Philosophy

[Wizard22]

The history you need is social history as taught by teachers who know the rules for sourcing what they teach. There are rules for historical source material which is a fact you may not know about.

You didn't answer my question.

Why was homosexuality, transexuality, genital mutilation, child sacrifice excessive during the Roman Empire before they descended into the Dark Ages?

Did you learn any history when you were at school?

[Belinda]

The history you need is social history as taught by teachers who know the rules for sourcing what they teach. There are rules for historical source material which is a fact you may not know about.

You didn't answer my question.

Why was homosexuality, transexuality, genital mutilation, child sacrifice excessive during the Roman Empire before they descended into the Dark Ages?

Did you learn any history when you were at school?

Most of the history I learned at school was taught with the aim of regurgitating information about British mostly English politics from Tudors and Stuarts to the end of the 19th century Very little social history was taught.

I learned better at university where modern history included and as far as I can gather still does include comparing left and right wing attitudes accompanied by the best primary and secondary source material available. Specially valued in more recent years is source material from some very small locality over a long duration.


What a good historian does not do ,but which you do, is start with a bias and blatantly seek to find evidence that confirms the bias.

[Sculptor]

Please cite!

You can't remember what you wrote yesterday?

You have made claims that you have no cited.

You do know what the word "cite" means?

[Sculptor]

THere is no difference between you are the Ayatollahs

You said that transexuality/transgenderism "does not harm". That is false. You essentially support genital and child mutilation, which are barbaric practices the same as, or worse than, fundamentalist Islam. So you're projecting here.

What are you so scared of??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4984cYLqqc

[Wizard22]

Most of the history I learned at school was taught with the aim of regurgitating information about British mostly English politics from Tudors and Stuarts to the end of the 19th century Very little social history was taught.

I learned better at university where modern history included and as far as I can gather still does include comparing left and right wing attitudes accompanied by the best primary and secondary source material available. Specially valued in more recent years is source material from some very small locality over a long duration.


What a good historian does not do ,but which you do, is start with a bias and blatantly seek to find evidence that confirms the bias.

History is not biased. It happens whether we like it or not, whether we choose it or not.

Choosing to ignore history, however -is- biased. That is what it means to be or have a 'bias'.

You dodge the question, because you know the answer, and what it means for today's situation.

[Wizard22]

You have made claims that you have no cited.

You do know what the word "cite" means?

You said that transexuality/transgenderism does me "no harm", or "no harm" in general.

Countless female-to-male, and male-to-female transexuals, who deformed and castrated themselves, disagree with you.

Many who were brainwashed by your scum ideology, grow up and realize their error, only far too late. They are permanently crippled.


Why do you need a "source" for this? Are you so ignorant that you support LGTBQ+ without even knowing about its victims?

All you have to do is listen, which I'm certain is a struggle for you.

[Belinda]

Most of the history I learned at school was taught with the aim of regurgitating information about British mostly English politics from Tudors and Stuarts to the end of the 19th century Very little social history was taught.

I learned better at university where modern history included and as far as I can gather still does include comparing left and right wing attitudes accompanied by the best primary and secondary source material available. Specially valued in more recent years is source material from some very small locality over a long duration.


What a good historian does not do ,but which you do, is start with a bias and blatantly seek to find evidence that confirms the bias.

History is not biased. It happens whether we like it or not, whether we choose it or not.

Choosing to ignore history, however -is- biased. That is what it means to be or have a 'bias'.

You dodge the question, because you know the answer, and what it means for today's situation.

I agree it's stupid to ignore the human past, which is what history is.

It's true to say as do you "History is not biased".However even the best trained historiographers are relatively biased, and all narratives about the human past are to some extent, biased. Sometimes, rarely, a primary source is unearthed, maybe in some obscure library, where real people are telling it like it was. I know only of one of those and it makes fascinating reading.

In actual fact, it's impossible to rid oneself of subjective bias, entirely. Historiography is composed of sources and their relative merits, plus interpretation of those sources.

Sources range over archaeological finds, original documents, works of art, old newspapers, personal interviews and tape recordings, anecdotes down the pub, secondary historiographies, and text books. While archaeology is forensic in its methods and intentions, old newspapers are largely polemic. The former is almost devoid of subjective bias , and the latter is full of it. What I'm saying is a trained historian has a method of sorting the evidence into probable to very unreliable.

