Options

Political Correctness and the Demonology of Modern Prejudice

178101213

Posts

  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Also talking about history in reference to gender relations has nothing to do with far more modern military history.

    Er...?

    Popularly spread misconception about documented historical strategy leads to bad decision making about modern strategy.
    Rumsfeld's miitary doctrine

    Popularly spread misconception about documented historical strategy leads to bad decision making about modern strategy.
    Male-centric interpretations of history lead to men trying to 'torpedo' "equality-concerned employment, education or legal programs."

    See what I mean? You can't have it both ways.

    ELC - go read those posts I talked about. When you see the examples I'm talking about, if you still disagree with me saying they are bad history, by all means keep arguing.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote:
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    It is true that there is a link between frequency of orgasming and partners, but the mechanism doesn't exist to encourage women to sleep around, but rather to make sure they get the best set of genes.

    How does that work? Regardless of whether a male is a good sexual partner or a bad one, once he ejaculates then pregnancy either occurs or it doesn't.

    EDIT: for clarity, what I mean is that a human female's ability to experience multiple orgasms in one sexual encounter doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the reproductive suitability of a partner's genes. Orgasm isn't even tied to reproduction for females in the same way that it is for males; at best, it provides additional incentive to have PIV sex.
    [/SPOILER]
    That's the point. They have sex once with a man then find someone else.

    Except that nowhere in that explanation was there any mechanism which showed a connection between good genes and good sex.

    Zalbinion on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    You are taking a pre-historical archaeological interpretation and saying "olol it's all made up because I know about ancient Greece" - the fuck it is. These people are working from evidence. Now, you can disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, but you do not get to say "oh, it's patently untrue and revisionist because I know some different things"

    Erm, yes I can when those different things are a) accepted by 99.9% of sane people, and b) directly contradict the interpretive statement. It's called academia.

    ...and you are totally accepting the version that ZeeBeeKay posted, and that he wasn't making a load of it up, which was one of my main questions, if you read. I'm not too impressed by your intellectual rigor.

    Unless you want to explain the contradictions I pointed out in my initial post in this thread?

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Also talking about history in reference to gender relations has nothing to do with far more modern military history.

    Er...?

    Popularly spread misconception about documented historical strategy leads to bad decision making about modern strategy.
    Rumsfeld's miitary doctrine

    Popularly spread misconception about documented historical strategy leads to bad decision making about modern strategy.
    Male-centric interpretations of history lead to men trying to 'torpedo' "equality-concerned employment, education or legal programs."

    See what I mean? You can't have it both ways.

    ELC - go read those posts I talked about. When you see the examples I'm talking about, if you still disagree with me saying they are bad history, by all means keep arguing.

    I see what you're saying, and this is where I think you're stumbling:

    Feminist critiques of history treat some historical ideas, even "facts," as "popularly spread misconceptions."
    For example, see again the misconceptions about food acquisition in hunter-gatherer communities.

    Zalbinion on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    You are taking a pre-historical archaeological interpretation and saying "olol it's all made up because I know about ancient Greece" - the fuck it is. These people are working from evidence. Now, you can disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, but you do not get to say "oh, it's patently untrue and revisionist because I know some different things"

    Sorry, inability to edit.

    If you also notice, one of my main points was how secure the methodology was that extrapolated these very complex things from an archaeological dig, because I know Egyptologists (the archaeological field with by far the most gathered evidence & huge amounts of research) who won't claim to know that much about ancient Egypt.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    I take such fucking umbrage with historians who see themselves as the arbiters of "past truth". There is enough room in the vast landscape of human knowledge and intellect for differing interpretations and theories. History is not just about facts.

    No, but treating facts as facts is neccessary for any interpretation or theory to stand a chance of being correct. Please show where I argued against interpretation. I argued against rewriting - namely, changing things which have been proven (to the best degree possible) to be true.

    If anyone had bothered to actually read the earlier posts where this argument came from, you might see my point instead of just assuming it's some bullshit American conservative anti-women vibe :roll:

    You are taking a pre-historical archaeological interpretation and saying "olol it's all made up because I know about ancient Greece" - the fuck it is. These people are working from evidence. Now, you can disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, but you do not get to say "oh, it's patently untrue and revisionist because I know some different things"

    For example, historians have only recently started saying that Troy existed, not because of revisionism, but because we found it.
    The BBC doesn't make stuff up about Israel, but it always puts any news reflecting badly on it first in the list of stories. That is why I dislike them. On the other side, Fox News only showed the retaliatory bombings of Israel during the invasion of Lebanon, but never Israel's bombing of Lebanon, which even I, and incredibly pro-Israel person, find disgusting. This is how historians trim the facts to confirm their pre-assumptions.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    I see what you're saying, and this is where I think you're stumbling:

    Feminist critiques of history treat some historical ideas, even "facts," as "popularly spread misconceptions."
    For example, see again the misconceptions about food acquisition in hunter-gatherer communities.

