thing to do. I would write on the man who discovered it, and how he came to do so. Three hundred years later though, my theory of phlogiston would actually be one of nitrogen. Phlogiston would now be forgotten. When I wrote my history of nitrogen, I would talk of the chap who discovered nitrogen. I would write on his experiments that led up to that. I would write about the dozens of experiments that led forward to that discovery of nitrogen. I might even consider phlogiston in passing, label it as a dead end, and carry on backwards.
Yet, the experiments that supported phlogiston as a theory would be ignored in this new history. The scientists who considered it valid would be ignored. My 'History of Nitrogen', would in actual fact, be a selectively chosen group of past events that I decided comprised of the history of nitrogen. It would not encompass all of the many other events and dead ends, and how they came about. No, it would be a narrative woven by me, with the past events selected being those which refract through my current knowledge (the existence of nitrogen). Yet in three hundred years, when nitrogen is disproven(maybe), my new history of whatever replaces it will do the same thing. It will be an entirely different narrative.
History, is what historians create. It is those facts deemed relevant by a historian, chosen due to their relevance to the historian's current state of knowledge and affairs, and woven together into a narrative (usually a whiggish one). It works the same in histories of natural science, mathematics, politics, and so on.
29408
Post by: Melissia
LordofHats wrote:the distinction that history proper is about people
THat's not important. It's pointless and stupid.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:THat's not important. It's pointless and stupid.
The history of the human species isn't important? Surely it at least holds relevance for us humans. Hence why we created a field to do it... Well Herodotus and Thucydides created it, but w/e
The Molemen of Alpha Centauri probably don't care though... Or maybe they'll be so bored of their own history anything new will be a nice change of pace
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:Things occur within time and space. Events, if you will. The origin of the Universe is one of those past events. It occurred. Such a thing is not history
Why? Ketara wrote:If any past event can be considered history, then the actions of everything that has ever happened anyone can be called history. If you choose to believe that everything ever happened is history, then the word history just becomes defined as anything that has ever occurred or happened (or indeed, is occurring or happening).
I'm glad you noticed. Ketara wrote:This is somewhat nonsensical.
Why? Personally I find your incessant attempts to make the distinction to be nonsensical, myself. One can say that his particular part of history isn't important, but that doesn't make it stop being history. Ketara wrote:In the same way, the origin of the Universe is not history, it is the origin of the Universe.
Why? THere's no reason to make the distinction. Ketara wrote: If I say to someone that I am studying history, I am not saying that I am studying every single past event in existence
Saying "I'm a historian" is pointless anyway. What KIND of historian are you? It's likle saying "I'm a scientist" to which the proper response is something like "okay, but what discipline?" You can say you're a scholar of human history, for example, and people would get a good idea about what you focus on. Just like one might say "I'm an evolutionary biologist". Ketara wrote:History is defined by the historian.
History is defined by what actually happened, whether or not we believe it happened is irrelevant. If we get it wrong and find out about it later, we have a duty to correct it so that our view of history fits reality. But that doesn't mean that history itself has changed. Ketara wrote:Not only this, but 'history', or the past events that we choose to connect
You keep changing which definition you're using. Ketara wrote:But there is a fundamental disconnect that prevents my account of this 'past event', my 'history', ever being a true accounting of what happened.
I fail to see a reason to care. Of course our interpretations of history are biased by our own viewpoints. But that doesn't actually change history itself. Ketara wrote:This can apply equally to a history of science. I could attempt to write a history of phlogiston in 1700. Refracted through my mind, it would seem a sensible, logical and scientific thing to do. I would write on the man who discovered it, and how he came to do so. Three hundred years later though, my theory of phlogiston would actually be one of nitrogen. Phlogiston would now be forgotten. When I wrote my history of nitrogen, I would talk of the chap who discovered nitrogen. I would write on his experiments that led up to that. I would write about the dozens of experiments that led forward to that discovery of nitrogen. I might even consider phlogiston in passing, label it as a dead end, and carry on backwards.
I see no relevant points here, certainly nothing that disagrees with my statements. Ketara wrote:Yet, the experiments that supported phlogiston as a theory would be ignored in this new history.
Not necessarily. Ketara wrote:History, is what historians create
Historians can't create history, they can only interpret it. It's like claiming that humanity created physics... well, no. We merely discovered it and are still working to refine our understanding of it. LordofHats wrote:Melissia wrote:THat's not important. It's pointless and stupid.
