tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post113426397717237850..comments2024-01-20T05:01:49.819-07:00Comments on Agora: Meeting the Challenge: George Bush Casts His Shadow on HistoryLysishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-59248189670310815002011-03-26T04:53:55.512-06:002011-03-26T04:53:55.512-06:00The stricken general had been deserted on the batt...The stricken general had been deserted on the battle field by allies who cut and ran at the approach of Hannibal.About Health Bloghttp://8stress8.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134934173303465492005-12-18T12:29:00.000-07:002005-12-18T12:29:00.000-07:00Verus,I’m impressed that you got your statistics f...Verus,<BR/><BR/>I’m impressed that you got your statistics from Lancet! Just by virtue of that fact it makes those statistics credible?<BR/><BR/>C’mon Verus! I read the study. Also from what I have read, many European news outlets are frustrated the American media hasn’t really talked about the study. I HATE defending our media, but why don’t you think they have talked about it? Lysis explained it very well, but for your edification I’ll rehearse it again.<BR/><BR/>The “study” is considered accurate between a range of 8,000 and 194,000. Versus, without any polling #’s you could have thrown out that range and been just as accurate! If I could get that kind of range on a bet in Vegas I would jump at it! It is completely BOGUS!<BR/><BR/>I know that you later deferred to the President’s numbers. Why then, so difficult for met to let go of this? You throw out completely bogus numbers from a bogus study and in the same breath you imply that Lysis is afraid or unwilling to give a “FACTUAL” answer. You ought to live by that standard! Don’t draw your conclusion then look for evidence to support it! Look at the evidence then draw your conclusion!<BR/><BR/>My research netted the same conclusion on the numbers that the President stated. His numbers weren’t bogus! I never said they were! I accept them. The only question I have (and it is a legitimate question) is who actually did the killing? <BR/><BR/>Do you suggest that our military has killed or been responsible for those 30,000 deaths? If so my response is BULL! It is an argument neither side can quantify. My common sense tells me I am on firm ground. <BR/><BR/>You, yourself, “shifted definitions and principles” as a demonstration of the “hallmark of relativism” when you gave the old “Nu-Uh” and went with the President’s figure! As I said before, don’t draw your conclusion then look for evidence to support it! Look at the evidence then draw your conclusion!<BR/><BR/>As to the civilian deaths in Iraq, I addressed that. I won’t bore you by rehearsing it again. It is what I believe.<BR/><BR/>Will we ultimately be successful? I don’t know. I am certain that the President acted correctly. If you will allow me one generalization; just like all the naysayers in this debate, you suggest after each monumental success that the failure is coming next. First there wasn’t enough global support. Then the military action wouldn’t be successful. We could never capture Sadaam. Elections would never work. Now there will be a leadership vacuum when we leave.<BR/><BR/>Step by step, every hurdle has been overcome. I hope the seed of freedom have taken root. It will be amazing to watch!<BR/><BR/>P.S. – Not ignoring your “torture” comment. I’ve got to go, but will happily address it later.Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134918124534972542005-12-18T08:02:00.000-07:002005-12-18T08:02:00.000-07:00Refusing to give up ones belief in false statistic...Refusing to give up ones belief in false statistics just because one wants them to be true is the hallmark of relativism.<BR/><BR/>It is also instructive, to all flies on walls, that Lysis Verus, unable to find any bad news in the present situation in Iraq; precedes to dream of disasters that will provide support for his anti Bush position in some imaginary future. I haven’t seen L.V. so disappointed or so desperate since Hurricane Katrina failed to kill 25,000 people and cause the collapse of America.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134860270733245742005-12-17T15:57:00.000-07:002005-12-17T15:57:00.000-07:00"I smiled at the pleasure he took in “stumping me”..."I smiled at the pleasure he took in “stumping me”, and we went on to discuss his upcoming math test. I thought, as he explained the processes of graphing distances; My young friend, you have not proven the failings of subjective truth; you have only proven your own ignorance; your ignorance of what is in the box, and your ignorance of the power of forces beyond your philosophy."<BR/><BR/>Wow Lysis, I've heard of the blind leading the blind but this is the smug stumping the uber-smug. I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you two 'debate' but then perhaps not cause I'd likely want to kill myself.<BR/><BR/>Rumpole, my stats are not 'bogus', they're cited from the Lancet. I granted the perhaps the source is off base but then I cited Bush! Is *he* a 'bogus' source now too? I thought that shifting definitions and principles were the hallmarks of relativism, Rumpole. So Iraq is 'free'? Good, we'll see how long that lasts after we stop hemmoraging US blood and US treasure on their 'freedom'. If the 'freedom' lasts (possible but not likely) you'll be proved right, good for you. If they plunge into bloody civil war culminating in a brutal theocracy or brutal strong-arm dictatorship (either is much more likely) then sadly, very sadly we'll see the bad consequences of meddling the world over. Perhaps someday we'll adopt what *CANDIDATE* Bush wisely called for: 'A more humble US foreign policy' But wait, Bush is a relativist because HE shifts principles and policies right along with the winds of public opinion~ most recent example, McCain's torture thing~ How very Clintonesque! <BR/><BR/>~VerusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134756020003606232005-12-16T11:00:00.000-07:002005-12-16T11:00:00.000-07:00My philosophy professor and I were having a bit of...My philosophy professor and I were having a bit of a tussle the other day. How does one know what is right and wrong? What is truth? Can one believe in God? Did the Holocaust really happen? You know; all the same old same old. An empiricist, tied to his absolute faith in his senses; he insisted he could not know I was telling him the truth on some point of the adoption of the Iraqi constitution. <BR/><BR/> “Don’t you trust me,” I asked? <BR/><BR/>“It’s not a matter of trust,” he explained. He held out my daughter’s scripture case, “Let’s say this is a box,” he continued. “A box you have never opened.” <BR/><BR/>“OK.” I agreed.