    Woohoo, reason!

    And as I noted in my reply to Medopine above, there are many areas where they are quite justified in doing so. There are also some where they are not, my point was simply that the original ZeeBeeKay thing was making some very, very dodgy claims on no evidence, and contradicting a vast amount of accepted history written by a huge variety of different people.

    I also disagree with the principle: well the history we have is biased one way, so let's look at it again with the opposing bias. This isn't all gender historians, but it is a significant (and vocal) proportion, and to me it makes them bigger fools than the lot they are reacting against.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Also talking about history in reference to gender relations has nothing to do with far more modern military history.

    Er...?

    Popularly spread misconception about documented historical strategy leads to bad decision making about modern strategy.
    Rumsfeld's miitary doctrine

    Popularly spread misconception about documented historical strategy leads to bad decision making about modern strategy.
    Male-centric interpretations of history lead to men trying to 'torpedo' "equality-concerned employment, education or legal programs."

    See what I mean? You can't have it both ways.

    ELC - go read those posts I talked about. When you see the examples I'm talking about, if you still disagree with me saying they are bad history, by all means keep arguing.

    I see what you're saying, and this is where I think you're stumbling:

    Feminist critiques of history treat some historical ideas, even "facts," as "popularly spread misconceptions."
    For example, see again the misconceptions about food acquisition in hunter-gatherer communities.

    My point was that there is no comparison of the likely consequences. In one case we invaded another country and are now stuck in a complete quagmire costing lives, money and international standing. In the latter, there is essentially no difference unless it's somehow of vital importance to the modern jobs industry whether women really could out-gather men or something.

    And of course, the exact same logic applies in reverse - if there are popular misconceptions, we should be correcting them so as not to make bad judgements - for which NS has been unconvincing thusfar.

    Of course, the problem is NS is comparing periods of time that are more like talking about Roman military strategy in reference to the war in Iraq.

    EDIT: Additionally, prove that anyone is saying "let's look at it with the opposite bias". That's not feminism.

    EDIT 2: Anyone who isn't regarded by everyone else as completely insane because there's plenty of unique crazies on every side and they have nothing to do with things more towards the middle.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    You are taking a pre-historical archaeological interpretation and saying "olol it's all made up because I know about ancient Greece" - the fuck it is. These people are working from evidence. Now, you can disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, but you do not get to say "oh, it's patently untrue and revisionist because I know some different things"

    Erm, yes I can when those different things are a) accepted by 99.9% of sane people, and b) directly contradict the interpretive statement. It's called academia.

    ...and you are totally accepting the version that ZeeBeeKay posted, and that he wasn't making a load of it up, which was one of my main questions, if you read. I'm not too impressed by your intellectual rigor.

    Nice try, but I've actually read these scholars, and whilst I was unimpressed, I don't think you can characterise an interpretation of unrecorded history as revisionist when the whole point is that there is nothing to revise.
    If you also notice, one of my main points was how secure the methodology was that extrapolated these very complex things from an archaeological dig, because I know Egyptologists (the archaeological field with by far the most gathered evidence & huge amounts of research) who won't claim to know that much about ancient Egypt.

    That's a whole fucking different question that has nothing to do with "revisionism".

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    For example, historians have only recently started saying that Troy existed, not because of revisionism, but because we found it.

    That's not really the question here though. The question is about the difference between saying that Troy the city existed, and saying that the Iliad is true.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote:
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    It is true that there is a link between frequency of orgasming and partners, but the mechanism doesn't exist to encourage women to sleep around, but rather to make sure they get the best set of genes.

    How does that work? Regardless of whether a male is a good sexual partner or a bad one, once he ejaculates then pregnancy either occurs or it doesn't.

    EDIT: for clarity, what I mean is that a human female's ability to experience multiple orgasms in one sexual encounter doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the reproductive suitability of a partner's genes. Orgasm isn't even tied to reproduction for females in the same way that it is for males; at best, it provides additional incentive to have PIV sex.
    That's the point. They have sex once with a man then find someone else.

