|
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 13:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:44 xDaunt wrote: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.
I generally agree with all of this, but it doesn't really go to my point of why historians have chosen Greece to be the starting point for Western culture.
|
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?
You know the Eastern Roman empire ceased to exist in 1453? So many things wrong in your post.
|
United States42782 Posts
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?
Romans weren't an ethnic group. It's not entirely clear what you mean by Romans either. Ethnicity wasn't the issue, in the ancient world citizenship was a system of bonds, obligations and benefits that you shared with the rest of the citizen body. Not everyone born in Republican Rome was a citizen for example.
As Rome grew to be an Empire the question became extremely difficult because there were Roman citizens in Rome with the rights and privileges of citizenship there, and citizens of Taranto in Taranto, for example. How these fit together and whether the powerful of Taranto had rights outside of their city was a hugely complex issue.
Eventually grants of Roman citizenship were expanded through Italy but even that doesn't mean much in terms of ethnicity because Italy had been heavily colonized by seafaring Mediterranean peoples. Taranto, as previously mentioned, was a Spartan colony.
Later on the practice of rewarding military service with citizenship complicated things further because the legions were far from being composed entirely of ethnic Romans. And eventually the whole issue became moot and everyone got citizenship.
But even if we accept your premise, the Romans did not disappear with the fall of Rome. The idea of the Dark Ages has been subject to considerable historical revision and these days the consensus is a far more gradual decline through late antiquity with Roman landowners becoming components of a new feudal (which is a word with as much wrong with it as the Dark Ages but whatever, you'll know what I mean and I don't want to get too deep into it) system while the bonds of trade and unity slowly broke down around them.
Sorry, the "Roman" ethnicity wasn't driven into the sea by barbarians. It never existed, it would have been mostly barbarian had it existed and either way, it survived.
|
On July 26 2017 13:10 xDaunt 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. No, I'm not arguing for or against any particular practice that may construed as Western culture. I'm merely making the argument that Western culture is worth defending, valuing, and promoting in light of the intellectual attack it has come under from the Left. 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'm thinking that this attack will eventually succeed just given the sorry state of American education. Then the people making these wonderful arguments that it wasn't really a tradition/culture/civilization get to experience it's absence. But that's too cynical for my evening.
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 close to a new record, this thread has hit some low lows. The one or two rape discussions and xDaunt=quintessential racist anti-BLM were lower.
On July 26 2017 11:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 11:51 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 11:43 IgnE wrote:On July 26 2017 11:35 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 11:20 IgnE wrote:On July 26 2017 11:11 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 11:06 IgnE wrote:On July 26 2017 10:53 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 10:44 mozoku wrote:On July 26 2017 10:29 KwarK wrote:
mozuku, that's mostly a foundation myth from the 18th and 19th century who knew very little about the classics but knew that an old idea rediscovered sounded way more legitimate than a new idea. For example Greek democracy is a misnomer, a poor understanding of the citizen-soldier dynamic of the polis city state structure, specifically that found in just one polis which was an unusual example of a fundamentally oligarchic system. I can go into more detail if you wish.
The ideas that were subsequently assigned to the classical world would have been unthinkable to them. Even within the classical world these concepts don't have a stable basis. For example Roman citizenship as Marius would have understood it had absolutely no relationship with the Roman citizenship of the Roman Empire, and far more in common with, say, Theban citizenship. What it meant to be a citizen, what rights one had within the state and so forth are not ideas that one can easily pin on the classical world and declare continuity because they lack even internal consistency within their own frame of reference. The question of whether the Socii were Roman was controversial, the Constitutio Antoniniana unthinkable.
