|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 26 2017 13:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 26 2017 12:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm seriously confused. Has anyone other than Igne and me ever taken a college-level introduction to Western philosophy course (and actually paid attention)? So is "Western culture" the concepts espoused by select Western philosophers? And when we're contrasting it, we're contrasting it with the concepts espoused by select Middle Eastern/Far East philosophers? But not the ones who rescued Aristotle's teachings, presumably. Because when you talk about "Arab/Muslim culture" you seem to be talking about "what life and the cultural milieu is currently like in Middle Eastern countries" most of the time, which seems like a poor referent for comparison with idealized version of societies. Hence why you ask things along the lines of "where would you rather live?" and talk about things being attacked. Unless I've been misinterpreting. No, culture clearly isn't limited to philosophy. It encompasses everything from the philosophical to the religious to the artistic. It is the sum of a way of life. In defining Western culture, I purposefully took a very broad approach to create a starting point for the discussion. Most aspects of culture flow downhill from values and traditions, so why not start there? So are there any aspects of Western culture you find undesirable or that could be improved? Or are the Inquisition/the Crusades/colonialism/religious monarchies, for example, not aspects of Western culture? Because your broad approach basically listed "things I like about Western culture" which seems like a poor place to start discussion about what makes cultures different and what they can learn from one another. I already addressed this issue in detail here. That reply doesn't really mention if you find anything unsavory or improveable about Western culture? It just kind of says "well, some parts of Western culture changed because of Western culture" or perhaps "some parts are not uniquely Western or were born from other cultures and then changed because of Western thinking and therefore are not really part of Western culture" which is an odd distinction...and doesn't really answer if you think Western culture has any negative points, regardless. I pretty clearly acknowledged in that post that Western culture has had its moral failings (slavery being directly discussed). But, given the discussion that we have been having today, I do have in mind something more current that deserves criticism: Western culture's emerging tradition of self-loathing. That so many people don't see the value in promoting and defending Western culture is truly abhorrent. Are you asking why we don't continue imperialism and forcing others to assimilate to our own defined notions of what is the best way to conduct/govern a society? Honest question. If there is any truth to "western culture" being under attack I think it has to be in this. Western civilization repeats the themes of "bringing civilization to the unwashed barbarians". Imperialism and forcing others to assimilate to our way of doing things is the legacy of everything that we are today. In many cases our way of doing things is better then other peoples and I won't hear anyone saying otherwise. That we should or shouldn't force other people to do things our way is the real development in the modern age.
This isn't unique to Western civilization in the slightest. Calling it "Western" doesn't really make any sense.
Unless you mean only the last sentence is uniquely Western. Then I might agree.
|
On July 26 2017 11:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 08:34 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 08:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 07:55 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 06:35 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 06:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Am I misunderstanding what you were trying to express by[quote] because it seems an awful lot like you were trying to talk about the Trump Tower meeting? See, you thought discussions with Danglars was a loop, and got caught in his flow chart instead. You're currently at the "Discussion isn't going in the direction I want" step, which leads to the "Read better, it's your fault I'm not understood clearly" retort. How very meta of you. You're quite familiar with "ignore all that, what about this!!" But every time I think you're going to debate, I read another contrafactual "That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there." But your claim to fame is hacking out summaries, like saying GH is "I know nothing about politics but I'm still better than all of you." Maybe one day you'll return to debating instead of wondering how you can butcher everybody's opinions and then attack the altered form of them. If you think my statement are counterfactual, you are more than welcome to dispute them. That would be how a debate starts. Like the bolded quote, which was questioned and responded to, and eventually reached a point of understanding, if not agreement. Almost like a discussion. I wasn't quite expecting such an unironic defense of "that's a pretty dumb view of history you have here" style of debating, but you do exceed expectations. Maybe you and I can take as our launch pad "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Anyways, next time you want to debate merits instead of these meta "I don't like how Dang writes stuff," I'm all ears. Maybe start with the actual quoted tweet that Kwark went off the rails on ... Grassley's letter. Well, how about some points that were already brought up but were never responded to: 1) What was the intended comparison between that letter and the Trump Tower meetings? 2) The letter is a Senate Committee request for an investigation into a person. Which of these questions have been substantiated, and which are being asked because there are no answers? I didn't want to insult your intelligence by basically rereading the letter. But as you wish. The allegation is collusion between Clinton allies and foreign government officials, based on testimony given to various news outlets. Similar to other Trump aspects, a foreign agent working to undermine the Trump campaign did not register under the foreign agents registration act. Trump is accused of similar and this should be an easy corollary to people genuinely concerned with justice beyond just seeing Trump taken down a peg. The letter itself contains Politico, the Financial times, and other outlets reporting, as well as connected groups forced to register under FARA by the Justice department. If you know how to google, you may find these references, many of which were originally footnotes in the letter, on the internet. Specifically, would you be concerned if Ukraine (instead of Russia in the case of Trump) colluded with the DNC and Clinton campaign to hurt the Trump campaign effort, or is this just normal oppo for you. I don't honestly recall how militant you were on the ethics of using foreign government officials for opposition research. So, this was whataboutism, because true or untrue, the allegations against Alexandra Chalupa, and collusion with the DNC, have no direct effect on the investigations into the Trump Tower meetings? And regardless, again, this is a Senate Committee request for information on why the DOJ has not investigated or taken certain actions in regards to Alexandra Chalupa. So are you wanting to compare why there is an investigation into members of Trump's team, and not one for Chalupa and associated parties? Or is this is a hypothetical "if these allegations are true and an investigation begins"? Nonsense; we should celebrate together that elites are being exposed. I'll bring the beer. Second, why ask about the connection and proof if all this is just pretense to declare whataboutism? You could save me a lot of time debating merits if you see no reason to investigate other campaign misdeeds if they don't involve sinister dealings by Trump. Whataboutism is such a dodge and you're better than that (or ought to hold yourself to a higher standard). I stated and restate now that both investigations involving unethical oppo should continue apace. I don't see any obstruction of investigation yet, and if you'd like to see both found out, there's no logical inconsistencies in your argument. It doesn't fit your narrative, but try to understand this is a net win for everyone. Trump doesn't get off, Clinton doesn't get off, so cool your head and remember that not all your political opponents need to be smeared to have a nice discussion. I'm asking about the connection to Trump Tower because you made the connection. Simple as that. If you don't want to talk about it, then don't bring it up in the first place. And you're jumping to a lot of conclusions, for someone who proposed debating merits. I have not said that an investigation into Alexandra Chalupa is warranted or not, because frankly, that kind of speculation is fluff for the time being. A Senate Committee wants the DOJ to respond to multiple points. The DOJ, as far as I know, has not done so yet. Which, again, is why asked why this was brought up as a topic of discussion. Did you want to compare it to the ongoing investigation into Trump's team? Or did you want to discuss the hypotheticals of if Chalupa did conspire with Ukrainian officials, if she did so while informing the DNC, and if the DOJ has an investigation into it?