The history of the human species isn't important?
I was talking about the claim that "proper history" is only human history. Which is, at best, silly.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Historians can't create history, they can only interpret it.
Historian:
a writer of history; chronicler.
Not necessarily.
While you're somewhat right, try finding any reference to Pierre Louis Maupertuis in any material written before 1960. Darwin got all the credit for about a century.
I was talking about the claim that "proper history" is only human history.
Which is, at best, silly.
It's what the word means in its proper context. It's silly to assume it means anything and everything that has ever happened simpyl because you whimsy it to be such, because that's horribly distant from the proper usage of the term but it's what everyone does so *shrugz*
29408
Post by: Melissia
LordofHats wrote:While you're somewhat right, try finding any reference to Pierre Louis Maupertuis in any material written before 1960. Darwin got all the credit for about a century.
Which means that that particular recording of history was flawed and incomplete, not that history itself changed. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:It's what the word means in its proper context
And yet, this "proper context" itself is logically flawed.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:Which means that that particular recording of history was flawed and incomplete, not that history itself changed.
Past events didn't change. The history changed because the narrative changed (or rather was amended to account for Darwin not existing in an intellectual vaccum). EDIT: History changes on a fairly regular basis. It gets almost completely revised probably every... 75 years? Depending on the subject.
29408
Post by: Melissia
LordofHats wrote:Melissia wrote:Which means that that particular recording of history was flawed and incomplete, not that history itself changed.
Past events didn't change.
And therefor the history didn't change.
LordofHats wrote:The history changed\
"Our interpretation of", yes.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
History is not the past. The past is the past. There's no need for two words meaning the same thing, even if the mountains of the uneducated (poorly educated rather) insist on such.
29408
Post by: Melissia
There's no need for two words meaning the same thing
There's actually probably half a dozen different words that can mean "history" or "the past", and that's just in English alone... Mind you, I don't exactly view your definition as very scientifically precise, either.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Things occur within time and space. Events, if you will. The origin of the Universe is one of those past events. It occurred. Such a thing is not history
Why?
Because that is not what history is. In the same way that a doughnut is not music. The two are different things. Inquiring as to why they are two different things is best left to the scholars of language, or the divine.
Ketara wrote:If any past event can be considered history, then the actions of everything that has ever happened anyone can be called history. If you choose to believe that everything ever happened is history, then the word history just becomes defined as anything that has ever occurred or happened (or indeed, is occurring or happening).
I'm glad you noticed.
Ketara wrote:This is somewhat nonsensical.
Why? Personally I find your incessant attempts to make the distinction to be nonsensical, myself. One can say that his particular part of history isn't important, but that doesn't make it stop being history.
Because it isn't history. Again, my doughnut is not music. A past event is not history. History is the study of past events. It is not the past events themselves. The Universe is comprised of 'atoms' not 'history'.
You may find such a distinction nonsense, but rest assured, if I told you I was serving up politics for dinner, and riding to work on my honour, you might get a bit confused.
Ketara wrote:In the same way, the origin of the Universe is not history, it is the origin of the Universe.
Why? THere's no reason to make the distinction.
Why is the origin of the Universe the origin of the universe and not history? Because it exists independently of humanity and our interpretations. It is the origin of the universe. It is not history any more than it is economics. I myself, am not sitting here made up of 'history'. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Ketara wrote: If I say to someone that I am studying history, I am not saying that I am studying every single past event in existence
Saying "I'm a historian" is pointless anyway. What KIND of historian are you? It's likle saying "I'm a scientist" to which the proper response is something like "okay, but what discipline?" You can say you're a scholar of human history, for example, and people would get a good idea about what you focus on. Just like one might say "I'm an evolutionary biologist".
Pointless? It means something, ergo, it has a point. If I tell someone I am a historian or scientist, I am telling them what I do, in the same way a doctor or a lawyer does. There might be specialisations within the field, but it serves adequately as a career description (and hence, has a point).
The original (ignored) point here however, was that if history did encompass everything ever in existence, it would be a meaningless description.
Ketara wrote:History is defined by the historian.
History is defined by what actually happened, whether or not we believe it happened is irrelevant. If we get it wrong and find out about it later, we have a duty to correct it so that our view of history fits reality. But that doesn't mean that history itself has changed.
History is our understanding of past events. It is not the events themselves.
