This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 229230231 232233 ... 352
6901
« on: October 12, 2015, 11:38:27 AM »
Personally, I'm for this. Europeans didn't discover the Americas. People were already here.
Discuss
I figure the purpose of such a holiday as Columbus Day would be to celebrate the achievements of your ancestors, not to twist them into a means of white guilting everyone.
It's not about making you feel guilty. It's about stopping the whitewash of history that paints a monster as a great man. Columbus was as bad as Hitler or Stalin. Read up on what he did. He ordered the rape, murder and enslavement of an entire people. He committed genocide and got a national holiday out of it.
It's celebrated to commemorate the discovery of America in Western civilization. If it absolutely had to be change, "America Day" or "Discovery Day" would be much more accurate than "Indigenous People Day".
Again, America was already discovered by the people here. Indigenous People Day celebrates the ones who actually did it first
...and that's not the point of the holiday. Discovery by Western civilization. Columbus was a terrible man, but his discovery voyage is one of the two most important events of the era, and the most important for the state of the Americas themselves today. History would have played out much differently if it weren't for Columbus, and that's why it's celebrated: he's fundamentally the reason why we are here right now.
6902
« on: October 12, 2015, 11:28:01 AM »
Personally, I'm for this. Europeans didn't discover the Americas. People were already here.
Discuss
I figure the purpose of such a holiday as Columbus Day would be to celebrate the achievements of your ancestors, not to twist them into a means of white guilting everyone.
It's not about making you feel guilty. It's about stopping the whitewash of history that paints a monster as a great man. Columbus was as bad as Hitler or Stalin. Read up on what he did. He ordered the rape, murder and enslavement of an entire people. He committed genocide and got a national holiday out of it.
It's celebrated to commemorate the discovery of America in Western civilization. If it absolutely had to be change, "America Day" or "Discovery Day" would be much more accurate than "Indigenous People Day".
6903
« on: October 12, 2015, 11:25:38 AM »
I'm going to use Pokemon as an analogy here. You've got Charmander, and you name him Lunchmeat. Charmander evolves into Charmelion, but his name is still Lunchmeat. There are definitely a number of similarities between the two (moves, nature, stats at time of evolution, nickname), but Charmelion is not Charmander. That doesn't mean he isn't still Lunchmeat, but he isn't the same beast that he was before. Evolution requires changing; everyone changes over their lives. A phrase that's common, "I'm not the man I was yesterday"; you're still obviously the same man, but you have a fundamentally different mindset now. To that end, "I" is a constantly changing descriptor that entails the now, not the past or future. "I" is rooted in your experiences and predispositions, yes, but ultimately claiming a root doesn't justify the changes themselves nor is it able to accurately describe a person. I think that's my problem with your "fundamental root" position, that it doesn't really have anything to do with an "I". So, it's a semantic issue.
6904
« on: October 12, 2015, 11:17:32 AM »
Sort of relevant here: every religion has its own shittiness-sanctioned-by-god. Why did other religions put much of that behind them but Islam didn't?
I have an easier time believing that it's because the Middle East (well, to be more specific, most practitioners of the faith) hasn't had the kinds of societal advancement as other parts of the world have experienced, as opposed to it being intrinsic to Islam itself. (Religion and culture are intertwined and influence each other, after all.)
But then, that still doesn't explain why some Westerners will convert and change their views, unless grown adults are more impressionable than I realize.
Well, if my suspicions are right, it's because of immigration from the Middle East and the Middle East being a radical stir-pot. Radicalism begets radicalism; the more it spreads, the more severe it will be. It's the reason why you can talk to a level-headed and moderate Christian on Peachtree St in Atlanta, but move out to Kentucky and you're literally Satan for not being an evangelical fuckwad. Radical Christians don't migrate to Atlanta in large numbers, but places like 90% of Kentucky haven't changed since the last Great Awakening.
6905
« on: October 12, 2015, 11:13:44 AM »
Good read. I'm quite fond on the notion that common law is able to tailor the law to the case; but then again, the court system itself is considered the body of law (at least in the US) and constitutional interpretation, so it makes sense that they can alter the law based on precedence.
Has there ever been an attempt to bridge civil and common law? I realize that in many ways that they are fundamentally different, but slight changes would at least give the potential for minimizing cons.
6906
« on: October 12, 2015, 10:42:36 AM »
What's the migration rate from the Middle East to Bongistan? I ask because it's the general consensus that the ME is a practical breeding ground for radicalism; would the flux of immigrants affect those statistics noticeably?
6907
« on: October 12, 2015, 10:37:14 AM »
I'm not saying Columbus never used slave labor, either; just that it wasn't anywhere near the prolific status you're making it out to be. Slavery was a term of conquest; this happened in Europe, Asia, and Africa around that time as well (sans the Anglosphere, which practiced indentured servitude and a ward system). It's not because they were a different color, it's because they lost. So saying that he used slavery as a reason for why he's any worse than someone else of the time period is pretty silly, because it totally disregards the world facts of the time period.