If you can't bring your premier intellect to connect unethical oppo research (or respond on your opinion on that), registering as a foreign agent, and campaign collusion with foreign government officials to suggest some tie in, you are beyond my help. Period. Maybe a few months from now you'll read some Politico, WaPo, or NYT stories from 2016 and 2017 and make the connection, but until then, we don't get anywhere. You literally won't see why somebody cheering Trump Jr's excoriation for consulting for oppo might also apply to another campaign and another foreign situation.
If you still are clueless about why it was brought up, re-read the tweet. Re-read the pages. It happened this week, and my point was not deeply fundamentally earth-shattering. So seriously, man, if the only two buttons you have are "Whataboutism" and "If it isn't the fate of dozens of people, it's not a topic of discussion" then you'll have to reevaluate your participation in this thread.
|
On July 26 2017 13:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:11 Plansix wrote:
Kwark is 100% correct. History is studied with the understanding that we have imperfect information. We only know what people bothered to write down and that survived. There is nothing "alternative" about a history where enlightenment thoughts developed without direct influence of Aristotle, because it very likely happened. Indirect influence is impossible to measure. No real historian is sure of anything. Anyone who has done primary source research become instantly aware of how little we truly know. you are 100% wrong. it very likely did not happen. jefferson was not writing about the celtic plumber joe, im sorry to tell you
No shit. This isn't a historical issue where there is a dispute over who influenced whom. Virtually every philosopher who has ever existed that we know about wrote extensively about their predecessors, their contemporaries, and the ideas put forth by those people. There's no mystery over what influenced Locke or Descartes. They spelled it out in their writings.
Anyway, you need to stop needling the philistines and start responding to my initial post so that we can get this train wreck of a thread back on track.
|
On July 26 2017 13:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:11 Plansix wrote:
Kwark is 100% correct. History is studied with the understanding that we have imperfect information. We only know what people bothered to write down and that survived. There is nothing "alternative" about a history where enlightenment thoughts developed without direct influence of Aristotle, because it very likely happened. Indirect influence is impossible to measure. No real historian is sure of anything. Anyone who has done primary source research become instantly aware of how little we truly know. you are 100% wrong. it very likely did not happen. jefferson was not writing about the celtic plumber joe, im sorry to tell you
Jefferson was and elitist who loved to hear about how brilliant he was. Everyone cited the classics in everything back then, even basic legal arguments. It was very in vogue. Don't by into the hype.
Or by in, it worked for Jefferson, I guess.
|
On July 26 2017 13:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:19 Aquanim wrote:On July 26 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:...
And I'm highly amused that so many people are questioning why one might think that Western culture is under attack when literally no one in this thread other than me seems to give half a shit about Western culture and when the common sentiment is that people like me who defend Western culture are the new kind of racists. I can't speak for anybody else in this thread, but... As far as I am concerned any particular element of "Western culture" is only worth defending if that particular element improves the world (in terms of how much I want to live in it). It so happens that I do think many parts of Western culture are worthwhile and worth defending. However, I would only choose to defend those elements on their own merits, and not because they are part of "Western culture". To say that something is worth defending because it is "Western culture" and therefore good is a non-argument and (while I lack data at this time) it would not surprise me to find that this non-argument is used to defend many things that are not morally or practically justifiable with legitimate arguments. Such as racism. I think that this conversation is only going to be productive if you produce specific concrete examples of aspects of "Western culture", defend them on their own merits, and demonstrate that those aspects in particular are currently "under attack" according to whatever definition. The "threat" to western culture is coming from western culture, same as it always was. Same as those abolitionists back in the day, or the miscegenation, or the gays getting married. Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:
The good parts of our culture that are worth saving and propagating speak for themselves and win on their own merits. The bad parts, they die on their own merits too. Institutionalized homophobia used to be an entrenched part of western culture. Now it's disappearing. When conservatives decide that western culture needs defending to preserve it they're not talking about the good parts. Shit like the idea of the war against Christmas, for example. Christmas is becoming a secular holiday because it exists in a broadly secular society and is enjoyed by people of diverse faiths and cultural backgrounds. The war against Christmas is better understood to be the westernization of Christmas. Those who wish to fight back against this process do not do so out of a desire to defend western values. We don't need crusaders to defend western values, any idea which can't win battles by itself is an idea not worth saving.