<BR/><BR/>“Is there a ball in the box,” he asked?<BR/><BR/>“I don’t know,” I admitted.<BR/><BR/>His face beamed triumphant.<BR/><BR/>“But,” I said, “what if I had looked in the box? And you asked me that question; couldn’t you take my word for it.”<BR/><BR/>“No. We disagree on nearly everything.” he intoned. (Poor dumb Lysis.) “Don’t you see? You have no way of proving it to me!” His point, only objective truth is deducible.<BR/><BR/>I smiled at the pleasure he took in “stumping me”, and we went on to discuss his upcoming math test. I thought, as he explained the processes of graphing distances; My young friend, you have not proven the failings of subjective truth; you have only proven your own ignorance; your ignorance of what is in the box, and your ignorance of the power of forces beyond your philosophy. It is like a blind man insisting there is no light because he can not see it, that no one sees because he cannot comprehend sight. It is hard to go back to the cave!<BR/><BR/>The box is closed on the Holocaust, but the truth of that historic event exists. If we discount reason and faith in our search for that truth all we will prove is our ignorance. It is our job to assess the reports from those who have seen within and apply the reason and faith we live by.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134755794495735432005-12-16T10:56:00.000-07:002005-12-16T10:56:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134686016629344042005-12-15T15:33:00.000-07:002005-12-15T15:33:00.000-07:00Dan:I likewise must keep this short.Have you ever ...Dan:<BR/>I likewise must keep this short.<BR/><BR/>Have you ever argued with a person who "fanatically" denies the Holocaust?<BR/><BR/>I had this experience a few years ago with an out of town individual who was making some purchases at my friends bookstore, *The Bookshelf*, in Ogden. The nature of his purchases (they were literature of that particular ilk) made me ask a few questions that by the end of three hours had turned into a terrible shouting row.<BR/>I don't fancy myself being the easiest person to argue/debate with, and I think I at least held my own. But a lesson for me in all of this was how easy it was for him to inerpret and reinterpret historical<BR/>"fact" to reach preposterous historical conclusions -- we argued with almost all the same data, his generalizations and conclusions though were radically different from mine.<BR/><BR/>The STORY part of history is what most people find so compelling and debatable -- historical data is often as interesting as reading the phone book. But we have a BELIEF that data will support the "TRUTH" of our interpretations, so we try to amass every jot and tittle of "evidence" and it still filters like water through our fingers.<BR/> <BR/>Fixing a particular event in space and time to say it "happened" gives us only a semblance of control -- and I think even THAT is cursory and an illusion. Did the Red Sea part for the children of Israel? How faithful was Plato to Socrates in the Dialogues? Was Sidhartha jaded more than enlightened? Did Helen of Troy really exist? Did O.J. murder his wife?<BR/>Now I am SURE that there was a brutal, brutal holocaust, but in reality that is what I believe!!!!<BR/><BR/>VERY DEEP is the well of the past . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134683538396848672005-12-15T14:52:00.000-07:002005-12-15T14:52:00.000-07:00Anonymous: Thank you for the obvious effort you h...Anonymous: Thank you for the obvious effort you have gone to for OUR edification. Please continue, we WILL benefit from your definitions. (Hopefully we’ll be able to interpret them in general and particular.)<BR/><BR/>Now that WE understand Hermeneutics, what scripture, historic document, or current event will you interpret? Maybe you could give your interpretation of the majestic success of today’s democratic elections in Iraq. Now that you have established your foundation, will you present the neo-Kantian or the neo-Lib spin on the facts?Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134677511774313942005-12-15T13:11:00.000-07:002005-12-15T13:11:00.000-07:00Lysis definition of hermeneutics --"Interpretation...Lysis definition of hermeneutics --<BR/><BR/>"Interpretation of scripture. Do you find that by reason, faith, or your own opinions?"<BR/><BR/>I had previously referred to terminology that SHOULD be an integral part of ANY *Theory of History* class -- Hermemeutics was the fist term on the list.<BR/>Lysis' chose to offer "definitions" of all the terminology for reasons of his own, but really to make aspersions about "philospeak" and my competence and pretty much do again what I already said he would do, "thumb his nose." However, in yesterday's posting Lysis remarked that *I* didn't know the words myself, that "I use them to justify my determination to avoid thinking."<BR/><BR/>The CONTEXT for my use of "big words" was Dan's Theory of History class -- I contended that an integral part of ANY such discussion of theory should be the word hermeneutics et al.<BR/><BR/>Lysis responded, Hermeneutics is "interpretation of scripture" and then rhetorically asks me how I do that? By this non-sequitur I think he meant to be insulting, but, otherwise his definition does not address the topic *Theory of History* which makes ME conclude that it is LYSIS who wants to PRETEND he knows the definition bluff knowing HOW I was using it as an example.<BR/>-Hermeneutics<BR/>Closely related words used at the college level are hermeneutic and "hermenutics"; words that have come to us from the Greek word for "interpret". Hermeneutic is an adjective meaning interpretive or explanatory.