6908
« on: October 12, 2015, 10:31:03 AM »
Columbus went to the Caribbean originally looking for gold, then threatened and killed a lot of the natives when they didn't know how to tell them that there was no gold. He later went on to enslave the natives to make them farm sugar, since he discovered that it was a cash crop that grew really well there, until they basically all died out from disease. Then he essentially became one of the main key players that made the African slave trade so prominent, as he shipped over hundreds of slaves across the Atlantic to make him more money.
Yeah, great guy.
He originally set off to reach India and set a new trade route since the Mediterranean path was cut off at that point by the Ottomans. He wouldn't have eventually made it to India, too, if I weren't for two continents being in the way.
The rest is true for subsequent voyages, though. Although the slave trade wasn't nearly as popular at that time as you're implying; indentured servants made up the bulk of the labor force until the late 17th or early 18th century, after the founding of Jamestown.
And the slavery bit didn't really start in Spanish-America until Encomienda, which was outlawed by the Queen and the Pope once they got wind of it.
Well yeah, he was trying to find a shorter route to India but that's the part of the story that pretty much everyone knows. Also no, Columbus primarily used slaves. Indentured servants primarily existed in Maryland/Virginia, and while there might've been some beyond that, slaves were the primary workforce. Especially for Columbus.
Indentured servants required some kind of compensation (land, usually) and freedom after so many years of work.
Columbus didn't sail for England, though; he sailed for Spain. They used a twisted form of the "trust system", where they "held the land for the natives to make sure it stayed in good condition". The natives had to work on these plots of land, but got housing and food for it; it was basically slave labor. Queen Isabella and the then Pope demanded that they cut that shit out after word got back overseas; that's when they switched to the church period of settlement, where they set up missionaries all throughout Spanish-America. To make up for the lack of native labor, the Spanish began to import slaves from other parts (Africa included). And the problem with Indentured servants was that the mortality rate was so fucking high in the colonies (a majority of indentured servants died from disease or working conditions) that they all either died or ran away into the forest. The first documented slave transaction in the English Colonies was in Jamestown, 1619. And until ~1690, Virgina was the only colony. So no, there was no slave labor until after Virgina began to supplement indentured servitude with African slavery. This is all a hundred years after Columbus, by the way. EDIT: I should also add the Columbus' last voyage was in 1502, a year before the Encomienda system was established.
6909
« on: October 12, 2015, 09:43:04 AM »
Happy COLUMBUS day.
Fuck indigenous people. If they're so smart, how come they're all dead.
Smallpox, influenza, and an unwillingness for inter-cooperation until it was too late.
6910
« on: October 12, 2015, 09:39:47 AM »
I don't doubt that he had other researchers on it, and his explanation for why their names aren't on it makes sense; but I find it hard to take the book as an unbiased source if I can't refer to the credibility of the work. Until such a time I can learn more about the conditions surrounding the book/read the book itself to see if there's a clear and present bias, no comment.
nigga it's glenn fucking beck
why are you even thinking of taking as an unbiased source
Because it's not a problem of just recognizing a bias, it's also knowing where it manifests. I honestly don't know enough information about the topic to be able to pinpoint exaggerations or discrepancies.
6911
« on: October 12, 2015, 09:15:51 AM »
I don't doubt that he had other researchers on it, and his explanation for why their names aren't on it makes sense; but I find it hard to take the book as an unbiased source if I can't refer to the credibility of the work. Until such a time I can learn more about the conditions surrounding the book/read the book itself to see if there's a clear and present bias, no comment.
6912
« on: October 12, 2015, 09:06:31 AM »
Columbus went to the Caribbean originally looking for gold, then threatened and killed a lot of the natives when they didn't know how to tell them that there was no gold. He later went on to enslave the natives to make them farm sugar, since he discovered that it was a cash crop that grew really well there, until they basically all died out from disease. Then he essentially became one of the main key players that made the African slave trade so prominent, as he shipped over hundreds of slaves across the Atlantic to make him more money.
Yeah, great guy.
He originally set off to reach India and set a new trade route since the Mediterranean path was cut off at that point by the Ottomans. He wouldn't have eventually made it to India, too, if I weren't for two continents being in the way. The rest is true for subsequent voyages, though. Although the slave trade wasn't nearly as popular at that time as you're implying; indentured servants made up the bulk of the labor force until the late 17th or early 18th century, after the founding of Jamestown. And the slavery bit didn't really start in Spanish-America until Encomienda, which was outlawed by the Queen and the Pope once they got wind of it.
6913
« on: October 12, 2015, 02:19:54 AM »
Digital is a scam.
