4 ms·
It was only stolen 100-200 years ago. It had survived for 2000-4000 years... I'm not sure your argument holds weight.
by rbg246 6y ago
It was only stolen 100-200 years ago. It had survived for 2000-4000 years... I'm not sure your argument holds weight.
- mellosouls 6y agoIf you read the link to the article about the Elgin marbles I posted in response to the original Brit-bashing comment that launched this thread, you'll see it does; at least in the sense that speaking authoritatively of rights and wrongs - as though the case is proven - is unwise.
- jshevek 6y agoI appreciate the form of your comment: A factual claim followed by a statement of uncertainty. My argument is that the comment to which I was responding was a non sequitur premised on a number of unstated assumptions. I threw in a few examples to invite the reader to think laterally, to investigate. You question my argument, so I wonder: Have you done so? Have you put the thought in to examine the claim made, and to see what other assumptions are being hidden? Regarding the facts you emphasize, I don't agree that "only" is a good modifier to place before "100-200 years" in this context. The 2000-4000 years you mention is entirely irrelevant, given survivorship bias.