(Which Dan's "historical" comment indicated he was doing) Hermeneutics is the study of and methodology of interpretgation of the ways of discovering meanings. As a science of textual interpretetion it was originated by Fredrich Schiermacher (1768-1834) a German theologen and philologist (more "big" words). His biographer Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) a German neo-Kantian (big word) philosopher (philospeak) of HISTORY, extended the idea to HISTORY and the human sciences, suggesting that hermeneutics provided a METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATION for the cultural sciences that is distinct from the methodological foundation of the NATURAL SCIENCES (IE; THEORY OF HISTORY!!!!)<BR/><BR/>SINCE THAT TIME, HERMENEUTICS HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD AS THE **THEORY** OF INTERPRETATION IN GENERAL.<BR/><BR/>As a summation I'll quote from Lysis--<BR/><BR/>"I fear your longed for sophistication is just an attempt to muddy waters. Your motives I will not specifically impugn, but many who argue likewise are simply seeking America's failure so they can seize power."<BR/>And<BR/>"I would think you would thank me for enlightening you, not chide me with indoctrination" and ignorance!!!!<BR/><BR/>Hey Kids. More "unadulterated" definitions of "big words" in my next posting. Can we say teleology, eschatology, and axiology? Work towards you OWN philospeak dictionary!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134671094082056032005-12-15T11:24:00.000-07:002005-12-15T11:24:00.000-07:00Anonymous, I will keep this brief, as Lysis lightl...Anonymous, I will keep this brief, as Lysis lightly touched on my point. <BR/><BR/>To believe that there is no way to empirically prove historical truths vs. myths only shows a lack of understanding.<BR/><BR/>Now, I know you think very little of my University education. But as I was getting my two bachelor's degrees (one in history and the other in anthropology) I learned just how well these two disciplines fit hand in hand.<BR/><BR/>You see, archaeology provides concrete evidence of historical records. Of course, it is true that this discipline, much like ANY science, is filled with gaps and theory, but it does provide concrete evidence of some things.<BR/><BR/>To prove my point about writings of historians not changing truth, look to this example. Where one of the early historians of the Inca empire to write about how they were very primitive medically, and they were unable to perform simple surgeries, this would be false.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if what you say is true we could never know whether or not the claim of Incan medical inferiority was true. Fortunately archaeological evidence gives us insight.<BR/><BR/>We know through things we have found that brain surgeries were performed, and not only were they performed, they were successful and the patients lived for years afterwards.<BR/><BR/>Now, my point in this is the same as the last post. A thing either happened one way or another. That fact cannot be changed by how people write about it. History, like almost all knowledge, must be sifted through our own reason.<BR/><BR/>But to claim that we cannot know whether or not something happened historically is to pander to the same kind of horrible 'intellectual' thought that spawns such schools of thought as holocaust denial.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134614015488077662005-12-14T19:33:00.000-07:002005-12-14T19:33:00.000-07:00Verus,I didn’t miss your point on the 100,000+ vs....Verus,<BR/><BR/>I didn’t miss your point on the 100,000+ vs. 30,000 figures. Your latest response to justify the disparity forces me to disagree with you on a couple of different levels. <BR/><BR/>First, your statement “. . . but I’m sure 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians would tend to disagree with you, but hey they’re all dead so who cares what they might think.” You then go on to challenge Lysis’ students (referring to French intervention in the Revolutionary War) as follows: “I dare you to ask him and I dare him to give you a FACTUAL answer.<BR/><BR/>Doesn’t this same standard apply to you? When the credibility of the “facts” you use come into serious question is it enough just to give (in your own words), “nu-uh, the old Agora response?”<BR/><BR/>It DOES make a difference which “fact” you use to back your argument. I can’t accept the argument if the “facts” used to back it are BOGUS!<BR/><BR/>Second, let’s go ahead and use the 30,000 figure. Does that come anywhere near the 400,000 figure (according to British Prime Minister Tony Blair - see cpa-iraq.org) of deaths attributed to Saddam during his reign of terror? I do not mean to take a single life and equate it to a checkers piece, but if 30,000 had to lose their lives to save the next 400,000 (while providing freedom to a nation of millions in the process), isn’t it worth it?<BR/><BR/>Further, who actually killed the 30,000? It is difficult to quantify, but I believe (and as Lysis has already pointed out) many of those were killed not by U.S. forces, but by terrorists!<BR/><BR/>The vote is tomorrow! Iraq is free! Don’t sully that with BOGUS STATISTICS!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I applaud your effort for finally addressing the question “make the war go better.” It was a weak effort, but I acknowledge it nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>What “stonewalling” has the President been guilty of? What new revelations have we seen in his recent speeches? These are rhetorical questions! He has said nothing new!<BR/>He has been completely candid about his approach in Iraq from the beginning. If I am wrong, then please, give me specifics!<BR/><BR/>In my estimation all he has done is spoon feed those who could not understand his already clearly stated undertaking! I do agree that this approach will yield him fruit. It is a sad fact many Americans struggle with long-term memory. I would also agree that he should have been taking this approach all along. Apparently he overestimated the intelligence of his detractors.