Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 4th, 2012, 02:59 PM   #11

Moros's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 998

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
[Archeology]...did once assume Troy did not exist.
Is this true? That archaeology doubted the existence of Troy? Wasn't it the historical value of Homer, or the exact location of Troy (which seems to have been known throughout Greek and Roman times), that was debated, not the actually real existence of Troy itself?

I'd appreciate some clarification on this please.
Moros is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2012, 09:59 AM   #12

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros View Post
Is this true? That archaeology doubted the existence of Troy? Wasn't it the historical value of Homer, or the exact location of Troy (which seems to have been known throughout Greek and Roman times), that was debated, not the actually real existence of Troy itself?

I'd appreciate some clarification on this please.
The man, who actually proved Troy existed-Heinrich Schliemann, was accused of being a lunatic and many other nasty things by the Archeological establishment of his time. An old form of political "spin" often used by many people in the sciences against viewpoints they personally disfavor. Which you can find parroted by certain posters in these very forums. Just type in the search for Troy into your search engine and choose whichever site on this subject appeals to you. There are even some, who to this very day attempt to degrade the memory of this imaginative man with numerous ad hominems. All done merely out of spite.
At one time Troy was considered a invention by Homer for the purposes of storytelling. The exact same thing Plato is also accused of having done with Atlantis. Apparently modern intellectual snobbery considers the brilliant Greeks as inventors of many things which the Greeks once actually believed were true. The real question is: How much of what the Greeks did consider to be true was based on some actual historical fact?

Last edited by Zarin; December 5th, 2012 at 10:12 AM.
Zarin is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 12:09 PM   #13
.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 4,835

Quote:
Originally Posted by ucanefan View Post
I just read that article and some of those items has already been proven.Whoever wrote that needs to do their research.
Gorge123 is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 08:02 PM   #14

Davidius's Avatar
Varlet
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Pillium
Posts: 3,959

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
You obviously do not understand this as you usually babble.
I have noticed that the only thing you ever seem to offer is ad hominems and general put downs.
I have just read through this entire thread and Hresvelgr has not offered any ad hominems or put downs, he is merely offering an alternative view to yours. If you are as broad minded as you claim you wouldn't need to use ad hominems against him (qoute in red) instead of answering civilly.
Davidius is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 07:58 AM   #15

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
I have just read through this entire thread and Hresvelgr has not offered any ad hominems or put downs, he is merely offering an alternative view to yours. If you are as broad minded as you claim you wouldn't need to use ad hominems against him (qoute in red) instead of answering civilly.
Apparently, you do not really know the meaning of "ad hominem" if you feel Hresvelgr did not or has not used this device repeatedly. Not only did he attack me personally, but threw in a tremendous number of the same repeated arguments (ad hominems), he always uses. Especially extraneous aspects, which had nothing to do with what was even mentioned in the OP.
I'm quite sure that I could come up with a litany of the many statements about many things he has made throughout his posting that could be useful as "ad hominems."
I certainly agree that the small snippet you used (completely out of context) from my post appears to be an "ad hominem." But it was merely a distilled reaction to the so many he used against me. And which he has repeatedly used in many of his responses to my postings.
And, of course, he is totally entitled to his opinion...as am I.

Last edited by Zarin; December 6th, 2012 at 08:37 AM.
Zarin is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 08:31 AM   #16

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharata View Post
if we can develope so much in last 200-300 years i dont think it will be hard to beleive it happened many times before in the past .
Many discoveries have been made concerning advanced states of knowledge being acquired by civilizations that decayed, disappeared or were destroyed with much of their information being "lost" in the process. 2,000 years ago there was Rome and China. 5,000 years ago was Egypt and Sumeria. 12,000 years ago there was Gobekli Tepe and possibly Atlantis.
Who knows how many civilizations came and went that have been completely lost to human memory? Plus the loss all these people had acquired knowledge of? How far back in time could we go and find an era not unsimilar to our own?
Yes, we developed our modern civilization in less than 500 years. This is but a blip on the scale of time. There may have been not one, but many of these 500-1,000 year "blips" over the last 100,000 years of the estimated existence of Homo Sapiens on this planet that nothing remains of or no record has ever been created to remind us of their existence. Many civilizations that have disappeared for so many reasons. Conquest, pestilence, natural disaster, et al.
As was mentioned in a previous post, satellite imagery has found a "lost city" in Arabia that was actually mentioned in history. But also was "lost." What is out there, such as sites like Gobekli Tepe, of which no written record exists? Much of Gobekli Tepe only still remains intact because it was purposely buried? What has come and gone, that is completely forgotten and of which no remains can ever be found?
Gobekli Tepe may not be "important" to some unimaginative minds, but it's discovery reminds us that everything we have thought we knew about our past may not be correct. And where there is one Gobekli Tepe there may be many others.
I suspect there may be much more than we can imagine.