Cultures and ideas can take a turn for the worse though can't they? I mean, isn't that what happened to the Islamic golden age?
|
On July 26 2017 13:18 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:06 Sermokala wrote:On July 26 2017 12:53 mozoku wrote:On July 26 2017 12:43 Plansix wrote:On July 26 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:
I just provided a nice source showing how Greek, Roman, and Christian thought all helped shape modern Western concepts of law, rights, and liberties. Why the fuck are you people still arguing about it? It's one thing to not know due to poor education. It's another to stick your head in the sand like an ostrich. We're reaching flat earth society levels of willful ignorance. This thread has hit some lows before, but this might be a new record. Not one is disputing those facts. You know what else influenced western civilization? The crusades. And the Byzantines. And so many other things. I think KwarK actually is though. My education did not focus on neither the classics or philosophy, but I feel comfortable venturing to say that Aristotle and Cicero had far larger influence on Western thought than anyone in the Byzantine Empire. Cicero was Roman though and failed to do anything in his time to prevent the rise of the empire and the fall of his republic. Aristotle had a following but he failed to effect anything in his time and was killed as a scapegoat. The "Byzantine Empire" part of Rome was the only thing that was holding onto what remained of civilization in the fall of the WRE. If it wasn't for Justinian and Belesarius western Europe would look little different to what it was before the Romans conquered Gaul. The fall of Constantinople triggered indubitably the Renaissance and the inspiration of ancient philosophers. If it wasn't for the "Byzantine Empire" then no one would know or give a shit about who Aristotle or Cicero even were. Not to mention the Christian vs Muslim theme of the high middle ages or the concept of feudalism and bureaucracy. If history was different, Western thought would look different. The fact remains that modern Western thought draws a lot more influence from Aristotle than any Byzantine thinkers. For the record, I'm in general agreement with xDaunt that Left (large generalization here) has stopped seeing Western culture objectively in favor of cultural relativism and misplaced self-loathing. That is not the same as saying aspects of Western culture shouldn't be improved.
If History was different the west would be different. It wasn't until the reformation before people even really knew what was in the bible. God forbid who the greek thinkers were or what rome was if it wasn't catholic. The founding fathers may have quoted Aristotle to defend themselves but they took most of their cues when forming the nation from the Byzantines. The theme system was the birth of feudalism and federalism. The senate and the republic was Rome before Cicero and Aristotle were born. The executive was the consul of Rome and was also pre Cicero and Aristotle. The separation of church and state and independence is as much a reformation idea then anything the greeks pretended to do back in the day.
And even then they owned slaves and based their entire existence on the principles that made the Phoenicians successful. They owned slaves, traded to advance themselves and saught to better their group. If they beloved every man was equal they would have freed every man. They didn't.
|
I just love how culture stops at the Greeks, like they didn't gain heaps of insight, ideas, and knowledge from Africa that in turn was critical in the development of their own interpretations.
But if you're trying to artificially and absurdly draw lines around "western culture" knowing a lot came from Africa kind of messes that up.
|
On July 26 2017 13:38 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:28 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 13:19 Aquanim wrote:On July 26 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:...
And I'm highly amused that so many people are questioning why one might think that Western culture is under attack when literally no one in this thread other than me seems to give half a shit about Western culture and when the common sentiment is that people like me who defend Western culture are the new kind of racists. I can't speak for anybody else in this thread, but... As far as I am concerned any particular element of "Western culture" is only worth defending if that particular element improves the world (in terms of how much I want to live in it). It so happens that I do think many parts of Western culture are worthwhile and worth defending. However, I would only choose to defend those elements on their own merits, and not because they are part of "Western culture". To say that something is worth defending because it is "Western culture" and therefore good is a non-argument and (while I lack data at this time) it would not surprise me to find that this non-argument is used to defend many things that are not morally or practically justifiable with legitimate arguments. Such as racism. I think that this conversation is only going to be productive if you produce specific concrete examples of aspects of "Western culture", defend them on their own merits, and demonstrate that those aspects in particular are currently "under attack" according to whatever definition. The "threat" to western culture is coming from western culture, same as it always was. Same as those abolitionists back in the day, or the miscegenation, or the gays getting married. On July 26 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:
The good parts of our culture that are worth saving and propagating speak for themselves and win on their own merits. The bad parts, they die on their own merits too. Institutionalized homophobia used to be an entrenched part of western culture. Now it's disappearing. When conservatives decide that western culture needs defending to preserve it they're not talking about the good parts. Shit like the idea of the war against Christmas, for example. Christmas is becoming a secular holiday because it exists in a broadly secular society and is enjoyed by people of diverse faiths and cultural backgrounds. The war against Christmas is better understood to be the westernization of Christmas. Those who wish to fight back against this process do not do so out of a desire to defend western values. We don't need crusaders to defend western values, any idea which can't win battles by itself is an idea not worth saving. Cultures and ideas can take a turn for the worse though can't they? I mean, isn't that what happened to the Islamic golden age?
From my limited understanding the Islamic golden age mostly ended because of literal foreign invasions of enormous armies rather than any internal change or foreign cultural infiltration. I think the shift towards (repressive) theocracy was far later for the most part and the response to conquering/exploitation and foreign pressures, but I could be wrong.
|
United States44187 Posts
On July 26 2017 13:38 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:28 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 13:19 Aquanim wrote:On July 26 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:...
