| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46637 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:53 gongryong wrote: 1969 Moon Landing! why has no one mentioned it yet? Sorry Americans, but there is overwhelming evidence against it. The fact that Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it happened means it happened.  But I would be interested in seeing some evidence against it.  | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3007 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:18 Alexhandr wrote: I understand your point and feel how you feel. Completely. Stalin and Mao were just as bad as Hitler and deserve to be bashed and hated just as much. Millions and millions of innocent people died under their rule. But, hey, Nazis are bad (true). Communism is good (/sarcasm). Remember that. Well there is a difference between the ideologies, not really that much between those leaders. Killing of people is basically part of nazist ideology. There is nothing like that inherent in communism, not even specifically in marxism, that is the reason for double standard, and pretty good reason, otherwise you could say democracy is also bad, capitalism is bad, .... | ||
|
Alexhandr
United States218 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:55 Darpa wrote: I do believe that there is extensive accounts of marco polo's trip through China. The great wall itself being around at that time is a common misconception. The wall existed in sections being built throughout history. However the wall as it is today (one long wall) was never actually completed until the ming dynasty (around 1375 - about 75 years after marco polo travelled china) So its entirely possible he didnt see it. As for the other suggestions, those are maybe just coincidence, but remember that China at that point was a very large country. Certain cultural practices (like binding of the feet) were not common practice among northern chinese. Which was where Marco Polo was generally have thought to adventure. The only reason I know this is because of a course I took in University, so I genuinely believe marco polo did visit China. As for the original question The only thing I can think of that is accepted but probably didnt actually happen the way it was thought is based around famous people as opposed to events. I.e. General Custard was a hero, William wallace was a hero, Thermopalyae only had 300 greeks... ect. One big one I've heard is that The civil war wasnt actually about slavery (this is a contentious one, but there are records of abraham lincon suggesting in his memoirs that he didnt want to free them, but was forced to because of a changing social structure and the slavery issue was just the scapegoat for consolidating power over the southern aristocrats.) edit. For those who care, the armenian killings happened, almost half a million armenians were killed. Armenia is in the process of having the killings recognized as a "genocide" in the world criminal court and the United nations. (something which turkey obviously opposes) Slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War. The rights of states was. Slavery was just used to justify what the Union did. South said, "State's rights!" North said: "No, federal government is more powerful!" South said, "No. We won't do what you want." North said: "Okay." Lincoln was elected. Tensions rose. South realized Lincoln wasn't a man to mess around with. Seceded. Fort Sumter attacked, and the war in which brother against brother began. Lincoln freed the slaves in the South during the war (not the North, mind you) to gain more support. Amendment added in after war. Years and years of Northern intolerance towards the South, Tensions stayed strong for awhile. Blam. Done. I got a essay in yo essay. <3 | ||
|
Jomz
United Kingdom117 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:00 don_kyuhote wrote: Isn't there a debate about whether Roosevelt knew of Japanese plan of attacking Pearl Harbor, but didn't do anything to prevent it, so that after US was attacked, it could have public suppport for going into WW2? There's not really a debate. The US knew an attack was coming somewhere, but the fact that it came at Pearl Harbor instead of a closer target like the Philippines was a surprise. | ||
|
Alexhandr
United States218 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:01 mcc wrote: Well there is a difference between the ideologies, not really that much between those leaders. Killing of people is basically part of nazist ideology. There is nothing like that inherent in communism, not even specifically in marxism, that is the reason for double standard, and pretty good reason, otherwise you could say democracy is also bad, capitalism is bad, .... I don't know of a communist state/nation yet where the government is all nice and kind. So therefor, communism is bad. plus, communism is a dream. It will not work due to human nature. And that is to work and keep what we have for ourselves. Communism is a nice idea. A lovely idea. But impossible to achieve. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46637 Posts
Conspiracy theories, man with the umbrella, grassy knoll, Lee Harvey Oswald, etc. Certainly in history classes we've discussed (and even watched videos on) the fact that there is some sort of mystery surrounding his death. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:02 jalstar wrote: There's not really a debate. The US knew an attack was coming somewhere, but the fact that it came at Pearl Harbor instead of a closer target like the Philippines was a surprise. I think the debate is about whether Rosevelt/US incited the Japanese to attack them so they could enter WW2, as the general public was still in a very isolationist mindset. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:52 Roe wrote: Do tell, my good sir. For you in this single and entire instance have captivated us like no other orator of marvelous fortune. Hooked us in, and reel us, will you? Aye, like a phoenix your stories are reborn in a great ad infinum, and catch our eyes e'ry time as though no other sight had been seen by them. Do, pray tell my friend of your great stories of emotional magnitude and uncertainty, the likes of which humanity knows so deeply in its heart. For I entreaty to you, my sole, undivided attention. I don't know what you gleaned frrom his post, but an oration of marvelous fortune would be tragically (beautifully?) ironic. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:31 travito wrote: Well I am a Christian, and I am by no means offended by this, and I DO NOT want this to turn into a religious debate but the fact is that Cornelius Tacitus, considered to be a great historian, wrote about Jesus. Whether or not you believe that he is who he claims to be is completely up to you As far as I know there are no historical sources outside of a Bible(as far as it can be considered historical) that mention Jesus specifically and are not later faked additions. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:34 Ryuu314 wrote: Whether or not Jesus is/was the son of God or actually performed miracles and such is debatable depending on your religious affiliation/beliefs. However, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ is an actual person and he did do a lot of pretty darn amazing things. I would be interested in that evidence. | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:55 travito wrote: Can you provide some of this evidence? I'm all ears if you can back up your claims. That's what Buzz Aldrin's reaction is to Moon Landing deniers. Sorry, but I have serious doubts that the Lunar landings were fake | ||