And in addition, as stated below that, our view of history can never fit reality, because our view is inherently flawed.
Ketara wrote:Not only this, but 'history', or the past events that we choose to connect
You keep changing which definition you're using. Ketara wrote:But there is a fundamental disconnect that prevents my account of this 'past event', my 'history', ever being a true accounting of what happened.
I fail to see a reason to care. Of course our interpretations of history are biased by our own viewpoints. But that doesn't actually change history itself.
Errr.....it does? It doesn't change the past events. But past events are not history. You really don't seem to be getting that....
Ketara wrote:This can apply equally to a history of science. I could attempt to write a history of phlogiston in 1700. Refracted through my mind, it would seem a sensible, logical and scientific thing to do. I would write on the man who discovered it, and how he came to do so. Three hundred years later though, my theory of phlogiston would actually be one of nitrogen. Phlogiston would now be forgotten. When I wrote my history of nitrogen, I would talk of the chap who discovered nitrogen. I would write on his experiments that led up to that. I would write about the dozens of experiments that led forward to that discovery of nitrogen. I might even consider phlogiston in passing, label it as a dead end, and carry on backwards.
I see no relevant points here, certainly nothing that disagrees with my statements. Ketara wrote:Yet, the experiments that supported phlogiston as a theory would be ignored in this new history.
Not necessarily. Ketara wrote:History, is what historians create
Historians can't create history, they can only interpret it.
It's like claiming that humanity created physics... well, no. We merely discovered it and are still working to refine our understanding of it.
We did create physics. Because the thing we understand to be 'physics' today, may not in actuality, exist. In the same way phlogiston turned out to not exist. Scientific paradigms are just that. Read Thomas Kuhn for more on that department.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:There's actually probably half a dozen different words that can mean "history" or "the past", and that's just in English alone...
I suppose if you want to ignore that relatively few words in any language mean the same things (in spite of regular interchangeable uses), and that history and the past are connected but different concepts.
5534
Post by: dogma
Ketara wrote:
Because that is not what history is. In the same way that a doughnut is not music. The two are different things. Inquiring as to why they are two different things is best left to the scholars of language, or the divine.
That's a bit obtuse, but history is distinct from past events.
History is, broadly speaking, about analysis; not simple recognition.
I ate a delicious burrito for breakfast, this an event. But why I ate it is history. At least assuming that I'm important enough to merit description.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
In the worlds of Prof Theory and Practice: History isn't the past because the past is fact and there's no point debating what year George Washington died.
19819
Post by: walker90234
Right, so when observing all Tadashi's precious statements and comparing him to O'brein, I was just making a joke...
But then he goes on about how history should be forgotten unless it is directly useful...
This is getting creepy.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Welcome to Dakka Dakka. Enjoy your stay (and relish the madness )
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
ALTER PROBABILITY.
53251
Post by: xole
I would draw out world war II so we got more crazy nazi super science.
The rest of this history debate seems to be an argument over whether or not pre-history counts as actual history.
Fantastic.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
ketara wrote:Tip:- I actually know what I'm talking about here. Go and pick up Jordanova's 'History in Practice' and get a basic summary of the field you're shoving your foot into before trying to argue it. I know I'm coming off as slightly snarky here(apologies for that I guess), but people arguing loudly and completely incorrectly with each other on something neither knows anything about has always irritated me slightly.
Oh the blessed irony. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:Melissia wrote:There's actually probably half a dozen different words that can mean "history" or "the past", and that's just in English alone...
I suppose if you want to ignore that relatively few words in any language mean the same things (in spite of regular interchangeable uses), and that history and the past are connected but different concepts.
Technically the number of words with identical definitive meanings is very large. The number of words with identical distinct and singularly isolated meanings is not. There are a great many words that mean "fast". Many of them contain specificities that narrow their proper use, but english is a language where individual words will have many often dissimilar meanings and some of them aren't particularly unique or specific. Ketara is arguing how he wants language to work, not how it actually does. Nor is he using a dictionary despite repetitiously trying to define terms. Its a silly argument at best asinine and damaging at worst.
11029
Post by: Ketara
ShumaGorath wrote:
Technically the number of words with identical definitive meanings is very large. The number of words with identical distinct and singularly isolated meanings is not. There are a great many words that mean "fast". Many of them contain specificities that narrow their proper use, but english is a language where individual words will have many often dissimilar meanings and some of them aren't particularly unique or specific. Ketara is arguing how he wants language to work, not how it actually does. Nor is he using a dictionary despite repetitiously trying to define terms. Its a silly argument at best asinine and damaging at worst.