And I'm highly amused that so many people are questioning why one might think that Western culture is under attack when literally no one in this thread other than me seems to give half a shit about Western culture and when the common sentiment is that people like me who defend Western culture are the new kind of racists. I can't speak for anybody else in this thread, but... As far as I am concerned any particular element of "Western culture" is only worth defending if that particular element improves the world (in terms of how much I want to live in it). It so happens that I do think many parts of Western culture are worthwhile and worth defending. However, I would only choose to defend those elements on their own merits, and not because they are part of "Western culture". To say that something is worth defending because it is "Western culture" and therefore good is a non-argument and (while I lack data at this time) it would not surprise me to find that this non-argument is used to defend many things that are not morally or practically justifiable with legitimate arguments. Such as racism. I think that this conversation is only going to be productive if you produce specific concrete examples of aspects of "Western culture", defend them on their own merits, and demonstrate that those aspects in particular are currently "under attack" according to whatever definition. The "threat" to western culture is coming from western culture, same as it always was. Same as those abolitionists back in the day, or the miscegenation, or the gays getting married. On July 26 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:
The good parts of our culture that are worth saving and propagating speak for themselves and win on their own merits. The bad parts, they die on their own merits too. Institutionalized homophobia used to be an entrenched part of western culture. Now it's disappearing. When conservatives decide that western culture needs defending to preserve it they're not talking about the good parts. Shit like the idea of the war against Christmas, for example. Christmas is becoming a secular holiday because it exists in a broadly secular society and is enjoyed by people of diverse faiths and cultural backgrounds. The war against Christmas is better understood to be the westernization of Christmas. Those who wish to fight back against this process do not do so out of a desire to defend western values. We don't need crusaders to defend western values, any idea which can't win battles by itself is an idea not worth saving. Cultures and ideas can take a turn for the worse though can't they? I mean, isn't that what happened to the Islamic golden age?
I take the long view. After all, look at what happened to the Caliphate. But sure, in the short term it's probably not so reassuring.
Overall though I'm optimistic. Society is getting less violent and more equitable over time. A lot of that is due to the propagation of western culture and western culture is improving itself over time too.
Oddly enough I somewhat agree with xDaunt about the superiority of our culture. Where we disagree is that I don't think we need to cling onto the 18th Century fan fiction origin story and I see people like him, rather than an unknown other, as the obstacle.
|
On July 26 2017 13:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 11:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 08:34 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 08:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 07:55 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 06:35 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
See, you thought discussions with Danglars was a loop, and got caught in his flow chart instead. You're currently at the "Discussion isn't going in the direction I want" step, which leads to the "Read better, it's your fault I'm not understood clearly" retort. How very meta of you. You're quite familiar with "ignore all that, what about this!!" But every time I think you're going to debate, I read another contrafactual "That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there." But your claim to fame is hacking out summaries, like saying GH is "I know nothing about politics but I'm still better than all of you." Maybe one day you'll return to debating instead of wondering how you can butcher everybody's opinions and then attack the altered form of them. If you think my statement are counterfactual, you are more than welcome to dispute them. That would be how a debate starts. Like the bolded quote, which was questioned and responded to, and eventually reached a point of understanding, if not agreement. Almost like a discussion. I wasn't quite expecting such an unironic defense of "that's a pretty dumb view of history you have here" style of debating, but you do exceed expectations. Maybe you and I can take as our launch pad "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Anyways, next time you want to debate merits instead of these meta "I don't like how Dang writes stuff," I'm all ears. Maybe start with the actual quoted tweet that Kwark went off the rails on ... Grassley's letter. Well, how about some points that were already brought up but were never responded to: 1) What was the intended comparison between that letter and the Trump Tower meetings? 2) The letter is a Senate Committee request for an investigation into a person. Which of these questions have been substantiated, and which are being asked because there are no answers? I didn't want to insult your intelligence by basically rereading the letter. But as you wish. The allegation is collusion between Clinton allies and foreign government officials, based on testimony given to various news outlets. Similar to other Trump aspects, a foreign agent working to undermine the Trump campaign did not register under the foreign agents registration act. Trump is accused of similar and this should be an easy corollary to people genuinely concerned with justice beyond just seeing Trump taken down a peg. The letter itself contains Politico, the Financial times, and other outlets reporting, as well as connected groups forced to register under FARA by the Justice department. If you know how to google, you may find these references, many of which were originally footnotes in the letter, on the internet. Specifically, would you be concerned if Ukraine (instead of Russia in the case of Trump) colluded with the DNC and Clinton campaign to hurt the Trump campaign effort, or is this just normal oppo for you. I don't honestly recall how militant you were on the ethics of using foreign government officials for opposition research. So, this was whataboutism, because true or untrue, the allegations against Alexandra Chalupa, and collusion with the DNC, have no direct effect on the investigations into the Trump Tower meetings? And regardless, again, this is a Senate Committee request for information on why the DOJ has not investigated or taken certain actions in regards to Alexandra Chalupa. So are you wanting to compare why there is an investigation into members of Trump's team, and not one for Chalupa and associated parties? Or is this is a hypothetical "if these allegations are true and an investigation begins"? Nonsense; we should celebrate together that elites are being exposed. I'll bring the beer. Second, why ask about the connection and proof if all this is just pretense to declare whataboutism? You could save me a lot of time debating merits if you see no reason to investigate other campaign misdeeds if they don't involve sinister dealings by Trump. Whataboutism is such a dodge and you're better than that (or ought to hold yourself to a higher standard). I stated and restate now that both investigations involving unethical oppo should continue apace. I don't see any obstruction of investigation yet, and if you'd like to see both found out, there's