    Except that nowhere in that explanation was there any mechanism which showed a connection between good genes and good sex.
    [/SPOILER]
    Women don't get pregnant every time. Men with larger genitalia have a greater chance of fertilization. Having sex more increases the woman's chance of fertility. More sex also makes sure the male never thinks "hey, that's not mine."

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    I see what you're saying, and this is where I think you're stumbling:

    Feminist critiques of history treat some historical ideas, even "facts," as "popularly spread misconceptions."
    For example, see again the misconceptions about food acquisition in hunter-gatherer communities.

    Woohoo, reason!

    And as I noted in my reply to Medopine above, there are many areas where they are quite justified in doing so. There are also some where they are not, my point was simply that the original ZeeBeeKay thing was making some very, very dodgy claims on no evidence, and contradicting a vast amount of accepted history written by a huge variety of different people.

    Woohoo, we agree! Yeah, I checked out the ZeeBeeKay thing and it was way off the mark.
    I also disagree with the principle: well the history we have is biased one way, so let's look at it again with the opposing bias. This isn't all gender historians, but it is a significant (and vocal) proportion, and to me it makes them bigger fools than the lot they are reacting against.

    Why? Every gender-based approach I've heard in history or archeology has only provided valuable insight into the topic at hand. It's pretty obvious that women's roles and spheres were routinely ignored or glossed over in history and archeology up until a few decades ago.

    Do you have a good example of a feminist claim that's both a clear counter to a supposedly male-gendered historical statement and is clearly not supported by the available evidence?

    Zalbinion on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    For example, historians have only recently started saying that Troy existed, not because of revisionism, but because we found it.

    That's not really the question here though. The question is about the difference between saying that Troy the city existed, and saying that the Iliad is true.

    Why do you think it took so long to find it? That's right, they found charred ruins.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Smasher wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But orgasms are what encourage us to have sex, and one of the main reasons postulated for the non-guaranteed orgasm is to encourage the woman to sleep around, if not to make extra sure that she gets pregnant from her partner (the other major theory).

    What? If a person isn't guaranteed to get an orgasm, that would usually make them less likely to seek out sex. Men having a "guaranteed" orgasm sure doesn't make us any less interested in sex, and I have a hard time believing people would seek out casual sex nearly as much as we do if we didn't have any orgasms at all.

    No, because they'll try many times to get the same amount. With mice, if you give food every try of the lever, they'll try five times (number for example), at which point they're full. If you give every other time, they try ten times, for the same amount of food.

    That's because if they don't eat enough food they die. Sex is a strong urge, but you won't die if you don't have it.

    As a counterexample, laboratory studies* have been performed where electrodes were connected to regions of mice brains that govern pleasure. When those electrodes were connected to a lever the mice could press (thus stimulating the pleasure center of their brains) they would press the lever over 6,000 times an hour, and even forgo food and water in order to keep pressing the lever. The exact mechanism for sexual pleasure may differ from that, but it demonstrates the principle that intense, consistent pleasure is an extremely effective motivator.

    * source

    Smasher on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    My point was that there is no comparison of the likely consequences. In one case we invaded another country and are now stuck in a complete quagmire costing lives, money and international standing. In the latter, there is essentially no difference unless it's somehow of vital importance to the modern jobs industry whether women really could out-gather men or something.

    I disagree. If the latter argument were effective & contributed to either the pro- or anti- arguments about equality legislation in the ways you mentioned in even the US, it could affect vastly more people, finances & international standing (social impact) than a mere limited war like Iraq. It's hardly likely to appear in a presidential stump speech, but then Rumsfeld didn't sell Shock And Awe by talking about Blitzkrieg either.
    And of course, the exact same logic applies in reverse - if there are popular misconceptions, we should be correcting them so as not to make bad judgements - for which NS has been unconvincing thusfar.

    Of course, the problem is NS is comparing periods of time that are more like talking about Roman military strategy in reference to the war in Iraq.

    Sorry, I'm being dense - NS?
    EDIT: Additionally, prove that anyone is saying "let's look at it with the opposite bias". That's not feminism.

    Ha! Prove that I was saying all the crap Cat & people over the last page were accusing me of saying? Touche? Still, people do talk & write in that manner, and whether fair or not to the label, they do get called feminists.
    EDIT 2: Anyone who isn't regarded by everyone else as completely insane because there's plenty of unique crazies on every side and they have nothing to do with things more towards the middle.

    Now you're just editing to make me jealous.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Smasher wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Smasher wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But orgasms are what encourage us to have sex, and one of the main reasons postulated for the non-guaranteed orgasm is to encourage the woman to sleep around, if not to make extra sure that she gets pregnant from her partner (the other major theory).