<BR/><BR/>The vote is tomorrow! Iraq is free!Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134611552703526762005-12-14T18:52:00.000-07:002005-12-14T18:52:00.000-07:00Anonymous – I have no fear of words what so ever. ...Anonymous – I have no fear of words what so ever. I understand quite well what the ones you listed mean. I surmise that you don’t; you don’t use them to explain anything, you just list them. You don’t apply the ideas they represent to discovering truth, rather you use them to justify your determination to avoid thinking. I know the words; I’d like to hear some facts. Your response to any situation you can’t handle is to throw words rather than present facts. THERE ARE HISTORIC FACTS. The Empiricist position that, only sense input can verify data is spurious. Were there no human minds to contemplate, events and facts would still exist. Dannyboy’s observation that, ones opinion cannot change “what actually happened”, is not only NOT naïve, it’s true. <BR/><BR/>Interestingly enough, we have plenty of “sense experience” relating to the present war in Iraq. We can hear when politicians lie; we can see the sources; we can find facts that make laughable the assertions of “prestigious medical journals.” For you to retreat behind a position that “my opinion is as true as yours because you can’t take its temperature” is ludicrous. <BR/><BR/>Those of us, who have been paying attention, uses our sense as well as our senses, have been aware of President Bush’s leadership all along. Isn’t it sad that our President needs to explain to the rulers of American (We the People) the importance of defending freedom? As for Gen Murray’s suggestions, please air them for us! I do know that President Bush has taken the advice of his generals and field commanders from day one. We have the testimony of our generals to corroborate that truth. As he continues to do, President Bush has always taken responsibility for their mistakes while allowing them the glory of their successes. This is another sign of his the quality of his leadership. <BR/><BR/>Also:<BR/>I am saddened that our President must constantly explain the necessity of the fight for our freedom and our lives. If the Democrat leadership, who supported the war when it was in their political interest, would have continued to do so rather that attempting to use lies for political gain; Americans would not need to be tutored in the truth.<BR/><BR/>Also:<BR/>As for “Swift Boats”; I am so glad that the Swift Boat Vets had the courage and the opportunity to tell the truth about John Kerry. I hope that any similar need will be fulfilled by men of equal integrity and courage. <BR/><BR/>Also:<BR/>Where is your outrage at the murders committed by Saddam and the terrorists? Where is the attitude of gratitude for President Bush’s courage and for the sacrifice of America servicemen? Where is the jubilation over the elections beginning in Iraq; even as we sit safe in our homes? <BR/><BR/>I agree with you that we have much to learn from the stories of our past. Homer inspired Heinrich Schliemann to search for Troy. Schliemann’s discoveries filled our world with facts. Empirical evidence that brought the stories of the Iliad into the world we live in, but they did nothing to improve the truths that the Iliad has always taught.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134599154457386942005-12-14T15:25:00.000-07:002005-12-14T15:25:00.000-07:00Lysis/Dan:Of course, I am not familiar with the cu...Lysis/Dan:<BR/>Of course, I am not familiar with the curriculum of the "Theory of History" course -- my comments were about summative things Dan said he had LEARNED about *historical theory*,ie; --"Different points of view, or bias, cannot" change what ACTUALLY happened."<BR/><BR/>I have an idea what is commonly meant by "SCIENTIFIC objectivity" with regards to observation and experimentation in science. <BR/> <BR/>However, some at the Agora like to CO-OPT Scientific Objectivity (for their own meagre purposes)and make a hybrid and corrupted form of History known as PSEUDO HISTORICAL OBJECTIVITY -- There is NO absolute, and very little other, Historical Objectivity close to the certainty of water boiling at 100 degrees <BR/>C at sea level. The experimental data confirm the result EVERY TIME. But historical analysis does not allow experimental data to confirm generalizations, no matter how well-founded or self-serving --experimentation, control groups and randomization cannot legitimately exist for historical analysis. Let's not propagandize people by implying that they do!<BR/>SOOOOOO<BR/><BR/>Dan's comment about ". . .cannot change what ACTUALLY happened" Is incredibly naive when placed within the context of what he SHOULD have learned in his Theory of History Class -- even a whimsical encounter with<BR/>Hermaneutics, Eschatology, Metaphysics, Axiology, Epistemology, Historiography, Teleology should have prevented THAT generalization altogether!!!!(No personal attack intended. Other than what you post here, I do not know you personally or otherwise.)<BR/><BR/>Now, Lysis:<BR/><BR/>I didn't know you had such a phobia for "big words"<BR/> <BR/>Of course, you know, that ANY honest discussion of theory requires a knowledge of terminology -- the *historians* tools of the trade -- and THEORY was the topic of the class, right?<BR/>I am sorry that historical "philospeak" mucks things up for you, but what do YOU use for abstract terminology like Social Contract, political manifesto, Division of Power, Judicial Review, Bicameralism, Federalism, Democracy, etc. -- just bash difficult abstractions with the "philospeak" club and move on to the *Mr. Smith goes to Washington* video? (Sorry, I know that doesn't happen, but I was searching for something as insulting as your "philospeak" comment)<BR/><BR/>Also,<BR/>I didn't take Livi's account as being true or false, I just took it as being something akin to Homer's account of the Trojan War in the *Illiad*. I revel in GREAT LITERATURE!!!!<BR/>It is DELUDED to think anyone could or would "prove" Homer wrong -- how silly. <BR/><BR/>Also,<BR/>Suggestions as to how to make the "war" go down better?