The culture that emerged in western Europe was pretty much new. It took the word senate from Rome in the same way the Russian Tsars took the word Caesar, and with about as much understanding of what it meant. It's all rather absurd. Fetishism of classics from a time before historians had learned how to do real history. If the Greeks and Romans (with huge contributions from Enlightenment thinkers) didn't inspire the Founding Fathers, why didn't China or India even consider establishing anything resembling a democracy until the imperial powers colonized them? Or any other Eastern culture that I'm aware of? Why did democracy, rule of law, and individualism only rise in the West? I'm talking about the time before imperial powers arrived in Asia. Socioeconomic factors. You have to understand that no democrat would have been inspired by the extremely narrow oligarchies of the classical Mediterranean polis structures. The idea of Greek democracy is a misunderstanding of a three decade period in a single Greek city where constant naval warfare made the landless urban rower the foundation of military force. And even then it was simply a wider oligarchy than usual, and indeed was at the head of a repressive empire. The founding fathers had their own ideas which were spawned by their own unique place and time in history. They made the fundamental mistake of reading history backwards and projected their ideas onto the past and as a result I'm here two centuries later trying to correct that. Also it's interesting that you mention India. Significant parts of the near East, going as far as Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent were Hellenistic kingdoms. If your premise was correct then they would be prime candidates for becoming democracies. Definitely Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean. Places like the Netherlands and England were extremely remote, essentially barbarian backwaters, in the classical era and yet it is these places who insist upon their classical roots. If we accept the argument that the classical world spawned the modern world then we have to address the issue of the modern world appearing in the areas least impacted by the classical world. Imagine if in two thousand years time organized criminals were insisting that they had their roots in the ancient United States, a land founded by Italians wielding tommy guns, fighting the ruthless untouchables in an endless war for control of society and the right to drive fast cars in a circle. That's "Greek democracy". It's possible, just possible, that when someone like xDaunt says "Greeks" he means Plato and Aristotle, and possibly some pre-Socratics. I don't think anyone here believes that the Greek peninsula was a democratic paradise with inalienable rights. Augustine and Aquinas and every Enlightenment thinker were reading Homer, Plato, and Aristotle, not going on archaelogical digs to reconstruct daily life in Boeotia. And yet you've gone on a multi-page rant about how heterogeneous "the Greeks" really were. I just don't think that was an issue until you decided to try and embarrass someone who wasn't really even talking about that. Wouldn't that be making my point, not his, then? That if Augustine, Aquinas, and xDaunt are all fundamentally failing to understand the context and content of what they're reading then we surely cannot conclude that their ideas are Greek, rather than their own. No more than we would conclude that the ideas of someone in two millennia built on the struggle between the matha and the untouchables were a continuation of American culture. But I don't think that's what is happening either way. I don't think that xDaunt is referring to an incredibly specific section. I think xDaunt has simply fallen victim to the myth and genuinely doesn't know that he's repeating nonsense. Uhhhh what? Do you think Homer really means only one thing? Something that can be reconstructed with enough historical digging? What kind of idiotic statement would it be to say that the US Constitution is identical with Greek democracy? Are not flowering interpretations connected to their root? And are the root and stem not "Greek?" If your whole point is to say, "No, Aquinas really misinterpreted Aristotle there. The real Aristotle is in no way connected to his thought," you have completely ahistoricized Western culture. Every moment in time is radically different from that which came before and which came after. That might be the stupidest thing I've ever read by you, which is a high bar. You can't claim that western culture is a product of classical cultures and then, when challenged to demonstrate the links, insist that the reason the two look nothing alike and have no direct links is because one is a "flowering interpretation" of the other. If I were to claim to a child that a butterfly is a flowering interpretation of a caterpillar they'd demand to see a chrysalis. Show me the chrysalis or go home. Ditto. Flowers aren't "products" of seeds. Got it. Wasn't a complex point but whatever, I'll try and explain it on a level that you'll understand. I know that flowers are products of seeds because I have been shown the mechanism from which you get from one to the other. Absent the showing part all you're doing is waving colourful petals on green stems in one hand and tiny black shells in the other and saying "LOOK, THEY'RE THE SAME, CAN'T YOU SEE!". So again, show the mechanism. It's not complex. If western culture is a flower and classical "Greece" is a seed then show me how one grows from the other. When asked once what was the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson replied that: “All its authority rests … on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.”-Jefferson, Letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825.