    What? If a person isn't guaranteed to get an orgasm, that would usually make them less likely to seek out sex. Men having a "guaranteed" orgasm sure doesn't make us any less interested in sex, and I have a hard time believing people would seek out casual sex nearly as much as we do if we didn't have any orgasms at all.

    No, because they'll try many times to get the same amount. With mice, if you give food every try of the lever, they'll try five times (number for example), at which point they're full. If you give every other time, they try ten times, for the same amount of food.

    That's because if they don't eat enough food they die. Sex is a strong urge, but you won't die if you don't have it.

    As a counterexample, laboratory studies* have been performed where electrodes were connected to regions of mice brains that govern pleasure. When those electrodes were connected to a lever the mice could press (thus stimulating the pleasure center of their brains) they would press the lever over 6,000 times an hour, and even forgo food and water in order to keep pressing the lever. The exact mechanism for sexual pleasure may differ from that, but it demonstrates the principle that intense, consistent pleasure is an extremely effective motivator.

    * source

    Yes, but the mice didn't go limp after every signal, and pure pleasure is different from a pleasure, as our minds are wired for novelty, so the value of a type of pleasure goes down every time it's received.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    For example, historians have only recently started saying that Troy existed, not because of revisionism, but because we found it.

    That's not really the question here though. The question is about the difference between saying that Troy the city existed, and saying that the Iliad is true.

    Why do you think it took so long to find it? That's right, they found charred ruins.

    Well hell, you've convinced me. That must mean that Paris chose Helen over an immortal goddess & thus pissed off all the other deities; that Achillies was invulnerable everywhere except his heel; etc etc.

    Yes?
    Zalbinion wrote:
    Woohoo, we agree! Yeah, I checked out the ZeeBeeKay thing and it was way off the mark.

    Thank you. That's all that this general idiocy came from.
    Do you have a good example of a feminist claim that's both a clear counter to a supposedly male-gendered historical statement and is clearly not supported by the available evidence?

    Been a while since I've had history academics to mind, and as should be obvious, I'm not too keen on the feminist literature. I was going to put a Susan Strange example here, but it's more Marxist than feminist & thus a bad example. So, no, I don't. I only mention Susan Strange because a lot of Marxist political commentators do exactly the same thing, particularly in dismissing the importance of war & conflict in the formation / maintainance of states and such.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Ha! Prove that I was saying all the crap Cat & people over the last page were accusing me of saying? Touche? Still, people do talk & write in that manner, and whether fair or not to the label, they do get called feminists.

    Name some. Now.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Been a while since I've had history academics to mind, and as should be obvious, I'm not too keen on the feminist literature. I was going to put a Susan Strange example here, but it's more Marxist than feminist & thus a bad example. So, no, I don't. I only mention Susan Strange because a lot of Marxist political commentators do exactly the same thing, particularly in dismissing the importance of war & conflict in the formation / maintainance of states and such.

    Surely you see the difference between arguing "country X was formed in 1873" and "country X was formed because of Y"? Because you can disagree with the latter, but you cannot say that its acceptance as truth devalues or obviates the former. Because now I'm starting to get worried.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    If History were all just Facts then historians would never argue on any subject ever. Almost the entirety of the discipline is personal opinion.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    For example, historians have only recently started saying that Troy existed, not because of revisionism, but because we found it.

    That's not really the question here though. The question is about the difference between saying that Troy the city existed, and saying that the Iliad is true.

    Why do you think it took so long to find it? That's right, they found charred ruins.

    Well hell, you've convinced me. That must mean that Paris chose Helen over an immortal goddess & thus pissed off all the other deities; that Achillies was invulnerable everywhere except his heel; etc etc.

    The war was started because Paris took Helen as his wife (in the backstory, he did it with the help of a goddess, which I can't believe you got wrong), and her husband got the rest of the Pelopenesian League, as I believe I read Greece was called, to enforce his being pissed off.
    That's what Homer wrote, and that's what many historians had thought he made up before the "revisionists" changed historical thinking.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Did Achilles actually fight a river? Did Hera send serpents to devour the Trojan who thought the horse was a trick?* The Iliad may have been related to a historical city or a historical war, but it's clearly mythical, and not a reliable historical source.

    * Not in the Iliad, but part of the myth of Troy.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ^ ^ ^

    Thank you. I didn't think the point was really that hard to grasp Scalfin.
    AEthelred wrote:
    If History were all just Facts then historians would never argue on any subject ever. Almost the entirety of the discipline is personal opinion.