<BR/>After his two plus years of stonewalling, I am glad to see Bush being more candid about improvements in the war effort.<BR/>I would like to see Gen Murray's suggestions "aired" at the Agora --no they were not "cut and run" as much as Lysis would like to "swiftboat" the man and ignore the plan!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134580063093989132005-12-14T10:07:00.000-07:002005-12-14T10:07:00.000-07:00To the Anonymous who will not tell us which Anonym...To the Anonymous who will not tell us which Anonymous he or she is: I did not mean to neglect your comments above about PAYING FOR THE DECEMINATION OF TRUTH and REBUPLICAN CORUPTION; I just got carried away disseminating a little truth myself. For free. Anyway:<BR/><BR/>On the U.S. military paying Iraqi Newspapers to print the truth, (positive stories about what is going on in their country). There is NOTHING unprincipled about this!!!! It’s called Radio Free Europe, it’s called public education. It works! I would gladly pay to have the truth told; especially when so many are giving away lies for free!<BR/><BR/>I see this as a proactive step to “make things go better in Iraq”. How do you see it otherwise? <BR/><BR/>Your attempt to smear the President by dragging up “tail hook” (that was during the Clinton administration wasn’t it?) and some Californian crook’s misdeeds; shows why getting the positive truth out is worth any cost!<BR/><BR/>Lysis Verus – You continue to misuse the number of Iraqi civilians killed in your arguments; although you have now seemingly acquiesced to the fact that the 100,000 figure is bogus. You miss represent because you infer that these civilians have been killed by U.S. or Coalition actions, disregarding the fact that most have been murdered by terrorists! To return to history for clarity: your position would be similar to anti-WWII activists claiming that the Liberation of Europe should have been called off because Hitler ramped up the “Final Solution” after D – Day. I wonder how our friends from Holland would feel about that.<BR/><BR/>Your argument on indoctrination is specious. The truth is not partisan just because it supports a particular side in a DEBATE. What a ridiculous claim, “You can’t sight the truth Lysis, because it supports your position!” L. V. Come up with some truths on the other side of the DEBATE or prove my assertions false; don’t just discount them because they counter you arguments. That is indoctrination!!!<BR/><BR/>I do not think you hate America. I specifically avoided linking you to those who value their own power above America. I merely pointed out that you have been using their same false arguments. <BR/><BR/>You know what irked me the most about the BOGUS Lancet “statistics”? It’s that they are misquoted in hundreds of articles and “News Stories”. I was dismayed to see this lie propagated as recently as yesterday’s BBC “story”. I am also dismayed when you, Lysis Verus, a respected colleague here in OUR Agora, fall back on statistics so flawed in order to score debate points. I would think you would thank me for enlightening you, not chide me for indoctrinating. Your freely held and strongly argued opinions represent much of what I love most about American.<BR/><BR/>I am much aware of the impurity of Roman motives, and the failings of Roman “Civilization”. I just spent the last two days in my Roman History class discussing slavery and gladiatorial shows. I am as eager to decry Roman or American misbehavior. But this does not prevent Americans from drawing valuable lessons from Roman successes. America has the chance to do right where Rome went wrong. Wouldn’t it be a pity if this nation abandoned the fight for freedom? Wouldn’t it be the grossest kind of misbehavior to desert mankind to terrorism, despotism, and religious fanaticism?<BR/><BR/>As for the “war on Christmas” I agree with Lysis Verus. We have a real war to discuss, why cook up a phony one. Nor am I against a little Christmas cheer in the form of commercialism. I love to buy gifts for those I love, I delight that I have the means to do so, and I am grateful to live in a time and place where I am blessed with bounty enough to share with others. Let’s be more like the redeemed Scrooge than the unenlightened one. Let’s share a cup of Christmas Cheer with those we love, and keep the Christmas spirits, Past, Present, and Future, in our hearts all year long. <BR/><BR/>Passing thanks to the Romans for sticking a holiday right in the middle of winter; it makes the cold and dark more bearable. Eternal thanks to God for “sending His Son to save us all, for we have gone astray”!Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134573518638975242005-12-14T08:18:00.000-07:002005-12-14T08:18:00.000-07:00Lysis & Rumpole~"But if you prefer Bush number 30K...Lysis & Rumpole~<BR/><BR/>"But if you prefer Bush number 30K+ " That's from my post as well. Somewhere in the Agora I think I acknowledge that the Lancet number is an estimate since there are no hard numbers. I think you miss my point. Those dead people (100K~Lancet OR 30K~Bushey Magnus) have no means of tendering *their* opinion of the Great Grand Gloriousness that is Bush. Because they are DEAD. <BR/><BR/>I am not trying to indoctrinate anyone Lysis:<BR/>Indoctrinate~ To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view.<BR/><BR/>That's YOU not ME. My pointing out bits of evidence ~and even acceding to a lesser casualty number put forth by your man~ to offer an alternative view to your slavering worship of Demi-God Bush is not indoctrination ITS DEBATE LYSIS! DEBATE.<BR/><BR/>So now do you think I hate America and wish for its demise because I point out a notion unflattering to the current administration? Please.<BR/><BR/>Also: I love how you ascribe such pure motives to the Romans and such deviltry to poor old Carthago, but whatever. Two rising Hellenistic commercial powers slugging it out for Sicily and Spain is interesting and instructive but not the battle of Armageddon. <BR/><BR/>This 100K v. 30K dead controversy reminds me of the fake 'War on Christmas' whipped up every year by Foxnewsheads Hannity O'Reilup etc. Lots of hot air and outrage~ but at what? What war? It seems to me that any REAL war on Christmas is waged by its supposed celebrants who cheapen its meaning to commercialism and excess instead of honoring the Cristos upon whom the holiday is based (the current holiday not the Roman Saturnalia which lent the day 25 Decembris).