[Sculptor]

You have made claims that you have no cited.

You do know what the word "cite" means?

You said that transexuality/transgenderism does me "no harm", or "no harm" in general.

Countless female-to-male, and male-to-female transexuals, who deformed and castrated themselves, disagree with you.

So "countless" you still have not cited a single one.

Many who were brainwashed by your scum ideology, grow up and realize their error, only far too late. They are permanently crippled.


Why do you need a "source" for this? Are you so ignorant that you support LGTBQ+ without even knowing about its victims?

All you have to do is listen, which I'm certain is a struggle for you.

Please cite!

[Wizard22]

Please cite!

Right now young boys are being castrated by your ideology; and young girls are having their breasts sliced off.

Citation? Open your eyes.

YOU are worse than Islam.

[Wizard22]

I agree it's stupid to ignore the human past, which is what history is.

It's true to say as do you "History is not biased".However even the best trained historiographers are relatively biased, and all narratives about the human past are to some extent, biased. Sometimes, rarely, a primary source is unearthed, maybe in some obscure library, where real people are telling it like it was. I know only of one of those and it makes fascinating reading.

In actual fact, it's impossible to rid oneself of subjective bias, entirely. Historiography is composed of sources and their relative merits, plus interpretation of those sources.

Sources range over archaeological finds, original documents, works of art, old newspapers, personal interviews and tape recordings, anecdotes down the pub, secondary historiographies, and text books. While archaeology is forensic in its methods and intentions, old newspapers are largely polemic. The former is almost devoid of subjective bias , and the latter is full of it. What I'm saying is a trained historian has a method of sorting the evidence into probable to very unreliable.

This is a philosophy forum; so I suggest you do as the Greeks laid out for philosophers.

Understand your own bias, versus all others, then let the battle play out. This requires you to understand another person.

You'd be surprised how rare courage is when it comes to core beliefs. The lowest intelligence distribution of the bell curve are proud to voice their ignorance publicly and loudly. There is pride in great stupidity. But the highest intelligence distribution are much more hesitant to speak publicly on matters they know very little. So when it comes to the universe, existence, physics, objective reality, meaning of life...what then? Where are all the philosophers? Why is philosophy rare, and not common? Because little to nothing is actually known about what matters most in life.

Simple minds are not afraid to embarrass themselves because they don't understand the full implications of them being wrong.

[Sculptor]

Please cite!

Right now young boys are being castrated by your ideology; and young girls are having their breasts sliced off.

Citation? Open your eyes.

YOU are worse than Islam.

Please cite!

Islam got the practice of mutilating babies from the Jews who have been doing it for thousands of year, without consent. American doctors have been doing it to gentiles for over 100 years.

Trans surgery is consensual.

[Belinda]

I agree it's stupid to ignore the human past, which is what history is.

It's true to say as do you "History is not biased".However even the best trained historiographers are relatively biased, and all narratives about the human past are to some extent, biased. Sometimes, rarely, a primary source is unearthed, maybe in some obscure library, where real people are telling it like it was. I know only of one of those and it makes fascinating reading.

In actual fact, it's impossible to rid oneself of subjective bias, entirely. Historiography is composed of sources and their relative merits, plus interpretation of those sources.

Sources range over archaeological finds, original documents, works of art, old newspapers, personal interviews and tape recordings, anecdotes down the pub, secondary historiographies, and text books. While archaeology is forensic in its methods and intentions, old newspapers are largely polemic. The former is almost devoid of subjective bias , and the latter is full of it. What I'm saying is a trained historian has a method of sorting the evidence into probable to very unreliable.

This is a philosophy forum; so I suggest you do as the Greeks laid out for philosophers.

Understand your own bias, versus all others, then let the battle play out. This requires you to understand another person.

You'd be surprised how rare courage is when it comes to core beliefs. The lowest intelligence distribution of the bell curve are proud to voice their ignorance publicly and loudly. There is pride in great stupidity. But the highest intelligence distribution are much more hesitant to speak publicly on matters they know very little. So when it comes to the universe, existence, physics, objective reality, meaning of life...what then? Where are all the philosophers? Why is philosophy rare, and not common? Because little to nothing is actually known about what matters most in life.

Simple minds are not afraid to embarrass themselves because they don't understand the full implications of them being wrong.