    Well, lucky then that nobody here was saying that either History were all just Facts or that History were all just Personal Opinion. Also, the very large number of historians who spend most of their time researching documentation might justifiably disagree with your personal opinion about their job.
    The Cat wrote:
    Name some. Now.

    Very well, not this vein of history, but a recent thing in a chapter I read by Susan Jeffords, contained some very questionable assertions, book called something like Gender and the Vietnam War. What now, I'll re-hire my library copy, you'll go read it and report back when you disagree with me, and we'll dual with hardbacks? Where did you possibly see this line of argument going? :roll:

    Now, I'm going to bed.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The war was started because Paris took Helen as his wife (in the backstory, he did it with the help of a goddess, which I can't believe you got wrong).

    Er, no mate. That's the Penguin Classics version.

    If you actually knew the backstory, you might have recognised that I was referring to the Judgement of Paris, which in the mythology, is where the Trojan story starts off.

    Which would make you wrong, right?

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    Did Achilles actually fight a river? Did Hera send serpents to devour the Trojan who thought the horse was a trick?* The Iliad may have been related to a historical city or a historical war, but it's clearly mythical, and not a reliable historical source.

    * Not in the Iliad, but part of the myth of Troy.

    Yetis don't exist, but do you want to know a secret? The Himalayas do.
    The war did happen, and, with a few pieces of the spectacular, the evidence suggests that the battles happened as described.


    As I've had it recounted a thousand times, the competition was between three goddesses, with Helen being the bribe of one, as even described in your source, dumbass.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    AEthelred wrote:
    If History were all just Facts then historians would never argue on any subject ever. Almost the entirety of the discipline is personal opinion.

    Well, lucky then that nobody here was saying that either History were all just Facts or that History were all just Personal Opinion. Also, the very large number of historians who spend most of their time researching documentation might justifiably disagree with your personal opinion about their job.

    You very clearly said that anyone attempting to revise the existing historical orthodoxy on very early human history was trying to "change things which have been proven (to the best degree possible) to be true." You have no idea how History works. The 'truth' changes all the damned time.

    And I'd doing an MA in History at the moment, since you felt the need to bring qualifications into it.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Yetis don't exist, but do you want to know a secret? The Himalayas do.
    The war did happen, and, with a few pieces of the spectacular, the evidence suggests that the battles happened as described.

    Last I checked (and this is from a text from the early 90s, so there could very well be some new info I'm not aware of), there were at least nine Troys, each built one on top of the other, in what is now modern-day Turkey. Several were destroyed by fire, some by earthquake, but there is as yet no evidence that any of them were destroyed by war, with or without a big wooden horse.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    AEthelred wrote:
    If History were all just Facts then historians would never argue on any subject ever. Almost the entirety of the discipline is personal opinion.

    Well, lucky then that nobody here was saying that either History were all just Facts or that History were all just Personal Opinion. Also, the very large number of historians who spend most of their time researching documentation might justifiably disagree with your personal opinion about their job.

    You very clearly said that anyone attempting to revise the existing historical orthodoxy on very early human history was trying to "change things which have been proven (to the best degree possible) to be true." You have no idea how History works. The 'truth' changes all the damned time.

    And I'd doing an MA in History at the moment, since you felt the need to bring qualifications into it.

    Actually, I didn't say 'early human history' in that particular post. It wasn't 100% clear though; I was referring to the parts which contradicted some basic facts about Greco-Roman culture (ie Roman patriarchies, female & male gods in the pantheon, etc), which have been proven to the best degree possible and unless you can show me a serious body of work suggesting otherwise, I'm going to call "true". Not hard to see this if you read the rest of my posts - I'm hardly going to doubt the methodology of extrapolating social systems from archaeological digs in one post, then claim that this methodology produces 'fact' in the next?

    Yes, as I've already said, there can be a huge degree of interpretation in history. There is also plenty of factual information. Is the Domesday book interpretive? Sure, you can question the methods of collecting the information, but I've never seen any suggestion that the blokes reading parish records struck out half the wimminz because they didn't like them. They are the only records we have, so we use them. You should have learned the difference between imperfect information and interpretive bias by now. If you are seriously being taught that there is no such thing as fact in history, then you should report your university & ask for your fees back.

    If on the other hand you are simply overstating your case to make a point, how about going back a bit, read the various points where I have acknowledged that both interpretation & factual evidence play a part. Otherwise I'm not interested in talking about interpretation with a masters student who can't even interpret basic English.
    Scalfin wrote:
    As I've had it recounted a thousand times, the competition was between three goddesses, with Helen being the bribe of one, as even described in your source, dumbass.

