User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:20:51 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weren't you the guy that just suggesting killing all the educators and replacing them with properly indoctrinated teachers? Yep, that was you. You literally are recommending the worst parts of communism, the parts that were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the span of half a century. What makes you different than the progressives? Your ideology is different, your means to achieve it is identical. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I know that guns do a pretty bang up job against terrorists. I seriously doubt that education will eradicate terrorism, but I know for sure that pithy statements from teenagers sure don't do a lot of good against terrorism  Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? Progressives. Weren't you the guy that just suggesting killing all the educators and replacing them with properly indoctrinated teachers? Quoted:
Use guns to kill the educators. Then get new educators. Yep, that was you. You literally are recommending the worst parts of communism, the parts that were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the span of half a century. What makes you different than the progressives? Your ideology is different, your means to achieve it is identical. Your tears are delicious. As is your gullability. What a petulant little person you are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:22:08 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The trouble is getting our western world education to stick when their Islamist education is louder, angrier, and actively encourages people to kill those who are seeking our education. Part of our educational process needs to include frequent examples of the futility of messing with us. And how uncivilized of us to have an opinion that doesnt accept them as a unique "culture". Dirt farming squater terrorist extremists are precisely the kinds of uncivilized vermin that would kill her for the very views she is expressing. But some how I do not think she is referring to educating them since she starts off by targeting the guns we use to shoot terrorists. Fuck her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:22:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[Our political climate was completely different. We were a group of English colonies who decided not to act at all like the English anymore. The political ideology of Locke and others, who gained almost zero acceptance in England, was embraced and actually implemented into our laws and constitution. Meanwhile, England was still dominated by a House of Lords made up of a hereditary aristocracy, a House of Commons controlled by mercantile rich, who drove the Age of Industry to such a negative extent and with so little regard for the plight of the workers that the kneejerk reaction was Communism. Another cultural ideology that we can thank Europe for. If you want to praise Locke and Rousseau and the Age of Enlightenment, then you have that same culture also that gave us Luther and the bloody Protestant Reformation, Marx and Communism, Hitler and National Socialism. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The driving force behind our Revolution was the same demand for rule of law that drove the English Revolution. You don't throw off your culture, and English America retained its culture which was substantually English. It was that culture that drove the success of America, moreso then the political institutions we created. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:22:48 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weren't you the guy that just suggesting killing all the educators and replacing them with properly indoctrinated teachers? Yep, that was you. You literally are recommending the worst parts of communism, the parts that were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the span of half a century. What makes you different than the progressives? Your ideology is different, your means to achieve it is identical. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I know that guns do a pretty bang up job against terrorists. I seriously doubt that education will eradicate terrorism, but I know for sure that pithy statements from teenagers sure don't do a lot of good against terrorism Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? Progressives. Weren't you the guy that just suggesting killing all the educators and replacing them with properly indoctrinated teachers? Quoted:
Use guns to kill the educators. Then get new educators. Yep, that was you. You literally are recommending the worst parts of communism, the parts that were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the span of half a century. What makes you different than the progressives? Your ideology is different, your means to achieve it is identical. And what paper pushing MOS were you hatched from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:24:22 PM EDT
[#5]
If she was surrounded by ISIS soldiers and had to pick between a gun and a diploma, which one would she pick up?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:30:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[There was nothing peaceful about the Protestant Reformation. Allow me to state this again, there was nothing peaceful about the Protestant Reformation. If you want to take hundreds of years of history and delete it, so you can substitute it and make believe that writers like Locke and Hobbes wrote what they did because they were sick to death about sectarian warfare, be my guest. But don't expect others to go for it, it was a hell of a lot more complicated than you are making it out to be. Like calling Catholic Spain a retrograde force; a cute phrase that forgets that they were the strongest nation on earth for centuries and the effort to surpass them had nothing to do with secular enlightenment but because various Protestant kingdoms like Gustav's Sweden surpassed them in military might. Quote HistoryQuoted:
[There was nothing peaceful about the Protestant Reformation. Allow me to state this again, there was nothing peaceful about the Protestant Reformation. If you want to take hundreds of years of history and delete it, so you can substitute it and make believe that writers like Locke and Hobbes wrote what they did because they were sick to death about sectarian warfare, be my guest. But don't expect others to go for it, it was a hell of a lot more complicated than you are making it out to be. Like calling Catholic Spain a retrograde force; a cute phrase that forgets that they were the strongest nation on earth for centuries and the effort to surpass them had nothing to do with secular enlightenment but because various Protestant kingdoms like Gustav's Sweden surpassed them in military might. The Reformation was required to create the modern world and religious freedom. The Reformation wasn't violent the Catholic response was. Spain was the strongest nation as a result of the Reconquesta. Its strength was based upon military capability coupled with Catholic extremism. Its wealth was plundered from Latin America. Its armies were destroyed in the 30 Years War and it fell to second rate status. This is in contrast with the Dutch and later English and then American approach of success based upon maritime commerce, rooted in rule of law and free markets. Quoted:
Its funny that you previously brought up slavery but wont acknowledge that it was religious fundamentalism that led to the abolishment of it. Much of European history had religion as the background for decision making, that only ended when Nationalism and communism replaced it as the driving ideologies to affect change and make war. But I'm not denying the impact of religion. In fact I consider the Reformation a key event moving religious freedom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:33:17 PM EDT
[#7]
The anti-gun & anti-war libs will use the meme to promote "gun" control, of course, in the style of the 80's "Air Force bake sale" bumper stickers, ignoring the fact that it's not an either/or scenario.