I'm not making a statement on language and its technicalities, and to accuse me of doing so is intellectually dishonest at best. I'm clarifying precisely what 'history' entails, in a professional and academic sense. If you can prove that every past event that has ever occurred is somehow inextricably linked to the term 'history', please go ahead and do so.
19819
Post by: walker90234
and now we have newspeak...
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Ketara wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
Technically the number of words with identical definitive meanings is very large. The number of words with identical distinct and singularly isolated meanings is not. There are a great many words that mean "fast". Many of them contain specificities that narrow their proper use, but english is a language where individual words will have many often dissimilar meanings and some of them aren't particularly unique or specific. Ketara is arguing how he wants language to work, not how it actually does. Nor is he using a dictionary despite repetitiously trying to define terms. Its a silly argument at best asinine and damaging at worst.
I'm not making a statement on language and its technicalities, and to accuse me of doing so is intellectually dishonest at best. I'm clarifying precisely what 'history' entails, in a professional and academic sense. If you can prove that every past event that has ever occurred is somehow inextricably linked to the term 'history', please go ahead and do so.
No thanks. I'm not interested in joining the debate, just in pointing out that it's ridiculous. You toss around "academic" like it means something, like you're somehow an authority. Point me to your published works or any academic establishment that would treat you as some sort of authority.
11029
Post by: Ketara
ShumaGorath wrote:
No thanks. I'm not interested in joining the debate, just in pointing out that it's ridiculous.
I see. Well, no doubt if you bothered to demonstrate it, I'm sure you would stagger us all with your amazing wit and intellect.
Until then however, I shall be forced to relegate you, your peremptory remarks, and generally inflammatory input to the rubbish bin.
You toss around "academic" like it means something, like you're somehow an authority. Point me to your published works or any academic establishment that would treat you as some sort of authority
Funny thing is, this isn't even my opinion I've been arguing. It's the standard academic (which does mean something, eg. discussed by/considered to be by academics) postmodernist discourse on the matter, as begun by E.H. Carr's 'What is History'.
The responses are easily found. One can examine Elton's (The Regis Professor of Oxford University) work 'The Practice of History', for the initial lashback, and then go on to examine everything from Tosh, to Alan Munslow, to Keith Jenkins, to Jordanova.
And as mentioned, Thomas Kuhn's trailblazing 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' to see an equivalent postmodernist challenge to Science, which has now stretched to challenging the objectivity of mathematics itself.
'Course, you've read all those? Right? Since you're not challenging me, but them.
53251
Post by: xole
I decided to do a search on "are dinosaurs a part of history" to see what it brought me. There were some museums of natural history, among other things, but I think it is safe to say that history can be used as a generic term for past events. I also found this, which made me sad.
I may go start another thread on "what is the coolest extinct species"
21720
Post by: LordofHats
It makes me sad too... So... So very sad...
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
'Course, you've read all those? Right? Since you're not challenging me, but them.
No, I was challenging you. You're using their justifications (minus the structure, reasoning, decorum, or apt placement) to hamstring a discussion in a way that they did not. To paraphrase you, you're arguing a donut. They were arguing "history". You managed to read a smattering of midrange college fair books. That's not an excuse for misplaced appeals to authority.
11029
Post by: Ketara
ShumaGorath wrote:'Course, you've read all those? Right? Since you're not challenging me, but them.
No, I was challenging you. You're using their justifications (minus the structure, reasoning, decorum, or apt placement) to hamstring a discussion in a way that they did not.
To paraphrase you, you're arguing a donut. They were arguing "history". You managed to read a smattering of midrange college fair books. That's not an excuse for misplaced appeals to authority.
The mildly bizare thing is that you telling me I'm wrong, yet fail to tell me why I'm wrong. You just throw out a mild range of pseudo-intellectual verbal jabs. To the point where I genuinely doubt you have the slightest idea what any of the above mentioned works even say, let alone the intricacies of the postmodernist challenge to history.
You disappoint Shuma, I genuinely thought you were capable of more than that. Either substantiate yourself or pipe down.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
To paraphrase you, you're arguing history from the perspective of the field. I'm arguing what I like to think of as history and demand it be true.