    Oforfuckssake, just because you're being extraordinarily dense and not admitting fault even when it is blatently obvious & pointed out by several people. This is what I wrote:
    Sarastro wrote:
    That must mean that Paris chose Helen over an immortal goddess & thus pissed off all the other deities

    This is the story: Eris (Strife, subtle plot device that) plants an apple (we've heard this one before) at a feast of the Gods titled 'for the fairest'. Three godesses claim it. Paris was thus called to judge the beauty of Aphrodite, Athena and Hera. Being cheaty cnuts they all offered him various gifts to bribe him, Aphrodite's gift being the most beautiful mortal in the world, Helen. Paris chooses Helen (and thus by association Aphrodite). This pisses off Hera who had a bit of a hardon for him, and she mobilised various other gods in the Pantheon, varying depending on which versions you read, but including Athena (also annoyed by Paris refusing to accept her). Aphrodite herself had a bit of a crush on Paris & was picked by him, and so supports the Trojans. Thus the background mythology of gods intervening in the Iliad: Aphrodite saving Paris from Menelaus, Posidon helping the Greeks, Hera helping Posidon, Athena also helping the Greeks and so on.

    So since I was referring to the mythological content of the Iliad, "Paris choosing Helen over an immortal goddess and thus pissing off all the other deities" is exactly what fucking happened. Please learn to admit when you are wrong.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Yetis don't exist, but do you want to know a secret? The Himalayas do.
    The war did happen, and, with a few pieces of the spectacular, the evidence suggests that the battles happened as described.

    Last I checked (and this is from a text from the early 90s, so there could very well be some new info I'm not aware of), there were at least nine Troys, each built one on top of the other, in what is now modern-day Turkey. Several were destroyed by fire, some by earthquake, but there is as yet no evidence that any of them were destroyed by war, with or without a big wooden horse.
    I remember seeing an interesting show where they speculated the horse may have in fact just been a battering ram used to break down the wall (and showed that it wasn't infeasible that an army could do this vs the walls from Troy as represented by the archaeological finds).

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Indeed, I always thought Eddie Izzard had it right about the Trojan horse being somewhat unlikely.

    After 9 years of war, the Greeks leave one morning, saying "We're off now, you win! Er, we left you a fuckoff big wooden horse. You know...as per usual in the situation...hope you like it...byeee!" then sail off to hide just below the horizon to see if they fall for it.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    The babies were young enough so that the effects of social conditioning on them were negligible. I'll post the source when I dig it up; if you're curious you can check out the details.

    Please provide this info.
    ege02 wrote: »
    It is true that there is a link between frequency of orgasming and partners, but the mechanism doesn't exist to encourage women to sleep around, but rather to make sure they get the best set of genes.

    How does that work? Regardless of whether a male is a good sexual partner or a bad one, once he ejaculates then pregnancy either occurs or it doesn't.
    ege02 wrote: »
    Orgasm is a mechanism that increases the chances of pregnancy; the vagina's orgasmal contractions push the sperm deeper into the vagina.

    Baker and Bellis did a study on this in which they asked women about their extra-marital affairs. They found that in faithful women, about 55 percent of the orgasms were of the high retention (that is, the most fertile) type. In unfaithful women, only 40 percent of the copulations with their long-term partner were of this kind, but 70 percent of the copulations with the lover were of this type. Moreover, whether deliberately or not, the unfaithful women were having sex with their lovers at times of the month when they were most fertile. These two effects combined meant that an unfaithful woman in their sample could have sex twice as often with her husband as with her lover but was still slightly more likely to conceive a child by the lover than the husband.
    Baker, R. R., and Bellis, M. A. 1992. Human sperm competition; infidelity, the female orgasm and "kamikaze" sperm. Paper delivered to the fourth annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 22-26 July 1992.

    Similar studies have been done since, with similar results. You can read up on them in Sperm Wars by Robin Baker.

    That's great, but it doesn't really support your statement that women's multiple orgasms help sort out the best genes. All "Sperm Wars" suggests is that orgasm is a pregnancy aid; which really isn't surprising, but is also far from a guarantee. If anything, helping more sperm (i.e., the not-so-good sperm who otherwise might not have what it takes) to get to the ovum possibly decreases the suitability of the male's genes.
    ...Even that assumes that there's a correlation between good genes and good sperm. Really, all "Sperm Wars" does is potentially show that female orgasms increase female fertility, which isn't what you claimed.