<BR/>~VerusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134533587248039272005-12-13T21:13:00.000-07:002005-12-13T21:13:00.000-07:00Anonymous,More common ground! I would agree that ...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>More common ground! I would agree that we must separate historical fact from fiction. I’m a salesman, not an educator, so I have to reduce these things down to terms I can relate to. In my view it comes down to truth being defined as how things REALLY were, and how things REALLY are.<BR/><BR/>We currently live in an amazing age! With so much technology at our fingertips, it has become more and more difficult to skew and change how things really are. It still does happen, but it is more difficult than ever!<BR/><BR/>For example, how did the facts exist as they REALLY were? That President Bush built a coalition of nations to support his actions in Iraq is a historical fact! That President Bush built a coalition of overwhelming support in both the House and the Senate for U.S. action in Iraq is a historical fact! That the actions were supported by intelligence sources both internal and external to the U.S. is a historical fact!<BR/><BR/>Sadly, there are those who would recast the facts to fiction; there are those who would attempt to portray that none of those events ever really took place in their proper context.<BR/><BR/>And what about things as they REALLY are? Verus tries to suggest that there have been 100,000+ deaths based on a survey of 1,000 homes. A SURVEY? We now accept SURVEYS reflective of things as they REALLY are? A survey that was considered 95% accurate in the range between 8,000 to 194,000?<BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree that there can be sources of history that are credible versus incredulous. Unfortunately I do not know as much about history as you, Verus, or Lysis. So when I read to learn and to form my own conclusions I depend on how credible the source appears to me to be. <BR/><BR/>Right now there is a credibility problem! Can you reason through with me who has it?Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134533477145677002005-12-13T21:11:00.000-07:002005-12-13T21:11:00.000-07:00First, to LV.I believe the language you are talkin...First, to LV.<BR/><BR/>I believe the language you are talking about that allows for secession is in the Articles of Confederation, no longer legally in force.<BR/><BR/>As far as revolt being a natural right, I wouldn't disagree, but my point was legal rights. There is no language in the constitution that preserves the right to revolt (please point out any you believe does so if you disagree).<BR/><BR/>To Anonymous.<BR/><BR/>I suppose that you would rather that I outline the entire semester of class for you here in my post? I choose to self-edit. <BR/><BR/>My education was excellent, I feel I got quite a deal actually as Weber State University doesn't over charge as so many bigger Universities do. <BR/><BR/>Again, it would help your cause if you refrained from the personal attacks, but if you must, they really just show the weakness of your arguments.<BR/><BR/>I have read Hume, he is far down on my preferred philosophers list.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134524845310638882005-12-13T18:47:00.000-07:002005-12-13T18:47:00.000-07:00Anonymous, I have perused your post for some argum...Anonymous, I have perused your post for some argument or fact; for some “plan to make the war in Iraq go better”, or even for some criticism of the plans presented by Bush, Lieberman, or any of us here in the Agora. Instead I find you hiding behind big words. <BR/><BR/>Hermeneutics – Interpretation of scripture. Do you do that by reason, faith, or your own opinions? <BR/><BR/>Eschatology – Theology dealing with last things such as death, judgment, heaven, or hell. Tell me do you investigate according to reason, faith, or your own opinions? <BR/><BR/>Axiology – Study of the nature of values. Do you prefer absolute values or relative ones, Scipio’s or Clinton’s? <BR/><BR/>Metaphysics – Abstract reasoning – I guess your stuck with reason their, or is all reason your opinion? If so, why not mine?<BR/><BR/>Epistemology – The study for the origins of knowledge. Do you seek these origins with reason or word games? <BR/><BR/>Teleology – The belief that natural processes are produced by their utility to natural design. How do you determine the designs of nature? Are you stuck to your near blind senses, or will you allow for the infinity expanse of human reason and faith to be applied? <BR/><BR/>Your answers to these questions might be as instructive to your motives in your continual refusal to answer any others. I suggest those of us digging through you obfuscations might consider another study – Scatology (look it up, I checked out you philospeak).<BR/><BR/>As for Hume – I agree, we should examine history in the lights of our concept of human nature. In that search, reason and faith are all we have. If Hume has some magical lock on understanding human nature, he never revealed it to the rest of us. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous, take Hume’s advice, if you dare, and detect the falsehoods in Livy’s account. Or do you prefer to DROP big words on us and run away while “we” are left to sniff the stink? <BR/><BR/>Vegimatic – Four!!!!Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134519972781780672005-12-13T17:26:00.000-07:002005-12-13T17:26:00.000-07:00Vegimatic Again,Sorry Anonymous, but you teed me u...Vegimatic Again,<BR/><BR/>Sorry Anonymous, but you teed me up so I have to swing.....<BR/><BR/>You Said....<BR/><BR/>Vegimatic:<BR/>Are those the "facts" from the same U.S. Army that reported to Utah "Downwinders" in Cedar and Moab and St. George that they had NOT been exposed to lethal dosages of cancer causing fall-out? <BR/><BR/><BR/>And then I said...To every one of your arguments.....