no logical inconsistencies in your argument. It doesn't fit your narrative, but try to understand this is a net win for everyone. Trump doesn't get off, Clinton doesn't get off, so cool your head and remember that not all your political opponents need to be smeared to have a nice discussion. I'm asking about the connection to Trump Tower because you made the connection. Simple as that. If you don't want to talk about it, then don't bring it up in the first place. And you're jumping to a lot of conclusions, for someone who proposed debating merits. I have not said that an investigation into Alexandra Chalupa is warranted or not, because frankly, that kind of speculation is fluff for the time being. A Senate Committee wants the DOJ to respond to multiple points. The DOJ, as far as I know, has not done so yet. Which, again, is why asked why this was brought up as a topic of discussion. Did you want to compare it to the ongoing investigation into Trump's team? Or did you want to discuss the hypotheticals of if Chalupa did conspire with Ukrainian officials, if she did so while informing the DNC, and if the DOJ has an investigation into it? If you can't bring your premier intellect to connect unethical oppo research (or respond on your opinion on that), registering as a foreign agent, and campaign collusion with foreign government officials to suggest some tie in, you are beyond my help. Period. Maybe a few months from now you'll read some Politico, WaPo, or NYT stories from 2016 and 2017 and make the connection, but until then, we don't get anywhere. You literally won't see why somebody cheering Trump Jr's excoriation for consulting for oppo might also apply to another campaign and another foreign situation. If you still are clueless about why it was brought up, re-read the tweet. Re-read the pages. It happened this week, and my point was not deeply fundamentally earth-shattering. So seriously, man, if the only two buttons you have are "Whataboutism" and "If it isn't the fate of dozens of people, it's not a topic of discussion" then you'll have to reevaluate your participation in this thread.
How about you reread the article that is the only source of information on Chalupa and find something in there as sinister as the DonJR, Manafort, and Kushner meeting at Trump Tower. You want to make this whataboutism stick, then find the facts in the article. Make the analogies. All you are doing now is making suggestions with no facts or even analogies. The burden of showing a whataboutism works is on the whataboutism bringer. Get some quotes in there. I reread the article and it paints a damning picture of Manafort and shows Chalupa's successful independent efforts to get info on Manafort that lead directly to him getting tossed off of Trump's campaign.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
EDIT: the best you will find in there is that yes, the Ukranian government didn't like and didn't trust Trump. They thought he was a Russian puppet. And what do you know? They were right! He changed up the language on lethal assistance to Ukraine but three weeks after the Agalorov-DonJR-Manafort summit.
|
On July 26 2017 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just love how culture stops at the Greeks, like they didn't gain heaps of insight, ideas, and knowledge from Africa that in turn was critical in the development of their own interpretations.
But if you're trying to artificially and absurdly draw lines around "western culture" knowing a lot came from Africa kind of messes that up.
Don't forget Egypt. The impact of those two cultures on each other can't be understated.
|
On July 26 2017 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just love how culture stops at the Greeks, like they didn't gain heaps of insight, ideas, and knowledge from Africa that in turn was critical in the development of their own interpretations.
But if you're trying to artificially and absurdly draw lines around "western culture" knowing a lot came from Africa kind of messes that up.
Historians don't use Africa as the starting place for Western culture because all cultures came from Africa if you go back far enough. Africa as a starting place doesn't provide context or meaning.
|
On July 26 2017 13:29 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 26 2017 13:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 26 2017 12:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm seriously confused. Has anyone other than Igne and me ever taken a college-level introduction to Western philosophy course (and actually paid attention)? So is "Western culture" the concepts espoused by select Western philosophers? And when we're contrasting it, we're contrasting it with the concepts espoused by select Middle Eastern/Far East philosophers? But not the ones who rescued Aristotle's teachings, presumably. Because when you talk about "Arab/Muslim culture" you seem to be talking about "what life and the cultural milieu is currently like in Middle Eastern countries" most of the time, which seems like a poor referent for comparison with idealized version of societies. Hence why you ask things along the lines of "where would you rather live?" and talk about things being attacked. Unless I've been misinterpreting. No, culture clearly isn't limited to philosophy. It encompasses everything from the philosophical to the religious to the artistic. It is the sum of a way of life. In defining Western culture, I purposefully took a very broad approach to create a starting point for the discussion. Most aspects of culture flow downhill from values and traditions, so why not start there? So are there any aspects of Western culture you find undesirable or that could be improved? Or are the Inquisition/the Crusades/colonialism/religious monarchies, for example, not aspects of Western culture? Because your broad approach basically listed "things I like about Western culture" which seems like a poor place to start discussion about what makes cultures different and what they can learn from one another. I already addressed this issue in detail here. That reply doesn't really mention if you find anything unsavory or improveable about Western culture? It just kind of says "well, some parts of Western culture changed because of Western culture" or perhaps "some parts are not uniquely Western or were born from other cultures and then changed because of Western thinking and therefore are not really part of Western culture" which is an odd distinction...and doesn't really answer if you think Western culture has any negative points, regardless. I pretty clearly acknowledged in that post that Western culture has had its moral failings (slavery being directly discussed). But, given the discussion that we have been having today, I do have in mind something more current that deserves criticism: Western culture's emerging tradition of self-loathing. That so many people don't see the value in promoting and defending Western culture is truly abhorrent. Are you asking why we don't continue imperialism and forcing others to assimilate to our own defined notions of what is the best way to conduct/govern a society? Honest question. If there is any truth to "western culture" being under attack I think it has to be in this. Western civilization repeats the themes of "bringing civilization to the unwashed barbarians". Imperialism and forcing others to assimilate to our way of doing things is the legacy of everything that we are today. In many cases our way of doing things is better then other peoples and I won't hear anyone saying otherwise. That we should or shouldn't force other people to do things our way is the real development in the modern age. This isn't unique to Western civilization in the slightest. Calling it "Western" doesn't really make any sense. Unless you mean only the last sentence is uniquely Western. Then I might agree.