Fix'd?
ShumaGorath wrote:You managed to read a smattering of midrange college fair books.
You're calling Geoffry Elton midrange? I mean, he's a little dated now being almost as traditional as traditional can get, but damn.
yet fail to tell me why I'm wrong
The irony is that if you listed no sources you'd be accused of making it up. List the sources, and you're just 'appealing to authority.'
That's why I don't bother listing sources on the interwebz. There's no way to win EDIT: And I don't feel like digging through the bookshelf...
11029
Post by: Ketara
LordofHats wrote:[
You're calling Geoffry Elton midrange? I mean, he's a little dated now being almost as traditional as traditional can get, but damn.
I always found Elton a little sloppy for an academic of his supposed quality. He always adhered a little too firmly to Von Ranke.
Jenkins I could get behind. He made some jumps in reasoning, but the basic premise of most of his work was sound.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Any discussion involving the question "What is History" is in itself a really complicated discussion (assuming all parties involve actually want to answer the question). But yeah. Elton is totally old school with the Political history and an absolute rejection of mix-disciplinary approaches. Talk about narrow viewpoints
I'm not familiar with Jenkins. Historiography generally isn't my thing beyond a basic understanding of the New Social History (EDIT: Or a general understanding of changes in certain narratives that interest me, pretty much just the Dark Ages and WWII XD).
11029
Post by: Ketara
Keith Jenkins has a good solid logical way of looking at the nature of historiography. He makes it concise and elegant, without all that irrelevant waffling you tend to get with Hayden White or his ilk. He's a solid postmodernist, which I don't agree with, but his reasoning is sound enough you more or less have to follow the majority of it (or put your fingers in your ears and go 'Lalalalala!')
I'm a more of a WW1 era bod myself in specialisation. Just putting the finishing touches on a piece on private industry and submarine construction whilst I've been arguing this. The nature of history is something any competent historian should have under their belt though. We might not like it, but it improves the craft, and knowledge is always better than ignorance.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Fix'd?
I didn't say he was wrong, I said the argument was stupid. Semantical arguments that assert definitions contrary to common dictionary ones to reinforce points that were abandoned pages ago are bad arguments.
You're calling Geoffry Elton midrange? I mean, he's a little dated now being almost as traditional as traditional can get, but damn.
The dude spent his career opining modern historians focus on sociological and economic influences on history and his books read like 80s battletech sourcebooks. I suppose midrange isn't really a good descriptor since these days it's probably voluntary reading, but I'm not hugely impressed by that particular reference. Either way, my point was more in reference to the fact that he's claiming authority in a debate in a logically dishonest manner.
The irony is that if you listed no sources you'd be accused of making it up. List the sources, and you're just 'appealing to authority.'
It's an appeal to authority either way. He's using names to try to "settle" an argument that he is otherwise laying out very poorly. The debate itself is fairly ambiguous at this point as history is an ambiguous term and historians don't assign it's meaning, the public does. He is claiming to be a definitive source and is presenting others arguments for the truth of his claims, but socialogical arguments aren't quantifiable as fact or truth.
The whole things silly.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
The debate itself is fairly ambiguous at this point as history is an ambiguous term and historians don't assign it's meaning, the public does.
We've been down that road before Shuma. Might as well just remember what was said last time and leave it be lol
11029
Post by: Ketara
ShumaGorath wrote:
The whole things silly.
Indeed. Welcome to the internet.
Thing is, I'll happily admit to having been sloppy with my structure, but then again, the opposing argument was ridiculous enough I consider pointing people in the right direction book wise good enough.
If you believe showing people where to begin educating themselves on a subject is appealing to authority, sue me. I don't believe I misrepresented Carr there in the slightest (and let's face it, he was about the only one I bothered taking anything from).
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
LordofHats wrote:The debate itself is fairly ambiguous at this point as history is an ambiguous term and historians don't assign it's meaning, the public does.
We've been down that road before Shuma. Might as well just remember what was said last time and leave it be lol
Oh lawd you're right. Maybe this is gonna become a thing.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Lets do it again next week
29408
Post by: Melissia
Hey, count me out of this as well. I already spoke my piece, and I rather clearly stated that you guys aren't likely to change my mind on the subject (I find Ketara's distinction to be pointless to the point of irrelevance, and that's the entire basis of Ketara's argument, so...). So agree to disagree and all that wonderful jazz.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Aw come on. We can make it a party. I'll totally bring potato salad.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Works for me. I've had my fill of internet arguing for a good month or so.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Will there be nachos?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not a party without nachos.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Eh. Why not?