I agree that if I claim to know something about the human past I need to understand the person who is informing me. This is a crucial requirement for anyone who seeks to understand the past. It's absolutely necessary to suss out the sources whose intention it is to influence you, and rely only on unwitting testimony.

This why archaeology is reliable as a source or evidence; it's comparatively easy to link finds with times and places when the artefacts were deposited and circumstantial events. Also, same as for criminal investigators and dealers in antiques , historiographers need to find provenance regarding documents , dead bodies, and other artefacts.

I think a lot of people here, rightly or wrongly, use the forums as heuristic sounding boards , and can read as if they are full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I believe using the forum heuristically is right and proper. After many posts along the same vein , when a poster becomes stuck in the groove and can't change their mind or offer actual evidence then we may safely assume such a poster is preaching not debating.

[Wizard22]

Trans surgery is consensual.

So you admit that you support genital mutilation of teenagers and children.

Glad that we have that point down now.

Let me repeat, YOU are worse than Islam.

[Wizard22]

I agree that if I claim to know something about the human past I need to understand the person who is informing me. This is a crucial requirement for anyone who seeks to understand the past. It's absolutely necessary to suss out the sources whose intention it is to influence you, and rely only on unwitting testimony.

This why archaeology is reliable as a source or evidence; it's comparatively easy to link finds with times and places when the artefacts were deposited and circumstantial events. Also, same as for criminal investigators and dealers in antiques , historiographers need to find provenance regarding documents , dead bodies, and other artefacts.

I think a lot of people here, rightly or wrongly, use the forums as heuristic sounding boards , and can read as if they are full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I believe using the forum heuristically is right and proper. After many posts along the same vein , when a poster becomes stuck in the groove and can't change their mind or offer actual evidence then we may safely assume such a poster is preaching not debating.

We have better than Archaelogy. We have written history. Those that study history, will quickly understand that these far-leftist liberal ideologies, homosexuality, transexuality, genital mutilation, etc etc etc. are not new. "Suss out intentions" ~ but you and most others on this forum, your intentions are clear. How many 'radicals' are around this soundboard? I don't see any, aside myself perhaps. Philosophy is supposed to imply a certain degree of resistance of the "pop culture" of Modernity, whatever system that may be. In 2022 we rebel against Globo-Homo. In 1022 we rebel against the Pope.

Now that we have history out of the way, why do you believe it is that 'History' repeats so fluidly, like Autumn proceeding Summer??

[Belinda]

I agree that if I claim to know something about the human past I need to understand the person who is informing me. This is a crucial requirement for anyone who seeks to understand the past. It's absolutely necessary to suss out the sources whose intention it is to influence you, and rely only on unwitting testimony.

This why archaeology is reliable as a source or evidence; it's comparatively easy to link finds with times and places when the artefacts were deposited and circumstantial events. Also, same as for criminal investigators and dealers in antiques , historiographers need to find provenance regarding documents , dead bodies, and other artefacts.

I think a lot of people here, rightly or wrongly, use the forums as heuristic sounding boards , and can read as if they are full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I believe using the forum heuristically is right and proper. After many posts along the same vein , when a poster becomes stuck in the groove and can't change their mind or offer actual evidence then we may safely assume such a poster is preaching not debating.

We have better than Archaelogy. We have written history. Those that study history, will quickly understand that these far-leftist liberal ideologies, homosexuality, transexuality, genital mutilation, etc etc etc. are not new. "Suss out intentions" ~ but you and most others on this forum, your intentions are clear. How many 'radicals' are around this soundboard? I don't see any, aside myself perhaps. Philosophy is supposed to imply a certain degree of resistance of the "pop culture" of Modernity, whatever system that may be. In 2022 we rebel against Globo-Homo. In 1022 we rebel against the Pope.

Now that we have history out of the way, why do you believe it is that 'History' repeats so fluidly, like Autumn proceeding Summer??

When you say "better than" you need to be able to discuss relative merits. I already presented to you relative merits of archaeology and "written history".
I understand something of the nature of history but you obviously don't because you are stuck in your arrogant attitude towards learning. You need to unstick yourself and look to others who are serious scholars.

It would be interesting to find out how you became anti-intellectual. Unless you apply yourself to serious study you are wasting your native ability.Maybe you want to remain as you are. That is okay however don't pretend to be what you are not.