    Sorry, I forgot to make the connection earlier.

    It has been common practice to look at animal behavior and social structures in order to try to make sense of human ones. Researchers did studies on socially monogamous species of birds to understand why the females would seek "extra-marital" partners. What they found was intriguing (and I'm sure if any birds were reading this they would be offended): they found that monogamous female birds, when they choose a long-term partner, sort of "settle"; they choose average male partners to cover their bases, i.e. even if they cannot find better partners to father their children, they have ensured their genes will pass on to the next generation. But they still actively seek out higher quality males to copulate with.

    In a sort of evolutionary arms race, male birds have developed various tricks to counteract this female behavior. They observed one species of a bird of paradise by attaching radar emitters to the males and their female partners. They found out that males follow their partners around all they long and never let them out of sight. If they do lose sight of them, they let out a cry of alarm that causes all the birds in the vicinity to take flight, thereby interrupting any copulations - including potential extra-marital ones - that are going on. Another study showed that male birds that do not see their female partners for most of the day "make up" for this by ejaculating a greater amount of sperm when they copulate with them. Humans are this way as well.

    So when you plug this in into the sperm wars theory and consider it in light of what I said about orgasms earlier, you can see how the fact that females have stronger and more frequent orgasms when they are with their "lovers" is a mechanism to make sure they get the best set of genes; their behavior of infidelity developed within the context of extra-marital partners being higher quality males.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    AEthelred wrote:
    If History were all just Facts then historians would never argue on any subject ever. Almost the entirety of the discipline is personal opinion.

    Well, lucky then that nobody here was saying that either History were all just Facts or that History were all just Personal Opinion. Also, the very large number of historians who spend most of their time researching documentation might justifiably disagree with your personal opinion about their job.

    You very clearly said that anyone attempting to revise the existing historical orthodoxy on very early human history was trying to "change things which have been proven (to the best degree possible) to be true." You have no idea how History works. The 'truth' changes all the damned time.

    And I'd doing an MA in History at the moment, since you felt the need to bring qualifications into it.

    Actually, I didn't say 'early human history' in that particular post. It wasn't 100% clear though; I was referring to the parts which contradicted some basic facts about Greco-Roman culture (ie Roman patriarchies, female & male gods in the pantheon, etc), which have been proven to the best degree possible and unless you can show me a serious body of work suggesting otherwise, I'm going to call "true". Not hard to see this if you read the rest of my posts - I'm hardly going to doubt the methodology of extrapolating social systems from archaeological digs in one post, then claim that this methodology produces 'fact' in the next?

    Yes, as I've already said, there can be a huge degree of interpretation in history. There is also plenty of factual information. Is the Domesday book interpretive? Sure, you can question the methods of collecting the information, but I've never seen any suggestion that the blokes reading parish records struck out half the wimminz because they didn't like them. They are the only records we have, so we use them. You should have learned the difference between imperfect information and interpretive bias by now. If you are seriously being taught that there is no such thing as fact in history, then you should report your university & ask for your fees back.

    If on the other hand you are simply overstating your case to make a point, how about going back a bit, read the various points where I have acknowledged that both interpretation & factual evidence play a part. Otherwise I'm not interested in talking about interpretation with a masters student who can't even interpret basic English.
    Scalfin wrote:
    As I've had it recounted a thousand times, the competition was between three goddesses, with Helen being the bribe of one, as even described in your source, dumbass.

    Oforfuckssake, just because you're being extraordinarily dense and not admitting fault even when it is blatently obvious & pointed out by several people. This is what I wrote:
    Sarastro wrote:
    That must mean that Paris chose Helen over an immortal goddess & thus pissed off all the other deities

    This is the story: Eris (Strife, subtle plot device that) plants an apple (we've heard this one before) at a feast of the Gods titled 'for the fairest'. Three godesses claim it. Paris was thus called to judge the beauty of Aphrodite, Athena and Hera. Being cheaty cnuts they all offered him various gifts to bribe him, Aphrodite's gift being the most beautiful mortal in the world, Helen. Paris chooses Helen (and thus by association Aphrodite). This pisses off Hera who had a bit of a hardon for him, and she mobilised various other gods in the Pantheon, varying depending on which versions you read, but including Athena (also annoyed by Paris refusing to accept her). Aphrodite herself had a bit of a crush on Paris & was picked by him, and so supports the Trojans. Thus the background mythology of gods intervening in the Iliad: Aphrodite saving Paris from Menelaus, Posidon helping the Greeks, Hera helping Posidon, Athena also helping the Greeks and so on.