The problem isn't a lack of education, it's the fact that that education of women - and teaching anything other than that approved by the Imams - is considered heresy by Wahabbists. The Taliban posted a note in the village mosque "Respected Afghans: leave the culture and traditions of the Christians and Jews. DO not send your girls to school". A few weeks later the children found a land mine under a bag in their classroom. Also cited: 2007 school attack, Ban Bado Thailand Education Under Attack, UNESCO, 2007 Report by the United Nations emphasizing the increase in attacks on schools and places of education, 2006-7 : - UNICEF report Biochem warfare against girls seeking education by the Taliban, Afghanistan, 2009: 
Chibok School attack by Boko Haram, Nigeria, 2014 
July, 2015 - Girls going to school suffer acid attack October, 2015: Victim says Daesh fighters told to convert victims to Islam via rape Site of interest on the issue of women and Islam: http://akdart.com/islam8.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:40:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think she's wrong, necessarily. Education can decrease terrorism, but education alone will not do it. You need to destroy terrorists with overwhelming force while at the same time destroying their ideas with education, drawing Mohammad, etc.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:41:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, I know that guns do a pretty bang up job against terrorists. I seriously doubt that education will eradicate terrorism, but I know for sure that pithy statements from teenagers sure don't do a lot of good against terrorism Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? Newsflash: This shit isn't anything new, these assholes have been killing and torturing people for over a thousand years in the name of their "Religion", long before the invention of gunpowder. Just because they are more efficient now doesn't mean they're doing something new. Google "Crusades" for more info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:43:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The driving force behind our Revolution was the same demand for rule of law that drove the English Revolution. You don't throw off your culture, and English America retained its culture which was substantually English. It was that culture that drove the success of America, moreso then the political institutions we created. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[Our political climate was completely different. We were a group of English colonies who decided not to act at all like the English anymore. The political ideology of Locke and others, who gained almost zero acceptance in England, was embraced and actually implemented into our laws and constitution. Meanwhile, England was still dominated by a House of Lords made up of a hereditary aristocracy, a House of Commons controlled by mercantile rich, who drove the Age of Industry to such a negative extent and with so little regard for the plight of the workers that the kneejerk reaction was Communism. Another cultural ideology that we can thank Europe for. If you want to praise Locke and Rousseau and the Age of Enlightenment, then you have that same culture also that gave us Luther and the bloody Protestant Reformation, Marx and Communism, Hitler and National Socialism. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The driving force behind our Revolution was the same demand for rule of law that drove the English Revolution. You don't throw off your culture, and English America retained its culture which was substantually English. It was that culture that drove the success of America, moreso then the political institutions we created. There was no English Revolution, you literally made up the term. In the study of English History there was the English Civil War, which overthrew a monarch (Charles I), instituted Parliamentary rule, then a dictatorship (Cromwell), then back to the Stuarts (Charles II, James II). Then there was the Glorious Revolution which overthrew the Catholic Stuarts (James II) and replaced them with the foreign and benign Protestants (William and Mary). The reason that it is called glorious is because it was largely bloodless. And the reason its called a revolution is because it changed the existing nature of the already existing royal-Parliament relationship. But there was no sudden age of political enlightenment in Britain that wasn't the result of relgious fervor. The age old Catholic vs Protestant was still the the casus belli for the Glorious Revolution. And guess what that conflict had to do with the formation of the USA? Nothing at all. We didn't even include religion as a reason for our rebellion, accept to preserve the free worship (something the post Glorious Revolution Britain still didn't do). Our English subjects who were the Founding Fathers of the USA tossed away all aspects of the British govt and its culture. No king, no aristocracy, no nobility, no Parliament. We have such a convoluted system because it was designed from the getgo to be like nothing else in human history, especially contemporary Europe. We didn't attempt to create subject classes like the English had. The only seriously flawed system was our acceptance of slavery for Africans, which was first validated by religion and then would end through religion. This mystical European age of enlightenment you think existed, it didn't. It was periods of terrible war, dotted with the occasional peace. Oppression and poor governance was the standard, it was expected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:43:21 PM EDT
[#11]
and when you try to educate people about islam, they call you a racist.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:48:32 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And what paper pushing MOS were you hatched from? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? Progressives. Weren't you the guy that just suggesting killing all the educators and replacing them with properly indoctrinated teachers? Quoted:
Use guns to kill the educators. Then get new educators. Yep, that was you. You literally are recommending the worst parts of communism, the parts that were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the span of half a century. What makes you different than the progressives? Your ideology is different, your means to achieve it is identical. And what paper pushing MOS were you hatched from? LOL. You admit you're in love of Maoist and Khmer extermination tactics and then think that you can insult me by bringing up my MOS? Get a tank and you can go into the mil forum and read my bio. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:51:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Lol. Yep, as I thought.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:52:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They were brainwashed when they were little by their clerics and teachers. After the brainwashing, any other educations are just BS to them. The other adult recruits are just weak mind, stupid, or wannabes. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:55:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Reformation was required to create the modern world and religious freedom. The Reformation wasn't violent the Catholic response was. Spain was the strongest nation as a result of the Reconquesta. Its strength was based upon military capability coupled with Catholic extremism. Its wealth was plundered from Latin America. Its armies were destroyed in the 30 Years War and it fell to second rate status. This is in contrast with the Dutch and later English and then American approach of success based upon maritime commerce, rooted in rule of law and free markets. But I'm not denying the impact of religion. In fact I consider the Reformation a key event moving religious freedom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[There was nothing peaceful about the Protestant Reformation. Allow me to state this again, there was nothing peaceful about the Protestant Reformation. If you want to take hundreds of years of history and delete it, so you can substitute it and make believe that writers like Locke and Hobbes wrote what they did because they were sick to death about sectarian warfare, be my guest. But don't expect others to go for it, it was a hell of a lot more complicated than you are making it out to be. Like calling Catholic Spain a retrograde force; a cute phrase that forgets that they were the strongest nation on earth for centuries and the effort to surpass them had nothing to do with secular enlightenment but because various Protestant kingdoms like Gustav's Sweden surpassed them in military might. The Reformation was required to create the modern world and religious freedom. The Reformation wasn't violent the Catholic response was. Spain was the strongest nation as a result of the Reconquesta. Its strength was based upon military capability coupled with Catholic extremism. Its wealth was plundered from Latin America. Its armies were destroyed in the 30 Years War and it fell to second rate status. This is in contrast with the Dutch and later English and then American approach of success based upon maritime commerce, rooted in rule of law and free markets. Quoted:
Its funny that you previously brought up slavery but wont acknowledge that it was religious fundamentalism that led to the abolishment of it. Much of European history had religion as the background for decision making, that only ended when Nationalism and communism replaced it as the driving ideologies to affect change and make war. But I'm not denying the impact of religion. In fact I consider the Reformation a key event moving religious freedom. You just proved my point. Spain rose because of its military dominance. It was able to conquer its colonies because of its military dominance. And then it lost its military dominance because someone else was better than them militarily. It had nothing to do with enlightenment or culture, it was about Swedish musket fire ratios defeating Spanish pike and ball tercios. And it was no different for the European takeover of the world. It was done by the point of the bayonet, not through superior cultural ideology. The Reformation only led to religious freedom after literal hundreds of years of the worst fighting in European history. A rising middle class were getting sick of the old game, so they became "enlightened" about the idea of secular govt that was less oppressive than that where State meant an absolute monarch, and Church meant bishops looking to kill all heretics. And it took them hundreds of years before this concept was even common. And even after than those same secularists then ushered in an age of absolutely destruction of their own cultures through new secular concepts like nationalism, unbridled mercantile capitalism, and communism/socialism. And because of those same fucked up European political ideologies, we are were we are in Europe today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:55:39 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was no English Revolution, you literally made up the term. In the study of English History there was the English Civil War, which overthrew a monarch (Charles I), instituted Parliamentary rule, then a dictatorship (Cromwell), then back to the Stuarts (Charles II, James II). Then there was the Glorious Revolution which overthrew the Catholic Stuarts (James II) and replaced them with the foreign and benign Protestants (William and Mary). The reason that it is called glorious is because it was largely bloodless. And the reason its called a revolution is because it changed the existing nature of the already existing royal-Parliament relationship. But there was no sudden age of political enlightenment in Britain that wasn't the result of relgious fervor. The age old Catholic vs Protestant was still the the casus belli for the Glorious Revolution. And guess what that conflict had to do with the formation of the USA? Nothing at all. We didn't even include religion as a reason for our rebellion, accept to preserve the free worship (something the post Glorious Revolution Britain still didn't do). Our English subjects who were the Founding Fathers of the USA tossed away all aspects of the British govt and its culture. No king, no aristocracy, no nobility, no Parliament. We have such a convoluted system because it was designed from the getgo to be like nothing else in human history, especially contemporary Europe. We didn't attempt to create subject classes like the English had. The only seriously flawed system was our acceptance of slavery for Africans, which was first validated by religion and then would end through religion. This mystical European age of enlightenment you think existed, it didn't. It was periods of terrible war, dotted with the occasional peace. Oppression and poor governance was the standard, it was expected. The English Revolution occured because a Catholic king was upsurping rule of law. Hence the creation of the English Bill of Rights. Rule of law was the driving force behind both revolutions. The Founding Fathers did not and could not throw off their culture. Slavery was "accepted" in the US because, like many things in history, it is hard to undo something you are invested in. Slaves had been coming to the colonies since the early 1600s and there was no easy way to undo it. for that matter there wasn't an easy way to prevent it. Likewise the class system of England was a holdover from earlier periods, not something "created" by the English of the era. The trend since the 1500s has been towards more peace, driven by certain European cultures (including American culture, which is just an offshoot of English culture). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:57:52 PM EDT
[#17]
In order to understand what she is saying you would need to understand Karma, Reincarnation and Buddhist Dharma. It won't make sense from a Judaeo Christian, one lifetime point of view.
This is a gross oversimplification but illustrates the main points: Dharma: Buddhist Shantideva said that all suffering in this world comes from self-cherishing/seeking personal gain and all happiness in this world comes from cherishing others. Karma; You get the result of your actions, both good and bad. Reincarnation; Ones Mental Continuum transfers from one lifetime to another and has done since infinite beginning and will do so until all beings become Enlightened and thus will no longer take rebirth in Samara, the place of suffering. If that Dharma is true and an understanding of it can be conveyed to all beings. (It may require a million million lifetimes but if you believe in Reincarnation it will eventually occur.) then eventually all beings will cease to pursue personal gain/self-cherishing, do good things, get good things, Karma. Once they do that the source of all suffering ceases to exist and only happiness will remain. So by education you have eliminated Terrorism. There is much, much more to it, years of study, but that is the 100,000 foot view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:58:07 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
I don't know when/where/if she said this but it has been making rounds all over social media this past week. http://i68.tinypic.com/2qjiu0o.jpg What is she trying to say? You can't stop terrorism with violence, only education? Terrorism only appeals to the uneducated? There are many known terrorists who have PhD's, and many who have degrees in advanced fields of engineering; are these people not educated? I'm confused. In Muzzie-land if you speak against Jihad...Which is pretty much where all terrorist come from and are educated and get the "motivation" They kill you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:58:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Newsflash: This shit isn't anything new, these assholes have been killing and torturing people for over a thousand years in the name of their "Religion", long before the invention of gunpowder. Just because they are more efficient now doesn't mean they're doing something new. Google "Crusades" for more info. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I know that guns do a pretty bang up job against terrorists. I seriously doubt that education will eradicate terrorism, but I know for sure that pithy statements from teenagers sure don't do a lot of good against terrorism Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? Newsflash: This shit isn't anything new, these assholes have been killing and torturing people for over a thousand years in the name of their "Religion", long before the invention of gunpowder. Just because they are more efficient now doesn't mean they're doing something new. Google "Crusades" for more info. Are you referring to Christian Europeans? Its hard to understand your context, because literally everything you wrote could be used to describe not only the various Muslim caliphates and emirates but also pretty much all of Europe from the 6th Century onwards. if you think Europe didn't suffer wars a thousand times worse than the Crusades before and after the 12-13th century then it means you are ignorant of European history. Tell me how peaceful those secular Europeans were: List of conflicts in Europe |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:00:44 PM EDT