What other culture based itself on a process of assimilation and imperialism? The Chinese stayed roughly the same shape and area their entire civilization. that they existed as a solid people without migrating is an accomplishment but any ethnic group the Romans were they were wiped out almost completely in Italy by barbarian tribes or at least forced down into Sicily. who else made roads so that it was easier to trade with and oppress peoples other then their own ethnic group?
|
On July 26 2017 13:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just love how culture stops at the Greeks, like they didn't gain heaps of insight, ideas, and knowledge from Africa that in turn was critical in the development of their own interpretations.
But if you're trying to artificially and absurdly draw lines around "western culture" knowing a lot came from Africa kind of messes that up. Historians don't use Africa as the starting place for Western culture because all cultures came from Africa if you go back far enough. Africa as a starting place doesn't provide context or meaning.
Africa is a big place, it has/had a wide diversity of cultures.
Historians don't/(more) didn't use Africa, because like South America, much of the atrocities committed were predicated/justified by the people being incapable of having the cultures that existed in their histories or that were destroyed by conquerors, among other reasons.
Africa as a starting place doesn't provide context or meaning
That is so stupid I can't believe you actually said it.
|
United States44187 Posts
On July 26 2017 13:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just love how culture stops at the Greeks, like they didn't gain heaps of insight, ideas, and knowledge from Africa that in turn was critical in the development of their own interpretations.
But if you're trying to artificially and absurdly draw lines around "western culture" knowing a lot came from Africa kind of messes that up. Historians don't use Africa as the starting place for Western culture because all cultures came from Africa if you go back far enough. Africa as a starting place doesn't provide context or meaning.
The problem with Africa is that in terms of human geography it's not a meaningful descriptor. North Africa is a part of the classical Mediterranean world, far more Greek/Roman than Britain ever was. East Africa was one of the oldest parts of the Semitic world and culture. It wasn't until the breakaway of the protestants that the crusades to return North Africa to "Europe" ceased (and turned first towards Northern Europe, then the New World). There is not really a historical basis for the exclusion of North Africa from the continent of Europe and the inclusion of, say, Romania. If we get into counterfactuals, without the reformation and the discovery of America I have little doubt that North Africa would be part of European nations.
It's not just "man came from Africa". It's far more than that. Africa was part of the heartland of the classical world, more so than Gaul, certainly more so than Britain.
|
On July 26 2017 13:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:29 mozoku wrote:On July 26 2017 13:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 26 2017 13:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 26 2017 12:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
So is "Western culture" the concepts espoused by select Western philosophers? And when we're contrasting it, we're contrasting it with the concepts espoused by select Middle Eastern/Far East philosophers? But not the ones who rescued Aristotle's teachings, presumably.
Because when you talk about "Arab/Muslim culture" you seem to be talking about "what life and the cultural milieu is currently like in Middle Eastern countries" most of the time, which seems like a poor referent for comparison with idealized version of societies. Hence why you ask things along the lines of "where would you rather live?" and talk about things being attacked. Unless I've been misinterpreting. No, culture clearly isn't limited to philosophy. It encompasses everything from the philosophical to the religious to the artistic. It is the sum of a way of life. In defining Western culture, I purposefully took a very broad approach to create a starting point for the discussion. Most aspects of culture flow downhill from values and traditions, so why not start there? So are there any aspects of Western culture you find undesirable or that could be improved? Or are the Inquisition/the Crusades/colonialism/religious monarchies, for example, not aspects of Western culture? Because your broad approach basically listed "things I like about Western culture" which seems like a poor place to start discussion about what makes cultures different and what they can learn from one another. I already addressed this issue in detail here. That reply doesn't really mention if you find anything unsavory or improveable about Western culture? It just kind of says "well, some parts of Western culture changed because of Western culture" or perhaps "some parts are not uniquely Western or were born from other cultures and then changed because of Western thinking and therefore are not really part of Western culture" which is an odd distinction...and doesn't really answer if you think Western culture has any negative points, regardless. I pretty clearly acknowledged in that post that Western culture has had its moral failings (slavery being directly discussed). But, given the discussion that we have been having today, I do have in mind something more current that deserves criticism: Western culture's emerging tradition of self-loathing. That so many people don't see the value in promoting and defending Western culture is truly abhorrent. Are you asking why we don't continue imperialism and forcing others to assimilate to our own defined notions of what is the best way to conduct/govern a society? Honest question. If there is any truth to "western culture" being under attack I think it has to be in this. Western civilization repeats the themes of "bringing civilization to the unwashed barbarians". Imperialism and forcing others to assimilate to our way of doing things is the legacy of everything that we are today. In many cases our way of doing things is better then other peoples and I won't hear anyone saying otherwise. That we should or shouldn't force other people to do things our way is the real development in the modern age. This isn't unique to Western civilization in the slightest. Calling it "Western" doesn't really make any sense. Unless you mean only the last sentence is uniquely Western. Then I might agree. What other culture based itself on a process of assimilation and imperialism? The Chinese stayed roughly the same shape and area their entire civilization. that they existed as a solid people without migrating is an accomplishment but any ethnic group the Romans were they were wiped out almost completely in Italy by barbarian tribes or at least forced down into Sicily. who else made roads so that it was easier to trade with and oppress peoples other then their own ethnic group?