<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, Are those "facts" from the same Democratic Party and Liberal Left wing thinkers that reported President Clinton "did not have sex with that woman!"<BR/><BR/>It didn't take 6 months to determine that was a lie now did it.<BR/><BR/>You have to do better than that. If that is the best you can do, it's time to pack up and go home and drink more blue kool-aid.<BR/><BR/>Swing and a miss......Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134517760816053852005-12-13T16:49:00.000-07:002005-12-13T16:49:00.000-07:00Lysis Verus: On your 100,000 Iraqi Civilian’s dea...Lysis Verus: On your 100,000 Iraqi Civilian’s dead BOGUS figure, please consider:<BR/><BR/>Seeking some verification of L.V.’s rather vague reference to the Lancet, I did a little research in an attempt to gain some insight. A rather cursory search on “Google” brought me to an article from BBC NEWS – not my first choice in sources free of bias, but still – I checked it out. In a report from December 13, 2005 – my gosh that’s today! The BBC headlines<BR/><BR/>“Iraq death toll ‘soared post-war’ <BR/><BR/>[Sub headline]<BR/><BR/>Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a “climate of violence” have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim. <BR/><BR/>But then one reads the report. I continue to quote:<BR/><BR/>“A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence of civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion. <BR/><BR/>“Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000. <BR/><BR/>“The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample – under 1,000 homes – but says the finding are convincing”.<BR/><BR/>The report then goes on to site several other sources who were estimating at the same time as Lancet. The (ICB) [see explanation below] from: 14 -16,000; the Brookings inst: 10 - 27,000: the UK foreign secretary: 10,000: the People’s Kifah 37,000, and finally Lancet, (from their 1000 household sample): 100,000.<BR/><BR/>Lancet’s figures are based on projections of “cause of death” reports from hospitals, and include deaths at the height of the confect as if unaltered over time or location. The projection is bogus, and biased. <BR/><BR/>Every site goggled referenced the Lancet article as the only one that put the figures at 100,000. On the CNN report from Oct 2004 the following disclaimer was buried in the final lines. “Richard Peto Professor of medical statistics of Oxford U cautioned U P the researchers may have zeroed in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death total across Iraq.”<BR/><BR/>I then found an article on Slate posted by Fred Kaplan on Oct 29, 2004 which put every thing in prospective. Kaplan quotes Lancet’s statistics then explains:<BR/><BR/>“But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully: We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8,000 -194,000) during the post-war period. <BR/><BR/>“Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I’ll spell it out in plain English – which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused death totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (the number cited in plain language – 98,000 – is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)<BR/><BR/>“This isn’t an estimate, It’s a dart board.<BR/><BR/>“Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday’s election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It’s a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.”<BR/><BR/>Kaplan then goes on to describe a much more reasonable study conducted by a group called the Iraq Body Count (IBC) who have kept a running total of civilian deaths derived entirely from press reports. Their count is triple fact-checked; their database is itemized and fastidiously sourced, and they taken great pains to separate civilian from combatant casualties. . . The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war.” Even allowing for deaths that the press didn’t report – 20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged on their behalf.”<BR/><BR/>(http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/)<BR/><BR/>I will remind Lysis Verus that many of these civilian casualties are the result of terrorist attacks, and that both American and Iraqi soldiers are fighting and dieing to reduce the slaughter. It is the terrorists who day in and day out wage war on Iraq and humanity. You are attempting to indoctrinate – and neither I nor my students will allow it!!!!!<BR/><BR/>Now let’s get this strait:<BR/><BR/>Hannibal and Saddam = both people set on destroying another nation and waging world wide war to build empire by conquest.<BR/><BR/>Carthage = a nation at war with Rome.<BR/><BR/>Iraq = a free nation liberated by a coalition of nations led by the US.<BR/><BR/>Scipio = A Roman General who overcame great challenges to save his country.<BR/><BR/>Bush II = An American President facing great challenges to try and save his country and bring freedom to oppressed peoples for the benefit of the world.<BR/><BR/>Rome = A great nation, with many flaws, that brought peace to millions for hundreds of years.<BR/><BR/>America = An even greater nation, with far fewer flaws, trying to bring peace to the world and freedom and democracy to all people.<BR/><BR/>White Hats = those who sacrifice for the benefit of others in the own country, in far off lands, and for billions of humans yet to be..<BR/><BR/>Black Hats = Tyrants and terrorists who murder to get gain!!!<BR/><BR/>I fear, L.V., your longed for sophistication is just an attempt to muddy the waters. You motives I will not specifically impugn, but many who argue likewise are simply seeking America’s failure so they can seize power for themselves. <BR/><BR/>There are many shades of gray – there is also right and wrong. I will admit that the existence of right and wrong does not preclude nuance of opinion, but you must realize that differences of opinion do not justify a relativist view that anything goes; that murder and slavery are just as “good” as life and freedom. Life and Freedom are unalienable rights of all men, murder and slavery are universal evils. Nothing gray about it.