[#20]
I don't expect that girl/woman to live long, if she stays in Pakistan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:01:07 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just proved my point. Spain rose because of its military dominance. It was able to conquer its colonies because of its military dominance. And then it lost its military dominance because someone else was better than them militarily. It had nothing to do with enlightenment or culture, it was about Swedish musket fire ratios defeating Spanish pike and ball tercios. And it was no different for the European takeover of the world. It was done by the point of the bayonet, not through superior cultural ideology. The Spanish approach to the new World was quite different then the English approach, where the early settlers bought land from the natives and didn't engage in forced conversions. However, superior culture was indeed a significant component. The key element of the conquest of the Incas was the difference in the decision making of both sides. The secondary element was the superiority of spanish military technology. Spain had the superior culture compared to the natives. European dominance is rooted in superior culture. Superior culture provides superior technology and more effective cooperation, resulting is superior military capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:01:13 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. Yep, as I thought. Seriously, a Navy pilot decides to use military MOS to grade toughness...you guys aren't really know for your hellish life 
"You were a pilot in the Navy? You must have seen some shit." Said no one since the Vietnam War ended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:07:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Lol
Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:08:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The English Revolution occured because a Catholic king was upsurping rule of law. Hence the creation of the English Bill of Rights. Rule of law was the driving force behind both revolutions. The Founding Fathers did not and could not throw off their culture. Slavery was "accepted" in the US because, like many things in history, it is hard to undo something you are invested in. Slaves had been coming to the colonies since the early 1600s and there was no easy way to undo it. for that matter there wasn't an easy way to prevent it. Likewise the class system of England was a holdover from earlier periods, not something "created" by the English of the era. The trend since the 1500s has been towards more peace, driven by certain European cultures (including American culture, which is just an offshoot of English culture). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There was no English Revolution, you literally made up the term. In the study of English History there was the English Civil War, which overthrew a monarch (Charles I), instituted Parliamentary rule, then a dictatorship (Cromwell), then back to the Stuarts (Charles II, James II). Then there was the Glorious Revolution which overthrew the Catholic Stuarts (James II) and replaced them with the foreign and benign Protestants (William and Mary). The reason that it is called glorious is because it was largely bloodless. And the reason its called a revolution is because it changed the existing nature of the already existing royal-Parliament relationship. But there was no sudden age of political enlightenment in Britain that wasn't the result of relgious fervor. The age old Catholic vs Protestant was still the the casus belli for the Glorious Revolution. And guess what that conflict had to do with the formation of the USA? Nothing at all. We didn't even include religion as a reason for our rebellion, accept to preserve the free worship (something the post Glorious Revolution Britain still didn't do). Our English subjects who were the Founding Fathers of the USA tossed away all aspects of the British govt and its culture. No king, no aristocracy, no nobility, no Parliament. We have such a convoluted system because it was designed from the getgo to be like nothing else in human history, especially contemporary Europe. We didn't attempt to create subject classes like the English had. The only seriously flawed system was our acceptance of slavery for Africans, which was first validated by religion and then would end through religion. This mystical European age of enlightenment you think existed, it didn't. It was periods of terrible war, dotted with the occasional peace. Oppression and poor governance was the standard, it was expected. The English Revolution occured because a Catholic king was upsurping rule of law. Hence the creation of the English Bill of Rights. Rule of law was the driving force behind both revolutions. The Founding Fathers did not and could not throw off their culture. Slavery was "accepted" in the US because, like many things in history, it is hard to undo something you are invested in. Slaves had been coming to the colonies since the early 1600s and there was no easy way to undo it. for that matter there wasn't an easy way to prevent it. Likewise the class system of England was a holdover from earlier periods, not something "created" by the English of the era. The trend since the 1500s has been towards more peace, driven by certain European cultures (including American culture, which is just an offshoot of English culture). First, there is no such thing as the "English Revolution." Its a term created by Marxists. As I wrote, what you are referring to is either the English Civil War, or you're referring to the Glorious Revolution. If you want to be taken seriously while discussing English history, you have to use the correct terms. Its the very basis of learning English History, the manner in which it is taught is extremely regimented, even hear in the United States. Names and dates, names and dates, beaten into your skull until you can name off every monarch since 1066, the years of the Rump Parliaments. The names of such fellows as Moore, Wolsey. And the correct name for the various wars and rebellions that occurred. Historians don't recognize Marxist history and dialectics, I don't either. You shouldn't either. Second, the worst and bloodiest wars fought over religion and other equally strong ideologies occurred after the 1500s, so your claim that it peaceful and led to a peaceful era is laughably inaccurate. Nothing in European history, prior to the 1500s, had the level of warfare between kingdoms that became epidemic, normal, during the 15th century onwards, stemming from religious conflict and going from there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:11:41 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:11:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Spanish approach to the new World was quite different then the English approach, where the early settlers bought land from the natives and didn't engage in forced conversions. However, superior culture was indeed a significant component. The key element of the conquest of the Incas was the difference in the decision making of both sides. The secondary element was the superiority of spanish military technology. Spain had the superior culture compared to the natives. European dominance is rooted in superior culture. Superior culture provides superior technology and more effective cooperation, resulting is superior military capability. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You just proved my point. Spain rose because of its military dominance. It was able to conquer its colonies because of its military dominance. And then it lost its military dominance because someone else was better than them militarily. It had nothing to do with enlightenment or culture, it was about Swedish musket fire ratios defeating Spanish pike and ball tercios. And it was no different for the European takeover of the world. It was done by the point of the bayonet, not through superior cultural ideology. The Spanish approach to the new World was quite different then the English approach, where the early settlers bought land from the natives and didn't engage in forced conversions. However, superior culture was indeed a significant component. The key element of the conquest of the Incas was the difference in the decision making of both sides. The secondary element was the superiority of spanish military technology. Spain had the superior culture compared to the natives. European dominance is rooted in superior culture. Superior culture provides superior technology and more effective cooperation, resulting is superior military capability. The key element of the defeat of the Incas was the Spanish conquistidor Pizarro taking their emperor hostage, by ambushing him and his followers when they were heading to a feast. That wasn't some sort of great decision making ability, it was deceit coupled with artillery. "In 1531, he sailed down to Peru, landing at Tumbes. He led his army up the Andes Mountains and on November 15, 1532, reached the Inca town of Cajamarca, where Atahuallpa was enjoying the hot springs in preparation for his march on Cuzco, the capital of his brother’s kingdom. Pizarro invited Atahuallpa to attend a feast in his honor, and the emperor accepted. Having just won one of the largest battles in Inca history, and with an army of 30,000 men at his disposal, Atahuallpa thought he had nothing to fear from the bearded white stranger and his 180 men. Pizarro, however, planned an ambush, setting up his artillery at the square of Cajamarca. On November 16, Atahuallpa arrived at the meeting place with an escort of several thousand men, all apparently unarmed. Pizarro sent out a priest to exhort the emperor to accept the sovereignty of Christianity and Emperor Charles V., and Atahuallpa refused, flinging a Bible handed to him to the ground in disgust. Pizarro immediately ordered an attack. Buckling under an assault by the terrifying Spanish artillery, guns, and cavalry (all of which were alien to the Incas), thousands of Incas were slaughtered, and the emperor was captured." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:12:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dont Amish only go to school through the 8th grade? Yes, then they work their asses off to make a living. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:12:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
I don't know when/where/if she said this but it has been making rounds all over social media this past week. http://i68.tinypic.com/2qjiu0o.jpg What is she trying to say? You can't stop terrorism with violence, only education? Terrorism only appeals to the uneducated? There are many known terrorists who have PhD's, and many who have degrees in advanced fields of engineering; are these people not educated? I'm confused. She is trying to convince people that terrorists can be turned around, which they can not. The only way "education" could prevent terrorists is if it starts at child birth and probably away from islam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:13:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryDon't get your history from someone who doesn't specialize in it: 'Steven Arthur "Steve" Pinker (born September 18, 1954) is a Canadian-American cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and popular science author. He is Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University,[3] and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.' This guy is not trained to be a historian, and if what you are writing parrots his teachings, he should have spent more time taking history classes than pysch classes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:14:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In order to understand what she is saying you would need to understand Karma, Reincarnation and Buddhist Dharma. It won't make sense from a Judaeo Christian, one lifetime point of view. This is a gross oversimplification but illustrates the main points: Dharma: Buddhist Shantideva said that all suffering in this world comes from self-cherishing/seeking personal gain and all happiness in this world comes from cherishing others. fuck that noise, it's my hot body I do what I want Karma; You get the result of your actions, both good and bad. ok Reincarnation; Ones Mental Continuum transfers from one lifetime to another and has done since infinite beginning and will do so until all beings become Enlightened and thus will no longer take rebirth in Samara, the place of suffering. sounds cool, but until it can be demonstrated to be true my yolo policy will remain If that Dharma is true and an understanding of it can be conveyed to all beings. (It may require a million million lifetimes but if you believe in Reincarnation it will eventually occur.) then eventually all beings will cease to pursue personal gain/self-cherishing, do good things, get good things, Karma. Once they do that the source of all suffering ceases to exist and only happiness will remain. So by education you have eliminated Terrorism. There is much, much more to it, years of study, but that is the 100,000 foot view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:21:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, I know that guns do a pretty bang up job against terrorists. I seriously doubt that education will eradicate terrorism, but I know for sure that pithy statements from teenagers sure don't do a lot of good against terrorism Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? I don't assume that someone necessarily prefers being an educated adult to being someone with under a 3rd grade education beholden to tribalism and the Koran. Let's not pretend that they're all savages living in caves that have never seen a television or the internet, with no exposure to western culture. Furthermore, education is no real bulwark against violence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:23:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't assume that someone necessarily prefers being an educated adult to being someone with under a 3rd grade education beholden to tribalism and the Koran. Let's not pretend that they're all savages living in caves that have never seen a television or the internet, with no exposure to western culture. Furthermore, education is no real bulwark against violence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I know that guns do a pretty bang up job against terrorists. I seriously doubt that education will eradicate terrorism, but I know for sure that pithy statements from teenagers sure don't do a lot of good against terrorism Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? I don't assume that someone necessarily prefers being an educated adult to being someone with under a 3rd grade education beholden to tribalism and the Koran. Let's not pretend that they're all savages living in caves that have never seen a television or the internet, with no exposure to western culture. Furthermore, education is no real bulwark against violence. hard to argue qtab, obl, and ayatollah Khomeini were ignorant cave dwellers. they were all western educated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:24:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, there is no such thing as the "English Revolution." Its a term created by Marxists. As I wrote, what you are referring to is either the English Civil War, or you're referring to the Glorious Revolution. If you want to be taken seriously while discussing English history, you have to use the correct terms. Its the very basis of learning English History, the manner in which it is taught is extremely regimented, even hear in the United States. Names and dates, names and dates, beaten into your skull until you can name off every monarch since 1066, the years of the Rump Parliaments. The names of such fellows as Moore, Wolsey. And the correct name for the various wars and rebellions that occurred. Historians don't recognize Marxist history and dialectics, I don't either. You shouldn't either. Whig historians (Macaulay's History of England) referred to the Glorious Revolution as the English Revolution. That's my usage. Marxists used the term to refer to the Civil War. So no, it wasn't a term created by Marxists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:33:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get both! 