Uh, pretty much any culture of any note? Arab/Muslim, Chinese (you're incorrect on what the Han people did), Russians....
|
On July 26 2017 13:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:31 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 11:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 08:34 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 08:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 07:55 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 06:35 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
How very meta of you. You're quite familiar with "ignore all that, what about this!!" But every time I think you're going to debate, I read another contrafactual "That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there." But your claim to fame is hacking out summaries, like saying GH is "I know nothing about politics but I'm still better than all of you." Maybe one day you'll return to debating instead of wondering how you can butcher everybody's opinions and then attack the altered form of them. If you think my statement are counterfactual, you are more than welcome to dispute them. That would be how a debate starts. Like the bolded quote, which was questioned and responded to, and eventually reached a point of understanding, if not agreement. Almost like a discussion. I wasn't quite expecting such an unironic defense of "that's a pretty dumb view of history you have here" style of debating, but you do exceed expectations. Maybe you and I can take as our launch pad "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Anyways, next time you want to debate merits instead of these meta "I don't like how Dang writes stuff," I'm all ears. Maybe start with the actual quoted tweet that Kwark went off the rails on ... Grassley's letter. Well, how about some points that were already brought up but were never responded to: 1) What was the intended comparison between that letter and the Trump Tower meetings? 2) The letter is a Senate Committee request for an investigation into a person. Which of these questions have been substantiated, and which are being asked because there are no answers? I didn't want to insult your intelligence by basically rereading the letter. But as you wish. The allegation is collusion between Clinton allies and foreign government officials, based on testimony given to various news outlets. Similar to other Trump aspects, a foreign agent working to undermine the Trump campaign did not register under the foreign agents registration act. Trump is accused of similar and this should be an easy corollary to people genuinely concerned with justice beyond just seeing Trump taken down a peg. The letter itself contains Politico, the Financial times, and other outlets reporting, as well as connected groups forced to register under FARA by the Justice department. If you know how to google, you may find these references, many of which were originally footnotes in the letter, on the internet. Specifically, would you be concerned if Ukraine (instead of Russia in the case of Trump) colluded with the DNC and Clinton campaign to hurt the Trump campaign effort, or is this just normal oppo for you. I don't honestly recall how militant you were on the ethics of using foreign government officials for opposition research. So, this was whataboutism, because true or untrue, the allegations against Alexandra Chalupa, and collusion with the DNC, have no direct effect on the investigations into the Trump Tower meetings? And regardless, again, this is a Senate Committee request for information on why the DOJ has not investigated or taken certain actions in regards to Alexandra Chalupa. So are you wanting to compare why there is an investigation into members of Trump's team, and not one for Chalupa and associated parties? Or is this is a hypothetical "if these allegations are true and an investigation begins"? Nonsense; we should celebrate together that elites are being exposed. I'll bring the beer. Second, why ask about the connection and proof if all this is just pretense to declare whataboutism? You could save me a lot of time debating merits if you see no reason to investigate other campaign misdeeds if they don't involve sinister dealings by Trump. Whataboutism is such a dodge and you're better than that (or ought to hold yourself to a higher standard). I stated and restate now that both investigations involving unethical oppo should continue apace. I don't see any obstruction of investigation yet, and if you'd like to see both found out, there's no logical inconsistencies in your argument. It doesn't fit your narrative, but try to understand this is a net win for everyone. Trump doesn't get off, Clinton doesn't get off, so cool your head and remember that not all your political opponents need to be smeared to have a nice discussion. I'm asking about the connection to Trump Tower because you made the connection. Simple as that. If you don't want to talk about it, then don't bring it up in the first place. And you're jumping to a lot of conclusions, for someone who proposed debating merits. I have not said that an investigation into Alexandra Chalupa is warranted or not, because frankly, that kind of speculation is fluff for the time being. A Senate Committee wants the DOJ to respond to multiple points. The DOJ, as far as I know, has not done so yet. Which, again, is why asked why this was brought up as a topic of discussion. Did you want to compare it to the ongoing investigation into Trump's team? Or did you want to discuss the hypotheticals of if Chalupa did conspire with Ukrainian officials, if she did so while informing the DNC, and if the DOJ has an investigation into it? If you can't bring your premier intellect to connect unethical oppo research (or respond on your opinion on that), registering as a foreign agent, and campaign collusion with foreign government officials to suggest some tie in, you are beyond my help. Period. Maybe a few months from now you'll read some Politico, WaPo, or NYT stories from 2016 and 2017 and make the connection, but until then, we don't get anywhere. You literally won't see why somebody cheering Trump Jr's excoriation for consulting for oppo might also apply to another campaign and another foreign situation. If you still are clueless about why it was brought up, re-read the tweet. Re-read the pages. It happened this week, and my point was not deeply fundamentally earth-shattering. So seriously, man, if the only two buttons you have are "Whataboutism" and "If it isn't the fate of dozens of people, it's not a topic of discussion" then you'll have to reevaluate your participation in this thread. How about you reread the article that is the only source of information on Chalupa and find something in there as sinister as the DonJR, Manafort, and Kushner meeting at Trump Tower. You want to make this whataboutism stick, then find the facts in the article. Make the analogies. All you are doing now is making suggestions with no facts or even analogies. The burden of showing a whataboutism works is on the whataboutism bringer. Get some quotes in there. I reread the article and it paints a damning picture of Manafort and shows Chalupa's successful independent efforts to get info on Manafort that lead directly to him getting tossed off of Trump's campaign. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446EDIT: the best you will find in there is that yes, the Ukranian government didn't like and didn't trust Trump. They thought he was a Russian puppet. And what do you know? They were right! He changed up the language on lethal assistance to Ukraine but three weeks after the Agalorov-DonJR-Manafort summit.