“Why should a few received authors stand up like Hercules’s columns, beyond which there should be no sailing or discovery?” –To Aristotle, more than to any other writer, either ancient or modern, this expostulation is strictly applicable. Hear what the learned Grotius says on this subject. “Among philosophers, Aristotle deservedly holds the chief place, whether you consider his method of treating subjects, or the acuteness of his distinctions, or the weight of his reasons.”-Wilson, Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation, I.ii.2266. I DONT READ ANCIENT GREEKS IM GLAD I HVE KWARK TO EXPLAIN BOTANY TO ME
Thread treasure. And I hope he kept his receipt for the whole classics major thing.
|
On July 26 2017 13:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:46 Sermokala wrote: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:
[quote]
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....
The Muslims didn't assimilate cultures past spreading their own religion through their caliphate. The turks remains turkish but the lombards became Italians. The Persians were Zoroastrian and then Muslim and no one noticed until they became Iran. The moors were a group before they became the Shia caliphate and were moors after they lost the reconquesta. The Muslim world was much more tolerant to other religions compared to crusading Christians. Not to mentiion they don't have any sources of their old learning after the mongols burned down bagdad. The Russians were a group of slavs united through Mongolian occupation and Byzantine orthodox influences. People still debate if their first dynasty was decended from Ragnar or not.
If you're going to say I'm incorrect you could at least say why I'm incorect.
|
On July 26 2017 13:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:41 Wulfey_LA wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Okay, I read the article. What Chalupa did isn't even close to what DonJR/Manafort/Kushner did. So if you aren't going for the analogy, and you aren't going to get into the substance of what Chalupa did or didn't do, then what is the point? Just throwing up some distraction plays? DJT himself is running this game. Is your point that Dems are hypocrites because of Chalupa? No, that is wrong because the facts don't line up.
Here is DJT. He just throws it out there with no supporting facts and manages to tar his AG.
|
United States42782 Posts
On July 26 2017 14:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:50 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 13:46 Sermokala wrote: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:
[quote]
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.... The Muslims didn't assimilate cultures past spreading their own religion through their caliphate. The turks remains turkish but the lombards became Italians. The Persians were Zoroastrian and then Muslim and no one noticed until they became Iran. The moors were a group before they became the Shia caliphate and were moors after they lost the reconquesta. The Muslim world was much more tolerant to other religions compared to crusading Christians. Not to mentiion they don't have any sources of their old learning after the mongols burned down bagdad. The Russians were a group of slavs united through Mongolian occupation and Byzantine orthodox influences. People still debate if their first dynasty was decended from Ragnar or not. If you're going to say I'm incorrect you could at least say why I'm incorect.
Lombards became Italians? Not for like 1300 years. Lombards stayed Lombards. Italy was not a nation nor a people, it was "only a geographical expression".
|
On July 26 2017 13:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +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. SourceSo what's the next step?
McConnell dreams up some back-room deal that gets moderates on board. At least, that's the idea. He nixes the mandate, the medical device tax, and a handful of other things that are unpopular, and gets it to the conference with the house. Then it gets touted as some big repeal that keeps 80% of the things that sent the Dems out of power for the last seven years, and we see if it repeals enough to have the conservatives on board but keeps enough to have the moderates give in. Trump signs anything that hits his desk because he likes deals and doesn't read too much of them now that he's President.
And tomorrow's news can totally rejigger the factions and amendments so it's all up in the air.
|
United States42782 Posts
On July 26 2017 14:01 Danglars wrote:
Thread treasure. And I hope he kept his receipt for the whole classics major thing.
You see the thing is, I can actually read the book we're discussing, and indeed I have read it. Whereas xDaunt could only link to a wikipedia article about the book in his own language, and honestly there wasn't much evidence that he had even read that. That's the difference having the education on the subject makes.
|
On July 26 2017 13:54 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:46 Sermokala wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
The dynasties that make up what we call china where all in the same area. They didn't take over the Vietnamese or plant themselves firmly on the Korean peninsula. Northern china was filled with various horselords until Genghis came knocking. Not to mention their focus on isolation. They invented most of what they are credited for unlike the Romans who literally never through up a thing in their existence instead taking from others that was best and moving on with it as their own. Assimilation is a two way street and the Han migrations isn't assimilation. Rome didn't "conquer" most lands when they could simply "ally" with them until they were able to absorb them into the roman system completely.
|
On July 26 2017 13:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:49 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 13:44 xDaunt wrote: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. I generally agree with all of this, but it doesn't change really go to my point of why historians have chosen Greece to be the starting point for Western culture.