Last edited by Zarin; December 6th, 2012 at 08:39 AM.
Zarin is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 08:56 AM   #17

Naomasa298's Avatar
Bog of the Year
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 21,383

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
Apparently, you do not really know the meaning of "ad hominem" if you feel Hresvelgr did not or has not used this device repeatedly. Not only did he attack me personally, but threw in a tremendous number of the same repeated arguments (ad hominems), he always uses. Especially extraneous aspects, which had nothing to do with what was even mentioned in the OP.
I'm quite sure that I could come up with a litany of the many statements about many things he has made throughout his posting that could be useful as "ad hominems."
A repeated argument is NOT an ad hominem. Ad hominem is when someone attacks and insults the poster instead of the argument, and that is what you did. If you feel Hresvelgr insulted you (and I can see one or two things that might be construed as personal attacks), your recourse should be to report his post to the moderators, not to insult him back.

Ad_hominem Ad_hominem
Naomasa298 is online now  
Old December 6th, 2012, 10:46 AM   #18

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
A repeated argument is NOT an ad hominem. Ad hominem is when someone attacks and insults the poster instead of the argument, and that is what you did. If you feel Hresvelgr insulted you (and I can see one or two things that might be construed as personal attacks), your recourse should be to report his post to the moderators, not to insult him back.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am well aware of what ad hominem means. And repeated ad hominems do not constitute an argument. Especially if dredged up thru totally inane and unrelated connections. Ad hominems are designed to demean a person's argument through frivolous and singular fault finding. A technique that can be applied to anyone's argument.
I detest reporting any poster to the moderators. Something which I have had ample cause to do. Moreover, I may reply to any poster in any way I wish as long as that reply is within the proscribed limits required by these forums. There have certainly been far worse examples for moderator required intervention that have gone unoticed and uncommented on by anyone (including yourself) in these forums.
If you have ever read any of this particular certain poster's replies to me or anyone else's on matters of his particular disagreement; it usually contains the exact same litany of outreaching content in his usual attempt to demean whatever that poster has to say. This poster certainly has the right to do so, but one would expect far more creativity.
Zarin is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:32 PM   #19

Theguy8882's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Philadelhpia, PA
Posts: 177

I'm not saying it was aliens...

But it was Aliens
Theguy8882 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:58 PM   #20

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,025
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
The man, who actually proved Troy existed-Heinrich Schliemann, was accused of being a lunatic and many other nasty things by the Archeological establishment of his time. An old form of political "spin" often used by many people in the sciences against viewpoints they personally disfavor. Which you can find parroted by certain posters in these very forums. Just type in the search for Troy into your search engine and choose whichever site on this subject appeals to you. There are even some, who to this very day attempt to degrade the memory of this imaginative man with numerous ad hominems. All done merely out of spite.
At one time Troy was considered a invention by Homer for the purposes of storytelling. The exact same thing Plato is also accused of having done with Atlantis. Apparently modern intellectual snobbery considers the brilliant Greeks as inventors of many things which the Greeks once actually believed were true. The real question is: How much of what the Greeks did consider to be true was based on some actual historical fact?
Describing the actual legacy of a person and putting their works and exploits into a proper context hardly constitutes degrading their memory out of spite. Unless of course one was to consider the historical record itself spiteful, but objective facts simply cannot have any motivation applied to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
I am well aware of what ad hominem means. And repeated ad hominems do not constitute an argument. Especially if dredged up thru totally inane and unrelated connections. Ad hominems are designed to demean a person's argument through frivolous and singular fault finding. A technique that can be applied to anyone's argument.
I detest reporting any poster to the moderators. Something which I have had ample cause to do. Moreover, I may reply to any poster in any way I wish as long as that reply is within the proscribed limits required by these forums. There have certainly been far worse examples for moderator required intervention that have gone unoticed and uncommented on by anyone (including yourself) in these forums.
If you have ever read any of this particular certain poster's replies to me or anyone else's on matters of his particular disagreement; it usually contains the exact same litany of outreaching content in his usual attempt to demean whatever that poster has to say. This poster certainly has the right to do so, but one would expect far more creativity.
I'm glad you agree that repetetive ad hominems are a useless waste of space, which is why I feel I should ask you to stop with them then. It should be easy, considering you know what it is. Of course maybe I'm being too aggressive here. I could point out that in your accusations you yourself do what you are accusing me of. Every time I bother putting forth a more critical view you break out the same denigrations of my character, saying that I'm some intellectual snob, unimaginative clod, arch-conservative troglodyte, etc. But I should like to defend myself against these latest accusations of me doing nothing but repeating myself over and over again. I must admit I do end up rehashing the same arguments quite often in threads. But what other option is there for me when I face the same claims again and again, never without any backing? If you want less repetition, then by all means, do something to defend yourself besides dredging up potential evidence and making aforementioned snipes at me and my motivations? Instead it would be rather nice if you were to actually attempt to use facts and evidences when discussing things of a scientific nature, a practice that is the standard for this sort of thing.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
strange, things


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Strange. Very strange, indeed. Qymaen Art and Cultural History 10 March 10th, 2011 07:40 PM
Weird and wonderful aircraft before 1903... strange things Nick European History 9 December 31st, 2010 02:55 PM
Air travel in the early years...strange things Richard Stanbery European History 27 December 17th, 2009 03:48 PM
Strange moonshadow European History 16 July 25th, 2009 07:29 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.