TC For once, the GD mantra is actually true and best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:34:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't assume that someone necessarily prefers being an educated adult to being someone with under a 3rd grade education beholden to tribalism and the Koran. Let's not pretend that they're all savages living in caves that have never seen a television or the internet, with no exposure to western culture. Furthermore, education is no real bulwark against violence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I know that guns do a pretty bang up job against terrorists. I seriously doubt that education will eradicate terrorism, but I know for sure that pithy statements from teenagers sure don't do a lot of good against terrorism Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? I don't assume that someone necessarily prefers being an educated adult to being someone with under a 3rd grade education beholden to tribalism and the Koran. Let's not pretend that they're all savages living in caves that have never seen a television or the internet, with no exposure to western culture. Furthermore, education is no real bulwark against violence. Do you know anything about the Swat valley in Pakistan? Be honest if you don't. Its not much different than the stone age, accept for the AKs and Toyota pickups. And its where the author of the quote in the OP came from. Besides, what good is getting info from television and the internet if the person watching/reading doesn't have the education to understand and interpret what they are receiving? Without context, gained from education, people are easily manipulated. Case in point, look at how climate change is used by the left. A population who understands the history of propaganda, the sicentific method, and the basics of climatology would know AGW is unproven and that consensus doesn't mean proven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:34:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The key element of the defeat of the Incas was the Spanish conquistidor Pizarro taking their emperor hostage, by ambushing him and his followers when they were heading to a feast. That wasn't some sort of great decision making ability, it was deceit coupled with artillery. "In 1531, he sailed down to Peru, landing at Tumbes. He led his army up the Andes Mountains and on November 15, 1532, reached the Inca town of Cajamarca, where Atahuallpa was enjoying the hot springs in preparation for his march on Cuzco, the capital of his brother’s kingdom. Pizarro invited Atahuallpa to attend a feast in his honor, and the emperor accepted. Having just won one of the largest battles in Inca history, and with an army of 30,000 men at his disposal, Atahuallpa thought he had nothing to fear from the bearded white stranger and his 180 men. Pizarro, however, planned an ambush, setting up his artillery at the square of Cajamarca. On November 16, Atahuallpa arrived at the meeting place with an escort of several thousand men, all apparently unarmed. Pizarro sent out a priest to exhort the emperor to accept the sovereignty of Christianity and Emperor Charles V., and Atahuallpa refused, flinging a Bible handed to him to the ground in disgust. Pizarro immediately ordered an attack. Buckling under an assault by the terrifying Spanish artillery, guns, and cavalry (all of which were alien to the Incas), thousands of Incas were slaughtered, and the emperor was captured." Atahuallpa intended to sieze Pizarro and his men. The key failure of the indians was the failure of their decision making vs that of the Spainards. Atahuallpa had his elite guard armed with flowers in a show of contempt. The Spanish were in harness and awaiting the order to attack. Atahuallpa chose to confront the Spanish in person thinking they had no options, an act of vanity. 30,000 or 35,000 native warriors watched the Inca be sized and thousands of indians killed and did nothing because they had no order to act. The failure of the Incas was in their decision making. The Inca put himself in close contact with the Spanish, with a disarmed guard because he assumed the Spanish had no options. His general overlooking the battle had no independent decision making capability. The Spanish, for their part, siezed the moment. And Atahuallpa. It was all about the decision making loop. Atahuallpa expected the Spanish to be hostile but he thought numbers would eliminate their options. He had actually had a spy travel with them for about a week as they traveled to his empire, and he knew they had had sex with the holy women (from whom his concubines were selected). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:37:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whig historians (Macaulay's History of England) referred to the Glorious Revolution as the English Revolution. That's my usage. Marxists used the term to refer to the Civil War. So no, it wasn't a term created by Marxists. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
First, there is no such thing as the "English Revolution." Its a term created by Marxists. As I wrote, what you are referring to is either the English Civil War, or you're referring to the Glorious Revolution. If you want to be taken seriously while discussing English history, you have to use the correct terms. Its the very basis of learning English History, the manner in which it is taught is extremely regimented, even hear in the United States. Names and dates, names and dates, beaten into your skull until you can name off every monarch since 1066, the years of the Rump Parliaments. The names of such fellows as Moore, Wolsey. And the correct name for the various wars and rebellions that occurred. Historians don't recognize Marxist history and dialectics, I don't either. You shouldn't either. Whig historians (Macaulay's History of England) referred to the Glorious Revolution as the English Revolution. That's my usage. Marxists used the term to refer to the Civil War. So no, it wasn't a term created by Marxists. Don't google a phrase and copy paste some info you just read and then try to play it off like you were educated by Whigs, who haven't existed in a century. You were using the term incorrectly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:39:42 PM EDT
[#38]
But they told me that white, heterosexual, Christian men in the mid-west were the primary Risk of terror, not the proud, noble, peaceful followers of Muhammad the peaceful prophet. If thats true, then why are they calling for education in the middle east? Evidently I'm confused again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:43:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Atahuallpa intended to sieze Pizarro and his men. The key failure of the indians was the failure of their decision making vs that of the Spainards. Atahuallpa had his elite guard armed with flowers in a show of contempt. The Spanish were in harness and awaiting the order to attack. Atahuallpa chose to confront the Spanish in person thinking they had no options, an act of vanity. 30,000 or 35,000 native warriors watched the Inca be sized and thousands of indians killed and did nothing because they had no order to act. The failure of the Incas was in their decision making. The Inca put himself in close contact with the Spanish, with a disarmed guard because he assumed the Spanish had no options. His general overlooking the battle had no independent decision making capability. The Spanish, for their part, siezed the moment. And Atahuallpa. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The key element of the defeat of the Incas was the Spanish conquistidor Pizarro taking their emperor hostage, by ambushing him and his followers when they were heading to a feast. That wasn't some sort of great decision making ability, it was deceit coupled with artillery. "In 1531, he sailed down to Peru, landing at Tumbes. He led his army up the Andes Mountains and on November 15, 1532, reached the Inca town of Cajamarca, where Atahuallpa was enjoying the hot springs in preparation for his march on Cuzco, the capital of his brother’s kingdom. Pizarro invited Atahuallpa to attend a feast in his honor, and the emperor accepted. Having just won one of the largest battles in Inca history, and with an army of 30,000 men at his disposal, Atahuallpa thought he had nothing to fear from the bearded white stranger and his 180 men. Pizarro, however, planned an ambush, setting up his artillery at the square of Cajamarca. On November 16, Atahuallpa arrived at the meeting place with an escort of several thousand men, all apparently unarmed. Pizarro sent out a priest to exhort the emperor to accept the sovereignty of Christianity and Emperor Charles V., and Atahuallpa refused, flinging a Bible handed to him to the ground in disgust. Pizarro immediately ordered an attack. Buckling under an assault by the terrifying Spanish artillery, guns, and cavalry (all of which were alien to the Incas), thousands of Incas were slaughtered, and the emperor was captured." Atahuallpa intended to sieze Pizarro and his men. The key failure of the indians was the failure of their decision making vs that of the Spainards. Atahuallpa had his elite guard armed with flowers in a show of contempt. The Spanish were in harness and awaiting the order to attack. Atahuallpa chose to confront the Spanish in person thinking they had no options, an act of vanity. 30,000 or 35,000 native warriors watched the Inca be sized and thousands of indians killed and did nothing because they had no order to act. The failure of the Incas was in their decision making. The Inca put himself in close contact with the Spanish, with a disarmed guard because he assumed the Spanish had no options. His general overlooking the battle had no independent decision making capability. The Spanish, for their part, siezed the moment. And Atahuallpa. According to who? Steven Pinker? Even you admit they had no weapons and only flowers. If they were looking to capture them, maybe someone would have left the emperor behind, who wasn't a warrior, and maybe brought a weapon or two. You're making up assumptions about decision making and you'e making even bigger assumptions that western culture, not military dominance, contributed to the fall of the Incans. Just stop already, you're digging yourself deeper and doing it to prove something that can't be because history says you're wrong. History says the Spaniards conquered the Incans not because of some European enlightened ideology (your assumption) but because they were an advanced warfighting culture, fresh from the rapidly advancing technological killing fields of Europe, using those weapons and techniques against people little better armed than those in the stone age. For Christ's sake, the Incans didn't even have wheels. You think they could have grasped the concept of a cannon supported charged by steel armored heavy cavalry and mixed musketeers and sword and buckler infantrymen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:44:04 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't google a phrase and copy paste some info you just read and then try to play it off like you were educated by Whigs, who haven't existed in a century. You were using the term incorrectly. I didn't, I read Macaulay's History of England. You are simply wrong that the term English Revolution had Marxist origins. Applying it to the 1667 revolution as I obviously was is consistent with Whig usage. Whig historical works still exist, you can buy them on Amazon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:46:29 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know anything about the Swat valley in Pakistan? Be honest if you don't. Its not much different than the stone age, accept for the AKs and Toyota pickups. And its where the author of the quote in the OP came from. Besides, what good is getting info from television and the internet if the person watching/reading doesn't have the education to understand and interpret what they are receiving? Without context, gained from education, people are easily manipulated. Case in point, look at how climate change is used by the left. A population who understands the history of propaganda, the sicentific method, and the basics of climatology would know AGW is unproven and that consensus doesn't mean proven. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I know that guns do a pretty bang up job against terrorists. I seriously doubt that education will eradicate terrorism, but I know for sure that pithy statements from teenagers sure don't do a lot of good against terrorism Who is more likely to beat the shit out of someone, or kill, because they don't like what the other person is saying? An educated adult with reasoning skills, a grasp of non-violent discussion about a range of controversial or important subjects, including those that contradict certain closely held religious learnings? Or someone with under a 3rd grade education who bases their value system off an obsolete tribal/clan customs and a book written 1,500 years ago? I don't assume that someone necessarily prefers being an educated adult to being someone with under a 3rd grade education beholden to tribalism and the Koran. Let's not pretend that they're all savages living in caves that have never seen a television or the internet, with no exposure to western culture. Furthermore, education is no real bulwark against violence. Do you know anything about the Swat valley in Pakistan? Be honest if you don't. Its not much different than the stone age, accept for the AKs and Toyota pickups. And its where the author of the quote in the OP came from. Besides, what good is getting info from television and the internet if the person watching/reading doesn't have the education to understand and interpret what they are receiving? Without context, gained from education, people are easily manipulated. Case in point, look at how climate change is used by the left. A population who understands the history of propaganda, the sicentific method, and the basics of climatology would know AGW is unproven and that consensus doesn't mean proven. I admit I am not knowledgeable about the Swat Valley. Watching TV or surfing the internet isn't as complicated or subtextural as you're making out to be. And I stand by my assertion that some, or even many people have no desire to be enlightened by western education or values. People from all walks of life, ethnic groups, socioeconomic levels, what have you, regress to fundamentalist, often violent views all the time. It isn't necessarily owned by fundamentalist Islam, it just so happens that they're the current world champions at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:48:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The trend since the 1500s has been towards more peace, driven by certain European cultures (including American culture...). Upon what do you base that claim? I'll admit that my recollection of world history is a bit rusty, but I sure don't remember such a trend. ISTR there being an awful lot of wars from 1600 to the present. Not to mention that the two World Wars were as far from "more peace" as was possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:59:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to who? Steven Pinker? Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to who? Steven Pinker? According to this book Atahualpa told the Spanish his intents: http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Incas-John-Hemming/dp/0156028263 Quoted:
Even you admit they had no weapons and only flowers. If they were looking to capture them, maybe someone would have left the emperor behind, who wasn't a warrior, and maybe brought a weapon or two. Atahualpa thought he had little to fear from 169 men, particularly since his spy had indicated they were not very active men. He had some 30k armed troops in reserve and thousands armed only with flowers. Incidetly after capture Atahualpa remained convinced of native superiority and suggested a contest of champions. The Spanish accepeted. Atahualpa selected a huge indian and the Spanish put forth a man of average size (once again poor decison making by Atahualpa since he had nuliffied his ability to prove anything by selecting a huge champion). The unarmed fight lasted about half an hour and ended when the spaniard choked the indian to death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:00:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Upon what do you base that claim? I'll admit that my recollection of world history is a bit rusty, but I sure don't remember such a trend. ISTR there being an awful lot of wars from 1600 to the present. Not to mention that the two World Wars were as far from "more peace" as was possible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The trend since the 1500s has been towards more peace, driven by certain European cultures (including American culture...). Upon what do you base that claim? I'll admit that my recollection of world history is a bit rusty, but I sure don't remember such a trend. ISTR there being an awful lot of wars from 1600 to the present. Not to mention that the two World Wars were as far from "more peace" as was possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcIL_JFmBtk |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:01:28 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Spanish approach to the new World was quite different then the English approach, where the early settlers bought land from the natives and didn't engage in forced conversions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Spanish approach to the new World was quite different then the English approach, where the early settlers bought land from the natives and didn't engage in forced conversions. However, later settlers and US citizens took the land by force, killing many of the natives in the process. Not much different than the Spanish approach. However, superior culture was indeed a significant component. I guess that depends upon how "superior culture" is defined. Personally, I don't see as "superior" any culture that enables one group to consider itself justified in killing members of another group in order to steal their land and wealth. European dominance is rooted in superior culture. Superior culture provides superior technology and more effective cooperation, resulting is superior military capability. Yep. The Nazis proved that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:03:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't, I read Macaulay's History of England. You are simply wrong that the term English Revolution had Marxist origins. Applying it to the 1667 revolution as I obviously was is consistent with Whig usage. Whig historical works still exist, you can buy them on Amazon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't google a phrase and copy paste some info you just read and then try to play it off like you were educated by Whigs, who haven't existed in a century. You were using the term incorrectly. I didn't, I read Macaulay's History of England. You are simply wrong that the term English Revolution had Marxist origins. Applying it to the 1667 revolution as I obviously was is consistent with Whig usage. Whig historical works still exist, you can buy them on Amazon. The term is only used these days among Marxists. English Historians do not use that term to describe the ascension of William and Mary. One single source, especially one written in the mid 1800s, does not make it commonly known. You using that term now is like someone referring to the American Civil War as the "The Great Southern Rebellion of 1861." No one calls it that, no one educated calls it that. Constantly using an alien term to describe an event that has an already commonly used name makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. We don't call AR15 musketoons or firelocks. We don't call cars motorized carriages. To use those terms sets off alarm bells, especially when they are accompanied by incorrect historical information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:08:39 PM EDT
[#47]
I guess it depends how you define "education" and who controls the process......take the Annenberg Foundation...please....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:12:47 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
However, later settlers and US citizens took the land by force, killing many of the natives in the process. Not much different than the Spanish approach. I guess that depends upon how "superior culture" is defined. Personally, I don't see as "superior" any culture that enables one group to consider itself justified in killing members of another group in order to steal their land and wealth. Yep. The Nazis proved that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Spanish approach to the new World was quite different then the English approach, where the early settlers bought land from the natives and didn't engage in forced conversions. However, later settlers and US citizens took the land by force, killing many of the natives in the process. Not much different than the Spanish approach. However, superior culture was indeed a significant component. I guess that depends upon how "superior culture" is defined. Personally, I don't see as "superior" any culture that enables one group to consider itself justified in killing members of another group in order to steal their land and wealth. European dominance is rooted in superior culture. Superior culture provides superior technology and more effective cooperation, resulting is superior military capability. Yep. The Nazis proved that. You do realize the natives were killing and conquering each other too right? Rights of conquest used to be the rule, not the exception |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:16:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The term is only used these days among Marxists. English Historians do not use that term to describe the ascension of William and Mary. One single source, especially one written in the mid 1800s, does not make it commonly known. You using that term now is like someone referring to the American Civil War as the "The Great Southern Rebellion of 1861." No one calls it that, no one educated calls it that. Constantly using an alien term to describe an event that has an already commonly used name makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. We don't call AR15 musketoons or firelocks. We don't call cars motorized carriages. To use those terms sets off alarm bells, especially when they are accompanied by incorrect historical information. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't google a phrase and copy paste some info you just read and then try to play it off like you were educated by Whigs, who haven't existed in a century. You were using the term incorrectly. I didn't, I read Macaulay's History of England. You are simply wrong that the term English Revolution had Marxist origins. Applying it to the 1667 revolution as I obviously was is consistent with Whig usage. Whig historical works still exist, you can buy them on Amazon. The term is only used these days among Marxists. English Historians do not use that term to describe the ascension of William and Mary. One single source, especially one written in the mid 1800s, does not make it commonly known. You using that term now is like someone referring to the American Civil War as the "The Great Southern Rebellion of 1861." No one calls it that, no one educated calls it that. Constantly using an alien term to describe an event that has an already commonly used name makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. We don't call AR15 musketoons or firelocks. We don't call cars motorized carriages. To use those terms sets off alarm bells, especially when they are accompanied by incorrect historical information. I prefer horseless carriage myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:20:43 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
However, later settlers and US citizens took the land by force, killing many of the natives in the process. Not much different than the Spanish approach. The natives were the ones who started the killing. That was what allowed the Jamestown settlement to expand. The indians attacked in 1622 attempting to kill all English, but failed. The English responded with total war against the tribe and destroyed it, taking its land. The natives were the ones who usually started the violence. Very different then the Spanish with their conquests, force conversions, rape and use of the encomienda system. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