|
munchmunch
Canada789 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:52 Alexhandr wrote: Oh, Stalin had hate. He killed Christians, Jews, capitalists, and anyone he didn't take a liking too. Just like Hitler. Both of them killed for power and out of hate. 's how it goes. The real reason that Hitler is considered as a symbol of evil is because of the NA/Western european bias of this thread. Hitler became a symbol of evil for NA and Western Europe in the propaganda campaigns of world war II, and has remained a popular villain ever since. Before WWII many people in NA and Western Europe were sympathetic to Hitler. For example, if anyone has seen The King's Speech, one reason the UK gov't forced Edward to abdicate was because he was thought to be sympathetic to Hitler. Although Hitler definitely deserves the mantle of villain, there are many people in history who have become popular villains for less. Go back a couple of hundred years and ask someone in a protestant country about the pope, for example. | ||
|
travito
Canada88 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:08 ArvickHero wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU That's what Buzz Aldrin's reaction is to Moon Landing deniers. Sorry, but I have serious doubts that the Lunar landings were fake Yea I've seen that too. And I also believe that the moon landing was real, but I still like to hear evidence for the other argument. | ||
|
sharky246
1197 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:01 mcc wrote: Well there is a difference between the ideologies, not really that much between those leaders. Killing of people is basically part of nazist ideology. There is nothing like that inherent in communism, not even specifically in marxism, that is the reason for double standard, and pretty good reason, otherwise you could say democracy is also bad, capitalism is bad, .... How can you have a good reason for double standards? If history has taught us anything, its that the victor is righteous, always has been, always will be. | ||
|
huameng
United States1133 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:01 Alexhandr wrote: Slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War. The rights of states was. Slavery was just used to justify what the Union did. South said, "State's rights!" North said: "No, federal government is more powerful!" South said, "No. We won't do what you want." North said: "Okay." Lincoln was elected. Tensions rose. South realized Lincoln wasn't a man to mess around with. Seceded. Fort Sumter attacked, and the war in which brother against brother began. Lincoln freed the slaves in the South during the war (not the North, mind you) to gain more support. Amendment added in after war. Years and years of Northern intolerance towards the South, Tensions stayed strong for awhile. Blam. Done. I got a essay in yo essay. <3 Slavery was definitely the cause of the Civil War. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Causes_of_secession The telling quote: "In what later became known as the Cornerstone Speech, C.S. Vice President Alexander Stephens declared that the "cornerstone" of the new government "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth"." (Emphasis mine) That was the Vice President of the Confederacy! Edit: vv this goes to you too, what you are saying is totally false. | ||
|
Noev
United States1105 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:01 Alexhandr wrote: Slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War. The rights of states was. Slavery was just used to justify what the Union did. South said, "State's rights!" North said: "No, federal government is more powerful!" South said, "No. We won't do what you want." North said: "Okay." Lincoln was elected. Tensions rose. South realized Lincoln wasn't a man to mess around with. Seceded. Fort Sumter attacked, and the war in which brother against brother began. Lincoln freed the slaves in the South during the war (not the North, mind you) to gain more support. Amendment added in after war. Years and years of Northern intolerance towards the South, Tensions stayed strong for awhile. Blam. Done. I got a essay in yo essay. <3 Nice write up short sweet and to the point. Just to add to your post you might want to include that the north declared it a war about slavery in an effort to keep other european nations from siding with the south, because most of them at the time had abolished it. I must say the planed worked very well. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
I recently read about this and was a little surprised. The American K-12 system essentially teaches that Galileo was a quirky good guy fighting for truth against the evil Catholic Church trying to suppress his ideas. The truth of Galileo's trial is actually very different. He was, at least when he was younger, actually friends with the pope (later in life he wrote a book in which he called the pope a simpleton, which was what got the ball rolling on the whole heresy trial to begin with) and there was a lot of politics involved in his trial, in particular that many people wanted to discredit Galileo either because of Galileo's criticism of their own work -- Galileo was sort of an intellectual bully of his time, and not always right either -- or to get at Galileo's patrons, the Medici family. Fellow "natural philosophers" -- as scientists were called back then -- testified against Galileo. But even after confessing to heresy, he lived the rest of his life -- and he was already quite old, in his 70's -- in a very cozy house arrest. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
The French did not lose every single major war. If you are going to argue against that statement, then you are pretty dumb. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Yamato Cup
IPSL
Artosis vs RiceHat
Kyrie vs Sony
Map Test Tournament
WardiTV Weekly
Ultimate Battle
Rush vs BeSt
Replay Cast
Rogue vs Classic
Patches Events
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