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134517618635341982005-12-13T16:46:00.000-07:002005-12-13T16:46:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134513380643648732005-12-13T15:36:00.000-07:002005-12-13T15:36:00.000-07:00Dan has posted:. . . in my Theory of History class...Dan has posted:<BR/>. . . in my Theory of History class, but four and a half short years ago. . . <BR/>And<BR/><BR/>At the end (of the class) we came to an important point. *Different points of view, or bias cannot change what actually happened* . . .If the worst, most biased historian in the world wrote that Pearl harbor was bombed, it would still be true.<BR/><BR/>Should a traveller, returning from a far country bring us an account of men, wholly different from any with whom we were ever acquainted; men, who were entierly divested of avarice, ambition, or revenge; who knew no pleasures but friendship, generosity, and public spirit; we should IMMEDIATELY detect the falshood and prove him a liar, with the same certainty as if he had stuffed his narration with stories of centaurs, and dragons, miracles and prodigies (yes, even Scipios) And if we would explode any forgery in history, we cannot make use of a more convincing argument than to prove the actions ascribed to any person are directly contrary to the course of nature, and that NO HUMAN motives in such circumstances, could ever indure him to such a conduct.<BR/>-David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.<BR/><BR/>Separating Historical Fact from Historical Myth should have been an important theme of Dan's Theory of History class. Perhaps then he would not have been left with the superficial understanding of historical theory that his account protrays -- what about Hermaneutics? Eschatology? Axiology? Metaphysics?Epistemology? Teleology? More than just "big words" that Lysis likes to thumb his nose at -- it is the difference between an EDUCATION and an INDOCTRINATION. I suggest you get your money back!!!!<BR/><BR/>As Hume points out, the disingenuousness of historical Myth gives it the lie every time in the world of historical fact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134511643417213482005-12-13T15:07:00.000-07:002005-12-13T15:07:00.000-07:00DB2~I've never been in Lysis class though I'm sure...DB2~<BR/>I've never been in Lysis class though I'm sure it would be an interesting and intellectually edifying experience.<BR/><BR/>"First, what do you base your idea of a legal right to secede on?"<BR/><BR/>The Declaration of Independence is a secessionitst and/or rebellion document. Our founders seceeded and/or rebelled against the British Empire and established their own self- government first under the Articles of Confederation then under The Constitution. Both had to be freely ratified by the representatives of the people in EACH of the several states in order to go into effect. The original 13 states used language reserving the right to withdraw (seceed, revolt if you will).<BR/><BR/>Precedent. Later, the New England Federalists believed in a legal right of secession and they attempted to have the New England states secede from the Union for over a decade after Jefferson’s election. No one at the time argued that a legal right of secession did not exist, only that it may not have been a wise course to take. <BR/><BR/>The right of revolt is an ABSOLUTE natrual right. Whether such a breach is justified or sustainable is quite open to debate. The revolt of the 13 colonies in 1776 was clearly both. The revolt of the Confederate States in 1861 was possibly justified (open to debate) but clearly unsustainable.<BR/><BR/>"Second, how do you think I swallow a party line 'hook line and sinker.'(?)"<BR/><BR/>I can't recall specifically and I'm too pressed for time to research, it may have had something to do with you reiterating the party line on some issue or another. I was likely reacting to groupings commentary from the likes of Rumpole, Lysis and Vegimatic (seeming reflexive partisans) This does happen OFTEN here at the Agora. I, too, get lumped in with the anonomi, Murtha, or whoever ~ people with whom I seldom agree. If I lumped *you* in unfairly, I apologize. <BR/><BR/>~Lysis VerusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134506217004235922005-12-13T13:36:00.000-07:002005-12-13T13:36:00.000-07:00To LV. A retraction and correction on two points....To LV. A retraction and correction on two points.<BR/><BR/>1. I misconstrued the inmates as a reference to Lysis' students specifically, sorry for the misunderstanding.<BR/><BR/>2. After going back through the posts, you are right, you answer almost all questions, the main offender is anonymous.<BR/><BR/>However, I did find two specific questions in the GIANT thread a couple back that were missed (probably due to the size of the entire thing), that I would like answers to.<BR/><BR/>First, what do you base your idea of a legal right to secede on?<BR/><BR/>Second, how do you think I swallow a party line 'hook line and sinker.'<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I hope you did have Lysis' class. <BR/><BR/>You're right, a teacher could skew history, or gloss over those things that he doesn't like for whatever reason. I only ever had one of those and she was the head of the department. Other than that, I am proud to say, I haven't seen much bias in any of my teachers or professors, and that counts either direction, I never say the great liberal bias at the University level that many speak of. (I did have professors with bias, but it was more along the lines of bias for their particular field of study being superior to all others.)Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1134501595790158882005-12-13T12:19:00.000-07:002005-12-13T12:19:00.000-07:00Vegimatic:Are those the "facts" from the same U.S....Vegimatic:<BR/>Are those the "facts" from the same U.S. Army that reported to Utah "Downwinders" in Cedar and Moab and St. George that they had NOT been exposed to lethal dosages of cancer causing fall-out? <BR/><BR/>How long did it take THAT truth to be known -- longer than "the last six months" I assure you!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com