Consider that I didn't make a comparison of sinister-ness at all. I didn't make a whataboutism argument. I didn't even go into analogies. I just said people that cheer how Trump Jr or the Trump campaign is eating crow on this may also cheer that others also aren't getting away with it. How about you reframe your narrative in light of points I'm making? You can argue with Fox News or Breitbart in their comment sections if that's your preferred speaker.
|
Saying that they got a lot of things from africa and the middle east is already self evident. The greeks were a naval power that prospered through trade in the eastern Mediterranean. Ofc they got things from africa. They were started as a colony of Lebanese based Phoenicians the same as the Carthaginians and Romans were.
I think they don't credit the Africans as much because Egypt was much of its own thing and Carthage was rumored to have a lot of human sacrifice. rendering the city to ash and salting the earth around it kinda kills their ability to assert their place in history. that the Romans conquered all of Africa relatively easily after Carthage fell doesn't help either. Maybe they didn't have enough history so they filled in the gaps with their own biased ideas?
|
On July 26 2017 13:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:29 mozoku wrote:On July 26 2017 13:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 26 2017 13:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 26 2017 12:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
So is "Western culture" the concepts espoused by select Western philosophers? And when we're contrasting it, we're contrasting it with the concepts espoused by select Middle Eastern/Far East philosophers? But not the ones who rescued Aristotle's teachings, presumably.
Because when you talk about "Arab/Muslim culture" you seem to be talking about "what life and the cultural milieu is currently like in Middle Eastern countries" most of the time, which seems like a poor referent for comparison with idealized version of societies. Hence why you ask things along the lines of "where would you rather live?" and talk about things being attacked. Unless I've been misinterpreting. No, culture clearly isn't limited to philosophy. It encompasses everything from the philosophical to the religious to the artistic. It is the sum of a way of life. In defining Western culture, I purposefully took a very broad approach to create a starting point for the discussion. Most aspects of culture flow downhill from values and traditions, so why not start there? So are there any aspects of Western culture you find undesirable or that could be improved? Or are the Inquisition/the Crusades/colonialism/religious monarchies, for example, not aspects of Western culture? Because your broad approach basically listed "things I like about Western culture" which seems like a poor place to start discussion about what makes cultures different and what they can learn from one another. I already addressed this issue in detail here. That reply doesn't really mention if you find anything unsavory or improveable about Western culture? It just kind of says "well, some parts of Western culture changed because of Western culture" or perhaps "some parts are not uniquely Western or were born from other cultures and then changed because of Western thinking and therefore are not really part of Western culture" which is an odd distinction...and doesn't really answer if you think Western culture has any negative points, regardless. I pretty clearly acknowledged in that post that Western culture has had its moral failings (slavery being directly discussed). But, given the discussion that we have been having today, I do have in mind something more current that deserves criticism: Western culture's emerging tradition of self-loathing. That so many people don't see the value in promoting and defending Western culture is truly abhorrent. Are you asking why we don't continue imperialism and forcing others to assimilate to our own defined notions of what is the best way to conduct/govern a society? Honest question. If there is any truth to "western culture" being under attack I think it has to be in this. Western civilization repeats the themes of "bringing civilization to the unwashed barbarians". Imperialism and forcing others to assimilate to our way of doing things is the legacy of everything that we are today. In many cases our way of doing things is better then other peoples and I won't hear anyone saying otherwise. That we should or shouldn't force other people to do things our way is the real development in the modern age. This isn't unique to Western civilization in the slightest. Calling it "Western" doesn't really make any sense. Unless you mean only the last sentence is uniquely Western. Then I might agree. What other culture based itself on a process of assimilation and imperialism? The Chinese stayed roughly the same shape and area their entire civilization. that they existed as a solid people without migrating is an accomplishment but any ethnic group the Romans were they were wiped out almost completely in Italy by barbarian tribes or at least forced down into Sicily. who else made roads so that it was easier to trade with and oppress peoples other then their own ethnic group?
Your Chinese history is a little off.
The "Chinese" weren't a single country like you see today until the 20th century. There's something like 50 ethnic groups that make up China. The Hans were generally the most successful ethnic group (as in more advanced and did the most conquering), and deliberately moved Han people into conquered ethnic groups to "sinicize" them. There's an entire Wikipedia page for the term. They're still doing this today with the Tibetans and Uighurs.
Modern China still teaches it's youth that the Japanese were barbarians until the Chinese sailed to Japan and tamed them.
The Mongols and Manchu generally did the same thing to the Han in the Yuan and Qing dynasties respectively, but to a lesser extent because the Hans were more advanced economically and bureaucratically than their rulers.
|
Washington (CNN)Senate Republicans voted Tuesday afternoon to advance to floor debate on their efforts to re-write health care policy, with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie.
But hours later, the Senate decisively rejected a Republican proposal to repeal-and-replace Obamacare, a sign of the chaos expected to envelop Capitol Hill as GOP leaders work to find a plan their conference can agree to.
Source
So what's the next step?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
