3 ms·

Like most of the article, this is just false.

by morelisp 3y ago

keepamovin 3y ago
Do you have a source for that? Which parts are false in your opinion?
- morelisp 3y ago
  The children vanishing, McKeam and Nelson dying in poverty, Nelson's house being destroyed, Hart dying of "a broken heart". And while not false the gloss of "large plantation owners" is absolutely odious, as another comment mentions. The source of most of this mess appears to be some Ann Landers column in turn apocryphally attributed to Rush Limbaugh Sr? Jesus christ. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2001-07-04-0107040006-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2001-07-04-010704... Perhaps read a history book or something?
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    So you take issue with a couple of points, and your main argument against this is an appeal to authority: the suggestion that any dissenting opinion to your own clearly hasn’t read the “right” history books. Also you assert the source of this post must be some column which you are also demonstratively dismissive of, yet you don’t say why. Have you conclusively dismissed all events stated in the article? It doesn’t seem your case is that strong right now. So why don’t we try to focus on what’s your main dislike? Could you explain your reason for the reflexive desire to disprove? I don’t understand where the suspicion comes from. Why are you and others seemingly eager to dismiss these histories? What would be so troubling to you if it were true? I’m genuinely curious.
    - morelisp 3y ago
      > Why are you and others seemingly eager to dismiss these histories? Because while I admit some part of me would be highly entertained by HN becoming a hotbed of dominionist propaganda, it's probably a net negative for society overall given the amount of wealth tied up here.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        Ok, I don't what that is, but I still don't know how or why you would think that it's propaganda? I know you don't like and take issue with the article, but can you provide an alternate readily available source that accounts for the fates of these 56 men after they signed the declaration of independence?
- toyg 3y ago
  Surely it's whoever puts up random historical facts, who should justify them with sources. The piece writer is a crooner, not a historian. Why would you take anything he says at face value?
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Why would you judge someone based on their profession? By that logic discussions on HN should be limited to only those areas where someone is a known expert. Your comment seems suspiciously like an ad hominem attack, which is normally a sign of a weak position, and lacking a strong argument. Would you like to have another go?
    - toyg 3y ago
      > Why would you judge someone based on their profession? Good luck getting cancer-treatment tips by Steve Jobs. But I see what you're really doing here. Doesn't really matter, the post was rightly binned. Have a great day.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        No I don't think you do. I'm interested > Surely it's whoever puts up random historical facts, who should justify them with sources. Yes quite. I posted an article, it seems to stand on its own. You claimed some other fact, but didn't provide a source. Perhaps your advice is wiser than you know! haha > Good luck getting cancer-treatment tips by Steve Jobs. Well lucky I never need them, but oh your edit is getting nastier isn't it? I get that you're not happy, but maybe you could explain your why, or provide some more sources?

Like most of the article, this is just false.

keepamovin 3y ago

Do you have a source for that? Which parts are false in your opinion?

morelisp 3y ago
The children vanishing, McKeam and Nelson dying in poverty, Nelson's house being destroyed, Hart dying of "a broken heart". And while not false the gloss of "large plantation owners" is absolutely odious, as another comment mentions. The source of most of this mess appears to be some Ann Landers column in turn apocryphally attributed to Rush Limbaugh Sr? Jesus christ. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2001-07-04-0107040006-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2001-07-04-010704... Perhaps read a history book or something?
- keepamovin 3y ago
  So you take issue with a couple of points, and your main argument against this is an appeal to authority: the suggestion that any dissenting opinion to your own clearly hasn’t read the “right” history books. Also you assert the source of this post must be some column which you are also demonstratively dismissive of, yet you don’t say why. Have you conclusively dismissed all events stated in the article? It doesn’t seem your case is that strong right now. So why don’t we try to focus on what’s your main dislike? Could you explain your reason for the reflexive desire to disprove? I don’t understand where the suspicion comes from. Why are you and others seemingly eager to dismiss these histories? What would be so troubling to you if it were true? I’m genuinely curious.
  - morelisp 3y ago
    > Why are you and others seemingly eager to dismiss these histories? Because while I admit some part of me would be highly entertained by HN becoming a hotbed of dominionist propaganda, it's probably a net negative for society overall given the amount of wealth tied up here.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      Ok, I don't what that is, but I still don't know how or why you would think that it's propaganda? I know you don't like and take issue with the article, but can you provide an alternate readily available source that accounts for the fates of these 56 men after they signed the declaration of independence?
toyg 3y ago
Surely it's whoever puts up random historical facts, who should justify them with sources. The piece writer is a crooner, not a historian. Why would you take anything he says at face value?
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Why would you judge someone based on their profession? By that logic discussions on HN should be limited to only those areas where someone is a known expert. Your comment seems suspiciously like an ad hominem attack, which is normally a sign of a weak position, and lacking a strong argument. Would you like to have another go?
  - toyg 3y ago
    > Why would you judge someone based on their profession? Good luck getting cancer-treatment tips by Steve Jobs. But I see what you're really doing here. Doesn't really matter, the post was rightly binned. Have a great day.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      No I don't think you do. I'm interested > Surely it's whoever puts up random historical facts, who should justify them with sources. Yes quite. I posted an article, it seems to stand on its own. You claimed some other fact, but didn't provide a source. Perhaps your advice is wiser than you know! haha > Good luck getting cancer-treatment tips by Steve Jobs. Well lucky I never need them, but oh your edit is getting nastier isn't it? I get that you're not happy, but maybe you could explain your why, or provide some more sources?