But you understand how then something like the universe being rational is foundational to "western thought" but it's not a western idea. It predates any western notion by millennia.
This isn't a unique occurrence. Where historians and people like yourself basically say that it doesn't count before the Greeks learned about it. Then you give them names like "The Father of ______" as if they weren't drop outs of Kemetic College.
I get it, you and others want to draw some arbitrary line at the Greeks and call everything they inherited "Western culture", credit them as creators, discoverers, and inventors of things that came long before them, and place them on pedestals bereft of the shoulders they stand on.
But if it makes people feel better to think their idea of "western culture" is better than whatever stands in opposition more power to them I guess. What could possibly go wrong?
|
On July 26 2017 14:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. SourceSo what's the next step? McConnell dreams up some back-room deal that gets moderates on board. At least, that's the idea. He nixes the mandate, the medical device tax, and a handful of other things that are unpopular, and gets it to the conference with the house. Then it gets touted as some big repeal that keeps 80% of the things that sent the Dems out of power for the last seven years, and we see if it repeals enough to have the conservatives on board but keeps enough to have the moderates give in. Trump signs anything that hits his desk because he likes deals and doesn't read too much of them now that he's President. And tomorrow's news can totally rejigger the factions and amendments so it's all up in the air.
So nothing of note for a few months besides more talking points and posturing. Got it. Have they released their plan publicly yet or is it still a secret? I haven't seen anyone link it here yet. Guess I should do some cursory searching.
|
On July 26 2017 14:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:51 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 13:41 Wulfey_LA wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Okay, I read the article. What Chalupa did isn't even close to what DonJR/Manafort/Kushner did. So if you aren't going for the analogy, and you aren't going to get into the substance of what Chalupa did or didn't do, then what is the point? Just throwing up some distraction plays? DJT himself is running this game. Is your point that Dems are hypocrites because of Chalupa? No, that is wrong because the facts don't line up. Here is DJT. He just throws it out there with no supporting facts and manages to tar his AG. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/889788202172780544
What you've said would matter if I was making a comparison between the two along the lines you described. I'm not. If you thought what Trump did was absolutely unethical and possibly criminal, you'll be rooting for this Grassley-JusticiaryCommittee effort. Because they both fall under the heading of foreign government collusion, failure to register as foreign agents, unethical oppo meetings, and more. Yes, it's not a blockbuster point like the old "Trump gets impeached now over this" wishcasting narrative, it's just a news story along similar lines with good sourcing and breaking this week.
Now, do you have a perspective on Clinton allies meeting with Ukrainian government officials to uncover damaging information on the Trump campaign or don't you? And, by the way, I'm really glad you read the letter because it shows you're willing to entertain some other perspectives for consideration.
In any event, we'll likely hear a response from Rosenstein and the Justice Department in a week and a half. And hopefully (unrelated) Susan Rice on unmasking later on in August.
|
On July 26 2017 13:56 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:46 Sermokala wrote: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:
[quote]
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? You know the Eastern Roman empire ceased to exist in 1453? So many things wrong in your post.
I said in Italy. The ERE was in the east and the WRE was in Italy and spain. the ERE has nothing to do with Italy.