We should totally bring some kind of history beverage too. Mead? Maybe beer made from barley?
EDIT: Oooo. Captain Morgan? That ones got some history
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
ShumaGorath wrote:
I didn't say he was wrong, I said the argument was stupid. Semantical arguments that assert definitions contrary to common dictionary ones to reinforce points that were abandoned pages ago are bad arguments.
No, because
It's an appeal to authority either way.
Yours is no less than his. As you demonstrated, authorities can be challenged. They can be wrong. The advantage to making an appeal to academic authority is that it usually means one has developped arguments to back said appeal, or has taken those of someone else. Refering to the dictionnary has, in itself, no other authority then the fact that it's written down, because the dictionnary doesn't provide the etymological deconstruction of the term used.
As much as it pains me to admit, the contribution of postmodernism to the study of history cannot be diminished. History is a narrative.
The debate itself is fairly ambiguous at this point as history is an ambiguous term and historians don't assign it's meaning, the public does.
This depends entirely on the sociological context. In the case of French, and postmodernism is so very French (okay the germans beat us to it), it's the Académie française, a body of scholars (named hilariously the Immortals) that decided on both grammatical and semantical questions.
It's likle saying "I'm a scientist" to which the proper response is something like "okay, but what discipline?"
No, ''I'm a scientist'' means that you use the scientific method to produce scientific facts. Alternatively, a larger extension would signify that you aim at knowledge. An historian produces a narrative. If he concentrate his studies on 'natural history', then he produces a narrative of nature. Because they are two different domains, natural history will rely a lot more on scientific facts, while human history will be able to study both the narratives produced by the people, institutions or societies studied, and the more factual data gleaned by statistical studies.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
walker90234 wrote:Right, so when observing all Tadashi's precious statements and comparing him to O'brein, I was just making a joke...
But then he goes on about how history should be forgotten unless it is directly useful...
This is getting creepy.
I guess he's never heard of Pol Pot.
Or, he's definitely heard of Pol Pot, and this is getting creepy.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Some things are meant to be forgotten...especially ideas and beliefs that will just hold us back.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
In all honesty, it started being creepy 3 weeks ago when he claimed that asians were to westerners what eldars are to humans.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Technically none of the four oldest civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China) are western...Greece and Rome (the basis of your civilization) borrowed a lot from the East, so its kinda true. And when the East grew weak, the West rose and imposed its culture on an older culture.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
My case.
I rest it.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Tadashi wrote:Technically none of the four oldest civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China) are western...Greece and Rome (the basis of your civilization) borrowed a lot from the East, so its kinda true. And when the East grew weak, the West rose and imposed its culture on an older culture.
Actually ancient Egyptian was a Mediterranean culture, not an eastern one, and Mesopotamia was not exactly "Eastern". The near east had strong influence on, and was strongly influenced by, both the far east and India and the Mediterranean cultures And if your going to split the world in that way you might want to take in to account that Mesopotamia is generally regarded as the cradle of civilization, with the influence and power of other places growing around it, including early Mediterranean cultures and towards the far east.
I find it very odd that people split the world in the way that they do, based on modern Islamic influence in the past 500 years and the posision of the Ural mountains. To think along the lines of "this is east, this is west" is to completely misunderstand the power structure of the ancient world. It also fails to take in to account recent discovery on the influence and power of the neolithic Beaker culture of northern Europe, who previously have been ignored due to lack of evidence.
In summery, to say "our culture was first" or "this is eastern, this is western" is to misunderstand the ancient world.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Steve steveson wrote:
In summery, to say "our culture was first" or "this is eastern, this is western" is to misunderstand the ancient world.
Well, for me it was just a reaction to what I was taught in elementary and high school - western civilization is supposed to be the greatest thing in Human history. And then comes college history, and the college professor laughs and says "Western civilization? My dear students...western civilization would not have existed without Asia." I will however, concede that Ancient Egypt was not Asian - but it and Mesopotamia were certainly much of the source for the foundation of Greco-Roman civilization. Here in East Asia, China and India were the pioneers of civilization.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Tadashi wrote:Some things are meant to be forgotten...especially ideas and beliefs that will just hold us back.