    So since I was referring to the mythological content of the Iliad, "Paris choosing Helen over an immortal goddess and thus pissing off all the other deities" is exactly what fucking happened. Please learn to admit when you are wrong.

    The position that there is no truly objective recounting of history is the stance of the, currently, most famous historian, Zinn (or was it Zimm?). This is especially prescient, considering the fact that small examples of the exception that proves the rule tend to confudle the statement of overarching patterns, so that historians are sometimes a little too aggressive at smoothing things out and judging significance of events. Zinn's main example is this (workers'?) rebellion in New England after the revolution which turned into a complete massacre, but is mentioned in none of the history books.

    More accurately, Paris chose Helen over the other bribes, not the goddesses themselves (which is much closer to Gilgamesh than the Iliad). I view this as a fundamental difference. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain the (majority of) gods threw their support behind the Greeks, but didn't start the war themselves.
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Yetis don't exist, but do you want to know a secret? The Himalayas do.
    The war did happen, and, with a few pieces of the spectacular, the evidence suggests that the battles happened as described.

    Last I checked (and this is from a text from the early 90s, so there could very well be some new info I'm not aware of), there were at least nine Troys, each built one on top of the other, in what is now modern-day Turkey. Several were destroyed by fire, some by earthquake, but there is as yet no evidence that any of them were destroyed by war, with or without a big wooden horse.

    If I recall correctly, they found the ruins in the general area (maybe under modern Troy) that matched the described layout and showed destruction indicative of the rape described by both poets.


    Also, Ege, please read today's science section of The New York Times. One interesting article stated that babies of about six months (give or take a few due to my bad memory) already form pre-conceived assumptions from one piece of experience.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »

    That is awesome.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    More accurately, Paris chose Helen over the other bribes, not the goddesses themselves (which is much closer to Gilgamesh than the Iliad). I view this as a fundamental difference. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain the (majority of) gods threw their support behind the Greeks, but didn't start the war themselves.

    Oh well, I'm fairly sure I know a shitload more about greek myth than you do, having read & studied most of the surviving versions, of which there are many and varying for each one. That Paris chose Helen for her beauty, and the fact that the female godesses (what did that apple say again? are we seeing a trend here yet?) were in a competition of beauty, the fact that their various crushes on him are mentioned, and the roles they play (Aphrodite of Love, the seducer; Hera the mother, the powerful older woman; Athena the Huntress, the less interested tomboy) is vital to meaning. It not only carries the general capriciousness of the Greek pantheon, but also the highly sexualised nature of the myths, and the sense of a petty occurance yielding great fates, namely in the resulting war. To say it is just about Paris 'choosing Helen over the other bribes' is like saying Gulliver's Travels is just a fantasy story for kids. You might have only read a version which is just for kids, but the real thing is infinitely more complex, and the real meaning is completely different.

    I'm not entirely surprised you don't know any of this, because most of the modern versions of the myths I see (and the US ones are the worst) are absurdly puritanical, eliminate much or all of the sexuality, make the gods behave less like mortals and more like, you know, God, and are generally utter bastardisations of the actual mythology.

    So, and it's rarely I'll say this: you are totally wrong.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Sorry to harp on about this, but fucking Hallmark channel modern versions of ancient stories really do piss me off. They survived as classics for centuries or millenia for a reason, before some second rate commercial hack got paid to rape the original for mass consumption & muchos Christmas / Easter $$$. Many generations of kids have grown up reading Greek myths & such with pron intact (anyone here read the one where Zeus turns into a swan to fuck a Spartan queen in modern versions? Bestiality, adultery, rape, all that good stuff) without it needing to be dumbed down or censored for whatever dubious moral / educational reasons.

    Also strikes me that these rewritings dovetail on the thread subject as a peculiar example of political correctness. So, er, discuss?

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I don't think you can call that "political correctness" in the sense that most people understand the phrase; it's just plain old prudery.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    I know that, but the fact stands that he chose Aphrodite over the other goddesses, and Aphrodite's bribe over those of the other goddess': power and knowledge. Adding confounding details does not change that fact. Unless a Greek author has Paris giving Helen the apple, he did not pick her over any goddesses.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    That is awesome.

    Man, ENIAC couldn't even run WoW. All this does is prove conclusively that women are shitty computer engineers.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well, no, to be fair: no one's saying that it's wrong for a woman to do that sort of thing if you can't find a man to do it.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.