On July 26 2017 13:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:46 Sermokala wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Romans weren't an ethnic group. It's not entirely clear what you mean by Romans either. Ethnicity wasn't the issue, in the ancient world citizenship was a system of bonds, obligations and benefits that you shared with the rest of the citizen body. Not everyone born in Republican Rome was a citizen for example. As Rome grew to be an Empire the question became extremely difficult because there were Roman citizens in Rome with the rights and privileges of citizenship there, and citizens of Taranto in Taranto, for example. How these fit together and whether the powerful of Taranto had rights outside of their city was a hugely complex issue. Eventually grants of Roman citizenship were expanded through Italy but even that doesn't mean much in terms of ethnicity because Italy had been heavily colonized by seafaring Mediterranean peoples. Taranto, as previously mentioned, was a Spartan colony. Later on the practice of rewarding military service with citizenship complicated things further because the legions were far from being composed entirely of ethnic Romans. And eventually the whole issue became moot and everyone got citizenship. But even if we accept your premise, the Romans did not disappear with the fall of Rome. The idea of the Dark Ages has been subject to considerable historical revision and these days the consensus is a far more gradual decline through late antiquity with Roman landowners becoming components of a new feudal (which is a word with as much wrong with it as the Dark Ages but whatever, you'll know what I mean and I don't want to get too deep into it) system while the bonds of trade and unity slowly broke down around them. Sorry, the "Roman" ethnicity wasn't driven into the sea by barbarians. It never existed, it would have been mostly barbarian had it existed and either way, it survived.
But thats part of my point the "roman" ethnicity group died out while Han Chinese were a thing and are a thing now. The complexity of how Rome defined what and who was Rome didn't really effect their ability to rule over what was considered "Rome" If Rome was like China then there would have been an ethnic group calling themselves roman existing today. The idea of Rome and what was Rome became a thing of culture instead of ethnicity or tribe. The breaking down of ethnic and tribal affiliations in the service of an empire is is core of what made Rome so successful and influential on who we are today. Granted it decayed and disappeared in practice but the idea of it continues.
The roads that rome build encouraged the urban movement that differentiated western countries from eastern countries?
|
On July 26 2017 14:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 14:07 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 13:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. SourceSo what's the next step? McConnell dreams up some back-room deal that gets moderates on board. At least, that's the idea. He nixes the mandate, the medical device tax, and a handful of other things that are unpopular, and gets it to the conference with the house. Then it gets touted as some big repeal that keeps 80% of the things that sent the Dems out of power for the last seven years, and we see if it repeals enough to have the conservatives on board but keeps enough to have the moderates give in. Trump signs anything that hits his desk because he likes deals and doesn't read too much of them now that he's President. And tomorrow's news can totally rejigger the factions and amendments so it's all up in the air. So nothing of note for a few months besides more talking points and posturing. Got it. Have they released their plan publicly yet or is it still a secret? I haven't seen anyone link it here yet. Guess I should do some cursory searching.
Right now the slim reporting on mini repeal is just congressional staffers. Obviously, McConnell doesn't want to touch medicaid expansion and a number of other things that will make moderates balk. McConnell has incentives to show that the GOP is near a solution on repeal, but he has to make his members swallow it. He has his members until the (delayed) August recess.
|
On July 26 2017 14:10 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 13:54 mozoku wrote:On July 26 2017 13:46 Sermokala wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The dynasties that make up what we call china where all in the same area. They didn't take over the Vietnamese or plant themselves firmly on the Korean peninsula. Northern china was filled with various horselords until Genghis came knocking. Not to mention their focus on isolation. They invented most of what they are credited for unlike the Romans who literally never through up a thing in their existence instead taking from others that was best and moving on with it as their own. Assimilation is a two way street and the Han migrations isn't assimilation. Rome didn't "conquer" most lands when they could simply "ally" with them until they were able to absorb them into the roman system completely.
You're misunderstanding the fundamental point. They weren't "Chinese" until they were conquered by the Han and forced to convert to the Han way of life. The "horselords" were the Manchu I'm guessing, who were a totally different civilization at the time than the Song dynasty dominated by the Han.
And the Tang (?) dynasty most definitely did invade the Korean peninsula, but they lost the war.