Yeah! We should totally get rid of all the historians and teachers and just start from year zero, right?
51396
Post by: Tadashi
azazel the cat wrote:Tadashi wrote:Some things are meant to be forgotten...especially ideas and beliefs that will just hold us back.
Yeah! We should totally get rid of all the historians and teachers and just start from year zero, right?
Very funny...only knowledge which will just cause trouble should be buried away, where only those who need to know can find them. The faceless masses do not need to know what they do not need to know.
241
Post by: Ahtman
azazel the cat wrote:Tadashi wrote:Some things are meant to be forgotten...especially ideas and beliefs that will just hold us back.
Yeah! We should totally get rid of all the historians and teachers and just start from year zero, right?
We'll build some camps people can go to to start re-learning, or unlearning, for their own good. The masses will thank us and our glorious wisdom in helping to choose for them what it is they should know to be happy and productive.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
You shouldn't discriminate against those who don't have faces man, it's not cool. Not having a face is punishment enough.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Ahtman wrote:azazel the cat wrote:Tadashi wrote:Some things are meant to be forgotten...especially ideas and beliefs that will just hold us back.
Yeah! We should totally get rid of all the historians and teachers and just start from year zero, right?
We'll build some camps people can go to to start re-learning, or unlearning, for their own good. The masses will thank us and our glorious wisdom in helping to choose for them what it is they should know to be happy and productive.
No need...just place some undercover 'Security Bureau' agents in news companies, use supercomputers to filter the networks, and keep the masses happy, and we'll have them as docile as we need to.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Tadashi wrote:Steve steveson wrote:
In summery, to say "our culture was first" or "this is eastern, this is western" is to misunderstand the ancient world.
Well, for me it was just a reaction to what I was taught in elementary and high school - western civilization is supposed to be the greatest thing in Human history. And then comes college history, and the college professor laughs and says "Western civilization? My dear students...western civilization would not have existed without Asia."
I will however, concede that Ancient Egypt was not Asian - but it and Mesopotamia were certainly much of the source for the foundation of Greco-Roman civilization. Here in East Asia, China and India were the pioneers of civilization.
I won't argue with that. Early education teaches what can be understood by the age group "Lies for children". Far neolithic and bronze age Asian and far easter civilization is something is not really my area, but China and India are most certainly major influences in the far east, probably the "equivalent", for want of a better way of putting it, to the Greek and Roman cultures in Europe, in terms of there influence. Equally there was a trade back and forth for about 4000 years with oil and wine from the Minoan empire and further in the west, flint and bronze from the UK in the north through the middle east to the far east trading herbs and spices, and gold flowing in from Africa. With money comes ideas and culture in both directions.
Trade forges civilization, war only destroys it.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Steve steveson wrote:
Trade forges civilization, war only destroys it.
A debatable point - the stance I follow (also instilled by my college professor) is that war is a crucible. The victor emerges all the stronger, lamentable the loss of life may be. It is also a fact that war drove much development and improvement in terms of technology - for instance, while basic metal smelting and forging may have been developed initially for the construction of better tools, it was only under the impetus of war that these basic forging techniques were improved upon for the development of better weapons. The Chinese for instance, were already using chromium-alloyed steel blades as far back as the Qin Dynasty, and were unrivalled (except by Japanese and Spanish swordsmiths) in metal-crafting until the Industrial Revolution. A modern example is the Haber Process for extracting nitrogen, which was developed during the First World War as an attempt to circumvent the British blockade of German ports.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Technically none of the four oldest civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China) are western...Greece and Rome (the basis of your civilization) borrowed a lot from the East, so its kinda true. And when the East grew weak, the West rose and imposed its culture on an older culture.
Because of the importance of the Mediterranean sea to the history of Europe in general, the Middle East often gets lumped in with 'Western Civilization' as a matter of course (EDIT EDIT: Especially with the importance of the Semetic and Persian cultures on Greece and later events). Key Greek and Roman cultural traditions were translated by several migrant Middle Eastern groups. Their traditions are those of the West as well so to discuss Western Civilization it is very convenient to simply include them. EDIT: Especially since historically, there was a much more direct effect of the ME on the West than the ME on the East in the ancient world. The Central Asian mountain ranges cut back on a lot of eastward cultural transmission.
That said, the Aryans are probably one of the single most transitive ancient ethnic groups, and they do come from Central Asia... So in short its very complicated
|
|
