Destroying History

[BjornP]

I missed your response. Will respond later.

I am guessing Bjorn listen to the first fifteen minutes of Bolelli's treatment of the Spartacan revolt based on the sudden quiet.


http://historyonfirepodcast.com/episode ... -spartacus

Oh, I did listen to that part. Seems this guy either believes Thracians worshipped Dionysus or he just doesn't bother explaining why Thracians would worship Roman gods instead of their own. I might ask him about that, since it's extremely embarassing if he doesn't know that the whole of ancient Europe didn't worship the same Roman gods, with the same rites, and same cults. I suspect he's simply trying to simplify and dramatize his podcast though.

After all, I doubt he'd deny that ancient Germanics called their chief god Woden/Odin, and not Mercury.

[Speaker to Animals]

As if people cannot listen to it for themselves.

[BjornP]

I went ahead and asked him for clarification on what he meant. It's not going to change that I'm right either way, but given his popularity, it's a shame if he didn't even look up that Thracians had their own mythology before making a podcast.

[Speaker to Animals]

Too bad you can't complain to Livy as well..

[katarn]

No, you deliberately reply to those posts by deleting the quotes from Livy and Plutarch that show you were totally wrong. I have posted them repeatedly and you just ignore them, falling back on more word salads instead of admitting you are wrong.

It's not like you posted anything to back up your claim. Are we supposed to just assume Bjorn is the authority on all things that happened in Rome, and one should just search through his word salads to figure out what "actually" happened, even when actual Romans of record dispute you?

LOL, no.

Why can't you just admit you are wrong?

You could easily contest my thesis that the Bacchanalia was the closest analog to our social justice warriors without being such a cunt and disputing recorded history (without a shred of sources presented to support you).

I don't give a shit if you dispute that thesis. What pisses me off is how you come in talking out of your ass about history and you never even bothered to read the people who were there and recorded what happened, and you get the history so fucking wrong.

Spartacus was married to a priestess of Dionysus, genius. You were wrong.

It is a mistake to fill in another's intent based on their rhetoric alone. This is the same strategy the degenerates you hate so much employ- they ignore what someone says and cry 'racist' or 'nazi' or whatever else. You have now done the same thing by refusing to read Bjorn's posts and give his intent the benefit of the doubt. The most radical and polar opposite sides in any conflict seem to trend towards being more similar than different in all ways but the one causing the conflict.

To wit: You do not know that he did not read those sources, so it is in poor taste to assume he did not.

I don't disagree with your basic premise of the similarity between SJWs and Dionysians, (and thank you for answering my earlier question about which wars you attribute to them). I do, however, take issue with your methodology here.

[Speaker to Animals]

I know he didn't read the text because it contradicted what he was posting. He didn't even know it contradicted him until I pointed it out.

You are a little late. We've moved on to him lashing out at Bolelli now for also stating that the servile wars had some connection to the Dionysian cults, and that Spartacus' wife was, in fact, a follower of Dionysus. But, again, he'd have known that if he read the quoted Plutarch.

He was a Thracian from the nomadic tribes and not only had a great spirit and great physical strength, but was, much more than one would expect from his condition, most intelligent and cultured, being more like a Greek than a Thracian [3]. They say that when he was first taken to Rome to be sold, a snake was seen coiled round his head while he was asleep and his wife, who came from the same tribe and was a prophetess subject to possession by the frenzy of [the god of ecstasy] Dionysus, declared that this sign meant that he would have a great and terrible power which would end in misfortune. This woman shared in his escape and was then living with him.

http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/s ... s_t01.html


Again, I realize my thesis about degeneracy and the similarity between the SJWs and the Bacchanalia is controversial. I don't have a problem with people disputing that. Bjorn is disputing historical record and doing so in an insulting fashion. I just responded in likewise insult, though I use the actual historical record to support my case whereas he does not.

[katarn]

I realize I'm a bit late, but, better now than never.

I think, given the historical situation, it is plausible that you are right in just accepting the accounts that say the wife was Dionysian. But Bjorn did read the sources; he just said they shouldn't be taken at face value.

The HoF episodes were why I tuned into this debate, actually. I thought it might shed more light on the interesting subject, and it has. I think that in most of your theses here, you are either right or plausibly right.

[Speaker to Animals]

Bolelli describes it better than me, and he probably wouldn't take it as far as I do with respect to the threat to civilization itself. But in terms of what this movement really was, I think he does a good job. It's in the first fifteen minutes of his episode on the Spartacan revolt.

I think we can safely leave the historical dispute in the past. Bjorn lost that one. He is contradicted by the historical record and actual historians. So it's probably more productive to debate the actual idea I had expressed rather than the historical details used to support it. I don't deny it's a difficult position to defend.

[katarn]

I am uninterested in debating anything with you. You have proven that you have no intention of debating or discussing anything charitably. He has actuallly taken time to attempt a simple layout of his position. Disagree with it if you want, but he is trying to discuss charitably (or at least was, the last few pages haven't been)You keep trying to debate points that have nothing to do with the original argument, constantly moving goalposts, throwing out giant wordwalls of nonsense to obfuscate your lack of argument, Debates often do that when the original point is agreed upon, it seemed to have been to me. It isn't a symptom of malfeasence that Bjorn moved to talk on side topics, although it is a bit offsetting without formal acknowledgement of overall agreement with the initial premiseand then you would go so far as to delete all the quotes I listed in which Roman historians themselves explicitly contradicted you when you replied to my post. Fuck off. You burned this bridge.Some people abbreviate quotes for relevence to their reply, or for convenience. Although he could be doing it for these reasons, it is improper to assign him such intentions.

You can't even admit when you are wrong when a person quotes a Roman historian saying the opposite of your claim. So, honestly, just fuck off.

It just got to the point where I realize that guy is a total fraud and wasting my time. He has no intention of debating anything honestly. I caught him flat out lying and deleting quotes to avoid admitting he was wrong.See prior point.

No, you really are not. You are interested in puffing yourself up and posing as a scholar.

The Roman historians described exactly what the Bacchanalia was like (which, I should not have to explain to you -- as one would to a child -- was not even a Roman cult to begin with, but a foreign cult that infiltrated Roman society).

Your quotes about Christians are non sequitors that have ZERO to do with the original argument. You are trying to throw up a smokescreen just to avoid admitting you were wrong.This is good. There is often a thin line between non sequitors and analogous or principle-extending arguments. He was trying to extend the principle that sources should be taken at face value to other sources, which is not a non sequitor when it is explained carefully as it was.

[katarn]

Bolelli describes it better than me, and he probably wouldn't take it as far as I do with respect to the threat to civilization itself. But in terms of what this movement really was, I think he does a good job. It's in the first fifteen minutes of his episode on the Spartacan revolt.

I think we can safely leave the historical dispute in the past. Bjorn lost that one. He is contradicted by the historical record and actual historians. So it's probably more productive to debate the actual idea I had expressed rather than the historical details used to support it. I don't deny it's a difficult position to defend.

I agree with your take on Bolelli. Bjorn is contradicted by those historians. I agree enough with your thesis that it doesn't need to be contended.

The only reason I'm prattling on with this late is to get you to recognize the logical faults in the debate with Bjorn, regardless of if you were right or wrong or if it was topical or not.

You engaged in a plethora of ad hominem attacks, poisoned the well, etc. None of which makes you wrong, per se, but is poor form. You also assigned intents and motives without sufficient evidence from Bjorn's actual posts. This does not affect the general correctness, as I view it, of your argument, and by now I realize I must be becoming a prick, so I'll close that issue with my methodological objections raised.