Sorry, but you clearly didn't understand much of anything about Chinese history when you started and you're not going to understand in the timeframe where we have this discussion.
|
On July 26 2017 14:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 14:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 26 2017 14:07 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 13:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. SourceSo what's the next step? McConnell dreams up some back-room deal that gets moderates on board. At least, that's the idea. He nixes the mandate, the medical device tax, and a handful of other things that are unpopular, and gets it to the conference with the house. Then it gets touted as some big repeal that keeps 80% of the things that sent the Dems out of power for the last seven years, and we see if it repeals enough to have the conservatives on board but keeps enough to have the moderates give in. Trump signs anything that hits his desk because he likes deals and doesn't read too much of them now that he's President. And tomorrow's news can totally rejigger the factions and amendments so it's all up in the air. So nothing of note for a few months besides more talking points and posturing. Got it. Have they released their plan publicly yet or is it still a secret? I haven't seen anyone link it here yet. Guess I should do some cursory searching. Right now the slim reporting on mini repeal is just congressional staffers. Obviously, McConnell doesn't want to touch medicaid expansion and a number of other things that will make moderates balk. McConnell has incentives to show that the GOP is near a solution on repeal, but he has to make his members swallow it. He has his members until the (delayed) August recess.
Thanks. From NPR and CNN, that's kind of what I got, but that was known for some time now. Guess they want to show that they are trying to do something.
Edit: Here is the bill, if anyone is interested.
BCRA Summary
|
On July 26 2017 14:24 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 14:10 Sermokala wrote:On July 26 2017 13:54 mozoku wrote:On July 26 2017 13:46 Sermokala wrote: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: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. The dynasties that make up what we call china where all in the same area. They didn't take over the Vietnamese or plant themselves firmly on the Korean peninsula. Northern china was filled with various horselords until Genghis came knocking. Not to mention their focus on isolation. They invented most of what they are credited for unlike the Romans who literally never through up a thing in their existence instead taking from others that was best and moving on with it as their own. Assimilation is a two way street and the Han migrations isn't assimilation. Rome didn't "conquer" most lands when they could simply "ally" with them until they were able to absorb them into the roman system completely. You're misunderstanding the fundamental point. They weren't "Chinese" until they were conquered by the Han and forced to convert to the Han way of life. The "horselords" were the Manchu I'm guessing, who were a totally different civilization at the time than the Song dynasty dominated by the Han. And the Tang (?) dynasty most definitely did invade the Korean peninsula, but they lost the war. Sorry, but you clearly didn't understand much of anything about Chinese history when you started and you're not going to understand in the timeframe where we have this discussion.
But even the way you say it you don't pretend to argue that they were assimilating the locals into the "Chinese" way of doing things and that they instead forced the non Han groups into Han ways of things. Rome never had enough of its own people to simply move in with their own ethnic group and take over the area while the Chinese did. They're completely different ways of nation growing. The British were from a small island and yet were able to administer from there their whole empire by following the example from the Romans. I didn't say that the Chinese didn't invade Korea I said that they didn't plant themselves on the korean peninsula like a roman "alliance" would have.
|
On July 26 2017 14:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 14:01 Danglars wrote:
Thread treasure. And I hope he kept his receipt for the whole classics major thing. You see the thing is, I can actually read the book we're discussing, and indeed I have read it. Whereas xDaunt could only link to a wikipedia article about the book in his own language, and honestly there wasn't much evidence that he had even read that. That's the difference having the education on the subject makes.
Lol, the evolution of natural law in Western culture isn't something that is reduced to a classical Greek text for very obvious reasons. C'mon, Kwark, you're smarter than this. And if you're actually trying to fool people, you're doing an abysmal job at it. No one's fooled by the charade.
|
On July 26 2017 14:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 14:10 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 14:01 Danglars wrote:
Thread treasure. And I hope he kept his receipt for the whole classics major thing. You see the thing is, I can actually read the book we're discussing, and indeed I have read it. Whereas xDaunt could only link to a wikipedia article about the book in his own language, and honestly there wasn't much evidence that he had even read that. That's the difference having the education on the subject makes. Lol, the evolution of natural law in Western culture isn't something that is reduced to a classical Greek text for very obvious reasons. C'mon, Kwark, you're smarter than this. And if you're actually trying to fool people, you're doing an abysmal job at it. No one's fooled by the charade.
If they're so obvious you shouldn't feel any trouble listing the reasons. Thread rule two violation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
