5 ms·

It's not necessary to drag USA, but it's just an example of how stupid these arguments are. Historical facts needs to be analysed with the lens of what was cons

by zzzpaz 5y ago

It's not necessary to drag USA, but it's just an example of how stupid these arguments are. Historical facts needs to be analysed with the lens of what was considered normal at that time not with the lens on what we consider to be normal today. As many slaves were used also to build the pyramids for example or to some extend modern slavery is a thing in some countries (look at how Qatar is handling the construction of the stadiums for the 2022 fifa world cup). Why aren't we offended by what happen today as we've the right sensibility to understand this things? If that was not a great similitude is this a good one instead: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_of_U.S._Marines_urinating_on_Taliban_fighters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_of_U.S._Marines_urinat... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_priso... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_post-invasion_Iraq https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_post-invasio... This are pretty much modern and new example, instead of paying so much attention to what happened 2000 years ago you should consider to fight in order to avoid this things to happen again. Instead of doing some empty consideration on pretty old facts.

DrSiemer 5y ago
Most of the people here will be aware of all the examples you link to, and are generally appalled by them. But the fact that the world is still not perfect does not somehow prevent us from looking at the past through the lens of today's moral standards. Can you at least admit that we, as a species, have grown, because we no longer employ grand scale death pits? Someone can be offended by both historical atrocities AND the Qatar situation. The first we cannot change, the second we can still have some influence on. I would argue this is something we do more because something like the colosseum exists to remind us, not less.
- ggsp 5y ago
  Honest question—what is the purpose of being offended at something that happened during e.g. Roman times?
  - DrSiemer 5y ago
    In the context of discussing the value of the colosseum I used the wrong word here. The simple remark that started this was just someone expressing wonder over how many people must have died there, purely for the entertainment of the masses. The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace. Surely there is some better word that covers both the amazement about countless colosseum deaths and feeling resentment towards modern day atrocities, but I can't think of one. The fact that these things are not really connected is actually the point I am trying to make.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      I think you "ambivalent" rather than "ambiguous". I agree that there is no reason to judge the past with their "moral lens". Of course the people in ancient Rome (in total) thought it was okay to kill people in the Coliseum - they were the ones doing it and watching it.
      - DrSiemer 5y ago
        Ah, yes, thank you, I was a bit unsure about that word!
    - zzzpaz 5y ago
      > The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace. Please don't put word in my mouth as I never said what you just mentioned. If you want speak about history you need to consider the era that we are referring to. So yes, in the ancient time these things were commonplace (Romans, Greeks, Egyptian and Babylonian), in the contemporary era these are not. You can't use modern time logic to fight against ancient times. Otherwise next time we can spend the afternoon to speak about the code of Hammurabi and how stupid these laws were. A good start is to learn about the historic periods and understand how to put things into perspective before being offended by random fact far away https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by zzzpaz 5y ago

DrSiemer 5y ago

Most of the people here will be aware of all the examples you link to, and are generally appalled by them. But the fact that the world is still not perfect does not somehow prevent us from looking at the past through the lens of today's moral standards. Can you at least admit that we, as a species, have grown, because we no longer employ grand scale death pits? Someone can be offended by both historical atrocities AND the Qatar situation. The first we cannot change, the second we can still have some influence on. I would argue this is something we do more because something like the colosseum exists to remind us, not less.

ggsp 5y ago
Honest question—what is the purpose of being offended at something that happened during e.g. Roman times?
- DrSiemer 5y ago
  In the context of discussing the value of the colosseum I used the wrong word here. The simple remark that started this was just someone expressing wonder over how many people must have died there, purely for the entertainment of the masses. The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace. Surely there is some better word that covers both the amazement about countless colosseum deaths and feeling resentment towards modern day atrocities, but I can't think of one. The fact that these things are not really connected is actually the point I am trying to make.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    I think you "ambivalent" rather than "ambiguous". I agree that there is no reason to judge the past with their "moral lens". Of course the people in ancient Rome (in total) thought it was okay to kill people in the Coliseum - they were the ones doing it and watching it.
    - DrSiemer 5y ago
      Ah, yes, thank you, I was a bit unsure about that word!
  - zzzpaz 5y ago
    > The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace. Please don't put word in my mouth as I never said what you just mentioned. If you want speak about history you need to consider the era that we are referring to. So yes, in the ancient time these things were commonplace (Romans, Greeks, Egyptian and Babylonian), in the contemporary era these are not. You can't use modern time logic to fight against ancient times. Otherwise next time we can spend the afternoon to speak about the code of Hammurabi and how stupid these laws were. A good start is to learn about the historic periods and understand how to put things into perspective before being offended by random fact far away https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]