Written History.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2013, 08:08 PM
Written History.
Do you trust written history if it was written 2,000 years ago by the romans? Do you trust history if it was written 2 years ago by your government? What I'm trying to get at is at what point do you draw the line? What point, if there is one, can you say hey! This is recent enough! I can trust this!

I don't think there should be a point where you should openly accept history, I think that you should take recent history with a bit of salt added into it. Meaning you should be weary of it because no country(s) are immune to beefing shit up. Take Custer's last stand for example, an event after the civil war that was written as this glorious last stand that lasted for hours. When in reality the ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence suggests that it was over rather quickly.

The Massacre at wounded knee was another event where soldier gained Medals of 'Honor' for butchering hundreds of native americans. Yet at the time it was believed that the natives were the ones who violently started the 'battle'. And even just as recently as the Cold War, dictators were set up like pawns on a chess board and were just as easily removed as pawns on a chess board.

And here I am, I am CONDEMNED for having the audacity to question modern historical events. I mean it's okay to question events if they happened 10,000 years ago but not if they happened last month? Can you say bigot?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Nappa's post
02-02-2013, 08:13 PM
RE: Written History.
(02-02-2013 08:08 PM)Nappa Wrote:  Do you trust written history if it was written 2,000 years ago by the romans? Do you trust history if it was written 2 years ago by your government? What I'm trying to get at is at what point do you draw the line? What point, if there is one, can you say hey! This is recent enough! I can trust this!

I don't think there should be a point where you should openly accept history, I think that you should take recent history with a bit of salt added into it. Meaning you should be weary of it because no country(s) are immune to beefing shit up. Take Custer's last stand for example, an event after the civil war that was written as this glorious last stand that lasted for hours. When in reality the ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence suggests that it was over rather quickly.

The Massacre at wounded knee was another event where soldier gained Medals of 'Honor' for butchering hundreds of native americans. Yet at the time it was believed that the natives were the ones who violently started the 'battle'. And even just as recently as the Cold War, dictators were set up like pawns on a chess board and were just as easily removed as pawns on a chess board.

And here I am, I am CONDEMNED for having the audacity to question modern historical events. I mean it's okay to question events if they happened 10,000 years ago but not if they happened last month? Can you say bigot?


Exactly what history is written by my government?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
02-02-2013, 08:14 PM
RE: Written History.
(02-02-2013 08:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Exactly what history is written by my government?
I wait for this answer with bated breath. Drinking Beverage

The Out Crowd.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 08:15 PM
RE: Written History.
(02-02-2013 08:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Exactly what history is written by my government?
That would depend on where you live.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 08:18 PM
RE: Written History.
You are condemned for twisting people's arguments and needlessly insulting them when they disagree with you. Holocaust deniers are also not taken seriously for usually having an obvious agenda guiding their arguments (in other words, neo-nazi propaganda). I'm not saying you are a neo-nazi, but I would contend that your evidence is most likely flawed either way. You make too much of a deal about it being an emotional reason we hold the Holocaust to be true, we actually take it from an evidence based standpoint. Don't care if you think the evidence is bullshit, we don't, and that means we don't need arguments solely based on sentimental value as you frequently try to display to be the case.

Same applies with your other historically based arguments.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
02-02-2013, 08:24 PM
RE: Written History.
(02-02-2013 08:18 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  You are condemned for twisting people's arguments and needlessly insulting them when they disagree with you. Holocaust deniers are also not taken seriously for usually having an obvious agenda guiding their arguments (in other words, neo-nazi propaganda). I'm not saying you are a neo-nazi, but I would contend that your evidence is most likely flawed either way. You make too much of a deal about it being an emotional reason we hold the Holocaust to be true, we actually take it from an evidence based standpoint. Don't care if you think the evidence is bullshit, we don't, and that means we don't need arguments solely based on sentimental value as you frequently try to display to be the case.

Same applies with your other historically based arguments.
Did I say anything about the holocaust? Of course I believe in the holocaust! Don't be silly now, I mean there's an outstanding amount of evidence that the Jews killed six million Nazi's.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 08:32 PM
RE: Written History.
That didn't answer Chas' question. This is lame. I'm going for pizza. Dodgy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 08:33 PM
RE: Written History.
(02-02-2013 08:32 PM)kim Wrote:  That didn't answer the question. This is lame. I'm going for pizza. Dodgy
The truth is often lame.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 08:34 PM
RE: Written History.
(02-02-2013 08:33 PM)Nappa Wrote:  
(02-02-2013 08:32 PM)kim Wrote:  That didn't answer the question. This is lame. I'm going for pizza. Dodgy
The truth is often lame.

Only when you think it's something it isn't.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 08:36 PM
RE: Written History.
I think the OP is quite an interesting point. Anyone who believes the powers that be don't fudge the portrayal of recent events to suit there own ends from time to time would be pretty gullible, democratic systems force those in power to make such lies by their very nature.

Unfortunately pursuing this leads us into the realm of conspiracy theories. They present a problem for me. By their very definition they rely on going against the evidence, after all it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory if it followed the evidence. However, as someone who considers themselves a rational person I try to avoid going against the evidence in life. This means I avoid conspiracy theories altogether, though I wouldn't be surprised if there were some mind-boggling conspiracies out there.

I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this though. How do we decide what official accounts to accept and which to reject (I suppose I should actually ask: How should we decide what official accounts to accept and which to reject? The answer to "how do we" is that mostly we believe the ones we want to believe, whether we realise this subconsciously or not)?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hughsie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: