4 ms·

> Oh, so you do agree with me now... Please lay off the strawmen and just argue your point. Thank you. We don't know the content of the lost texts, but the fe

by olavk 9y ago

> Oh, so you do agree with me now... Please lay off the strawmen and just argue your point. Thank you. We don't know the content of the lost texts, but the few poems we have does not indicate anything heretical or immoral to Christian sensibilities. Calling her "a homosexual" is grossly anachronistic since this is 19th century concept. On the other hand, many texts which clearly are counter to Christian morality have been preserved. A vast array of texts from antiquity is lost, even something as highly valued as works by Aristotle. So that texts are lost does not in itself indicate a deliberate act of destruction.

acqq 9y ago
The name can come from the 19th century, but the practices are obviously very old and not widely "officially" condemned until the Christianity became the official religion, that much is clear. As it is clear that the awareness of Sappho and the topics of her poems was always there, in spite of her poems not surviving. And you still ignore the whole context of Constantinople from where we have the very report mentioned in the article. The article also never mentions why it should be doubted, given the whole context, nor you do. Also note that the artistic depictions of something what the Christians considered "ungodly" at some given time were traditionally under much higher pressure than some other topics, let's see even more context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm The art, compared to some other mediums, was always more probable to induce wishes of its destruction, as it communicates on the emotional level, independently of other cognitive capabilities of the consumers. One man was first often heard saying that John Lennon shouldn't have said that the Beatles are more popular than Jesus because "there should be nobody more popular than the Lord Jesus Christ." Later the same man did kill John Lennon, and recalled "I would listen to this music and I would get angry at him, for saying that he didn't believe in God... and that he didn't believe in the Beatles." Note, the fanaticism doesn't have to be (and often isn't) rational. Note that your responses also actually don't contain any historically usable arguments. But I surely can imagine you having the "feeling" that I'm wrong. That's how it starts.
- olavk 9y ago
  > Note that your responses also actually don't contain any historically usable arguments. Correct. I'm saying you have no significant evidence for your claim outside of pure speculation. I'm not making any particular counterclaim, since we simply don't have enough evidence either way. As a self-proclaimed atheist you might understand how this works. > But I surely can imagine you having the "feeling" that I'm wrong. I'm not sure if this is trolling, or you just don't see the irony of that statement?
  - acqq 9y ago
    > since we simple don't have enough evidence either way. We do have much more for my claim than for yours, as presented: the specific evidence for my claim is even in the original article. Your claim is just completely content-free "we don't have enough." Not enough for you, but it's still many indications in the context pointing in one specific direction, and one specific claim. That's how the history works. > a self-proclaimed atheist Why did you feel the need to use "self-proclaimed"? It's not something I wasn't ready to admit. An atheist I am, and I don't see any problem with that. It's not a "dirty word" for me. It is true that it would get me probably officially killed in some countries regulated by the "perfect" law of their god. Or by some religious people taking the specific words of their god seriously. That is a good reason I prefer remaining anonymous.
    - olavk 9y ago
      This article http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/07/the-mystery-of-sappho.html http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/07/the-mystery-... (from the same source) suggest her works were lost because the language simple wasn't understood in medieval times. This sounds more plausible than deliberate destruction.
    - dang 9y ago
      If you ignore our requests to stop taking HN into religious flamewar again, we will ban you. I'm not doing that yet out of appreciation for your many positive contributions to HN. But these other ones are not ok.
anigbrowl 9y ago
You can't complain about things like that when your previous post was itself fallacious (red herring).
- olavk 9y ago
  What is the red herring?

by olavk 9y ago

acqq 9y ago

The name can come from the 19th century, but the practices are obviously very old and not widely "officially" condemned until the Christianity became the official religion, that much is clear. As it is clear that the awareness of Sappho and the topics of her poems was always there, in spite of her poems not surviving. And you still ignore the whole context of Constantinople from where we have the very report mentioned in the article. The article also never mentions why it should be doubted, given the whole context, nor you do. Also note that the artistic depictions of something what the Christians considered "ungodly" at some given time were traditionally under much higher pressure than some other topics, let's see even more context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm The art, compared to some other mediums, was always more probable to induce wishes of its destruction, as it communicates on the emotional level, independently of other cognitive capabilities of the consumers. One man was first often heard saying that John Lennon shouldn't have said that the Beatles are more popular than Jesus because "there should be nobody more popular than the Lord Jesus Christ." Later the same man did kill John Lennon, and recalled "I would listen to this music and I would get angry at him, for saying that he didn't believe in God... and that he didn't believe in the Beatles." Note, the fanaticism doesn't have to be (and often isn't) rational. Note that your responses also actually don't contain any historically usable arguments. But I surely can imagine you having the "feeling" that I'm wrong. That's how it starts.

olavk 9y ago
> Note that your responses also actually don't contain any historically usable arguments. Correct. I'm saying you have no significant evidence for your claim outside of pure speculation. I'm not making any particular counterclaim, since we simply don't have enough evidence either way. As a self-proclaimed atheist you might understand how this works. > But I surely can imagine you having the "feeling" that I'm wrong. I'm not sure if this is trolling, or you just don't see the irony of that statement?
- acqq 9y ago
  > since we simple don't have enough evidence either way. We do have much more for my claim than for yours, as presented: the specific evidence for my claim is even in the original article. Your claim is just completely content-free "we don't have enough." Not enough for you, but it's still many indications in the context pointing in one specific direction, and one specific claim. That's how the history works. > a self-proclaimed atheist Why did you feel the need to use "self-proclaimed"? It's not something I wasn't ready to admit. An atheist I am, and I don't see any problem with that. It's not a "dirty word" for me. It is true that it would get me probably officially killed in some countries regulated by the "perfect" law of their god. Or by some religious people taking the specific words of their god seriously. That is a good reason I prefer remaining anonymous.
  - olavk 9y ago
    This article http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/07/the-mystery-of-sappho.html http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/07/the-mystery-... (from the same source) suggest her works were lost because the language simple wasn't understood in medieval times. This sounds more plausible than deliberate destruction.
  - dang 9y ago
    If you ignore our requests to stop taking HN into religious flamewar again, we will ban you. I'm not doing that yet out of appreciation for your many positive contributions to HN. But these other ones are not ok.

anigbrowl 9y ago

You can't complain about things like that when your previous post was itself fallacious (red herring).

olavk 9y ago
What is the red herring?