Generally yeah, but I'm not going to pass up something that's discounted by 95% compared to trying to get a physical copy from eBay.
I'm not a huge fan of emulating, anways; it's not the same experience as playing it on the actual platform.
6914
« on: October 12, 2015, 02:04:12 AM »
That makes "I" incredibly vague; would that mean that evolutions from that initial plot are "I"s as well, or are they "you"s? At what point does an "I" become an "I"? The age at which memory begins, or with a solid understanding of self-awareness? When does it stop being "I", and start being something else? Is it always "I" so long as it started as one?
Of course it's vague--you're taking an individual and stripping him of everything that makes him him, leaving only his predispositions intact, because they're there from birth. It's gonna be pretty vague. I don't really know the answer to those questions, but I don't think they're necessary to understanding the concept of it.
I just don't understand how that can still be an "I", or "me", if it doesn't have anything to do with either of those things. It's a primordial playground, not an identifier of... identity.
6915
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:54:12 AM »
It's not even a framework, they are simple yes or no questions like "do you like the color blue"? They mean something eventually, but they alone don't set any kind of foundation for your evolution. They just stake possible ground.
All right--then "I" = possible ground. Call it whatever you want.
That makes "I" incredibly vague; would that mean that evolutions from that initial plot are "I"s as well, or are they "you"s? At what point does an "I" become an "I"? The age at which memory begins, or with a solid understanding of self-awareness? When does it stop being "I", and start being something else? Is it always "I" so long as it started as one? I'm not arguing against you here, I just don't completely understand what you're saying.
6916
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:50:41 AM »
A human, me thinks.
Maybe I am an alien that thinks she's a human. I am part of a conspiracy.
Say hi to Bourne and the Illuminati for me.
6917
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:49:48 AM »
That doesn't mean that you'd be guaranteed the same evolution of responses, only that there's a possibility of some number of traits re-emerging.
Exactly. So what's the problem?
Different circumstances, a same personality does not make.
I'm not saying it does, though. :-/ Refer to my edit.
Well refer to MY edit >:^(
6918
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:47:52 AM »
That doesn't mean that you'd be guaranteed the same evolution of responses, only that there's a possibility of some number of traits re-emerging.
Exactly. So what's the problem?
Different circumstances, a same personality does not make. It's not even a framework, they are simple yes or no questions like "do you like the color blue"? They mean something eventually, but they alone don't set any kind of foundation for your evolution. They just stake possible ground.
6919
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:45:49 AM »
Then you would be excluding the development of personality itself. Sure. Are people not predisposed to certain personality traits anyway?
Predisposition != inevitability. A predisposition toward alcoholism doesn't mean a confirmation that the person is guaranteed to become an alcohol, only that he or she should definitely abstain from it judging by family history.
I never said that. The predisposition is still there, regardless, lying dormant.
That doesn't mean that you'd be guaranteed the same evolution of responses, only that there's a possibility of some number of traits re-emerging.
6920
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:44:48 AM »
I was under the impression that it was only 6000 posts, that's why I made the thread.
No, it's not like that. It's more similar to the way it was in Bungie.net years ago. There is at least post count, activity, behavior, reputation and some more hidden values.
Does that mean that, some day, Minuano could evolve into guy to ban people?
6921
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:43:27 AM »
You can't really rush to Mythic, it will take time.
I was under the impression that it was only 6000 posts, that's why I made the thread.
AND YOU FAILED *sizzle*
6922
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:42:37 AM »
Oh? So what I am?
A human, me thinks.
6923
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:42:02 AM »
Then you would be excluding the development of personality itself. Sure. Are people not predisposed to certain personality traits anyway?
Predisposition != inevitability. A predisposition toward alcoholism doesn't mean a confirmation that the person is guaranteed to become an alcohol, only that he or she should definitely abstain from it judging by family history.
6924
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:40:03 AM »
oh/1oh
6925
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:38:53 AM »
Damn. So close.
I lied, it's 6,005 posts
6926
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:38:27 AM »
Night time.
6927
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:36:51 AM »
Actually 6,004 posts
6928
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:35:39 AM »
I thought that was a "many holidays are celebrated around events that had unfortunate outcomes" kind of post.
Yeah... nope lol.
oh
6929
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:35:19 AM »
The countless factors that create an ever layered individual personality from pre birth to the moment we die cannot be credited to the mind alone. Not if you exclude all those factors.
That's a bit disingenuous tbh
6930
« on: October 12, 2015, 01:34:01 AM »
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Thanksgiving was a celebration by Puritans, a way of "celebrating God's bountiful offerings as a sign of their eternal salvation".
Yeah but Canada is celebrating Thanksgiving this weekend.
That's why I said it, lol.
I thought that was a "many holidays are celebrated around events that had unfortunate outcomes" kind of post.
Pages: 1 ... 229230231 232233 ... 352
|
Show Posts