No, nothing you couldnt witness can be a fact. One could argue the discovery of Americas, existence of Alexander the Great, even Napoleon. And there would be no single thing you could do to scientifically prove they were indeed real. There are just some "sources" you think that are reliable, or that appease you and you would rather "trust" their claims. Should I have lived as a historian in Roman times, I could just persuade other historians and write about how a bear horde ravaged through Rome, and give made up reports on a daily basis, just for ****s and giggles. And now the whole world would think that was an actual event.
Armenian Genocide (?)
- Thread starter Janissary1453
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Captain Pyjama Shark
Grandmaster Knight
Well. Good argument. I guess history may as well be a dead subject.
Captain Pyjama Shark
Grandmaster Knight
Boom boom dynomite!
socks
Master Knight
Yes Allegro, that's quite the retarded argument.
Anyway, I think OP, as well as 'khazid hae', are somewhat biased
It happened. Period. You can stop denying it just to sate your idealistic views of your nation being perfect. Geez, you guys are more nationalist than the Polish and their winged hussars
Anyway, I think OP, as well as 'khazid hae', are somewhat biased
It happened. Period. You can stop denying it just to sate your idealistic views of your nation being perfect. Geez, you guys are more nationalist than the Polish and their winged hussars
Well its fun, the most logical/plausible explanation studied through the evidences is something that I find satisfying. I'm not out looking for absolute truths, as they are hard to get. And there is this terminology thing. Even though the object would stand right in front of us, one could argue about its color. One might think murder, other might think it was fair duel.Kvedulf said:
Oops, my whole argument goes collapsed! I better run!socks said:Yes Allegro, that's quite the retarded argument.
It happened. Period. You can stop denying it just to sate your idealistic views of your nation being perfect. Geez, you guys are more nationalist than the Polish and their winged hussars
Captain Pyjama Shark
Grandmaster Knight
But really. That's retarded. Words cannot even begin to express.
Allegro said:
So in other words, for you, history is about as important and relevant to our world as, say, a game of Monopoly?
Does this form of "logic" and your views on history also extend to other fields such as biology, geology, astronomy or physics? Have you ever seen a great white shark, real and in the flesh. Because if you haven't, it might not really exist. Have you seen a real earthquake or volcano? Or held soil from the moon? Because if you haven't, they might not exist. For that matter, have you personally ever seen your own liver? This might sound a little stupid, but it's the continuation of your logic. Retarded...
Cheers
Kvedulf
Anyone with a dictionary. Genocide requires an organised attempt to eliminate or displace a people on ethnic or racial grounds. Indiscriminate killing is by definition not genocide.Captain Pyjama Shark said:
Unless evidence comes to light of an organised or intent to kill the Armenians then the Turks never committed genocide. They did kill a few thousand Armenians, but then find a nation participating in WW1 that didn't kill a few million people based on their nationality ...
Did he say so? Do his statements require that?Kvedulf said:
True, that may have been slightly over the top. And no, Allegro did not directly say that.
However, Allegro's statements do give that impression. Allegro's already stated that nothing in history is 'fact' and, for all anyone knows could all be made up.
History is, for Allegro, fun and satisfying. However, nowhere did Allegro say that history is important or relevant.
Saying that history is not fact and is simply fun, the interpretation therefore is that history is nothing more that a game or puzzle.
But how about we let Allegro answer, rather than you? Neither of us know Allegro's opinions, and as inflammatory as my statement may be to some, it was a question with the aims of starting a discussion. I want to know Allegro's opinion.
Cheers
Kvedulf
However, Allegro's statements do give that impression. Allegro's already stated that nothing in history is 'fact' and, for all anyone knows could all be made up.
History is, for Allegro, fun and satisfying. However, nowhere did Allegro say that history is important or relevant.
Saying that history is not fact and is simply fun, the interpretation therefore is that history is nothing more that a game or puzzle.
But how about we let Allegro answer, rather than you? Neither of us know Allegro's opinions, and as inflammatory as my statement may be to some, it was a question with the aims of starting a discussion. I want to know Allegro's opinion.
Cheers
Kvedulf
I agree with Archonsod. The mass killings took place, the marks of which are still stained on my family tree, as for whether it was really an effort to eradicate Armenians (as well as Greeks, Assyrians, etc.) is unclear. It does seem a bit strange though when civilians were forced to march for days before being shot, if not executed on the spot.
It's not, that's why it's classified in the arts and not a scienceKvedulf said:
I don't think it is to be honest. One thing to note for example is the number of Armenians working for the Ottoman government, whom you'd think would be the first target of any organised effort to eradicate them. Similarly, no effort was made to even identify (let alone kill) Armenians in other regions of the empire.Nethros said:
My views on positive science are irrelevant to our subject of history, as they all are to a Monopoly game. But yes I have either seen or acquired information through viable sources about the things you mentioned as I'm not a Zambian Pygmy, my ad hominem loving friend.Kvedulf said:
From what I know, the people living in Armenia got blamed for supporting Russia and at the time people thought it lost them the war. I don't think Armenians in particular were the target, thus the incident technically isn't a genocide, just everyone in that region who looked like they helped the Russians.
Still, it might not have been the best of choices though.
Still, it might not have been the best of choices though.
DameGreyWulf
Grandmaster Knight
@Allegro: Sorry to butt in here, I think you contradicted yourself.
You say you get information from sources, yet you criticized people for getting their information from sources?
It's not necessarily ad hominem as Kvedulf is attempting to understand your logic and trying to put it into context in other places, thus trying to display to you the illogicality of your logic and thus its conclusion ("You can't prove it happened, because you can only cite texts and documents, and haven't witnessed it yourself.").
People died in a large amounts, which to most qualifies as genocide, regardless of its strict definition. Just pointing that out... you have to take that into account when considering the question of whether it happened.
You say you get information from sources, yet you criticized people for getting their information from sources?
It's not necessarily ad hominem as Kvedulf is attempting to understand your logic and trying to put it into context in other places, thus trying to display to you the illogicality of your logic and thus its conclusion ("You can't prove it happened, because you can only cite texts and documents, and haven't witnessed it yourself.").
People died in a large amounts, which to most qualifies as genocide, regardless of its strict definition. Just pointing that out... you have to take that into account when considering the question of whether it happened.
You're not butting in, this is an open discussion.DameGreyWulf said:
Never I criticized anyone for doing anything, I dare you to go ahead and point it out. I am merely saying what people think historical facts are actually conclusions on informations they acquired through sources and evidences, and it could never go beyond that. And historical matters thus, should never be considered as facts.
Nope, people dying in large quantities alone is far from enough to make it a genocide. Especially when the amount of people to have died itself cannot be verified.DameGreyWulf said:
DameGreyWulf
Grandmaster Knight
I'm just saying that's what people find good enough for genocide.
Okay, so your logic is instead that, since you can't prove anything beyond documentation that something happened, thus it can possibly not have?
That can be applied too to things you personally can't achieve. Meaning, say, you can't go deep sea diving, so how do you know bottom dwelling animals exist, other than through documentation from others?
Eyes aren't the only things that can provide solid proof, especially considering eyes can play tricks on you.
Though then again you said...
Okay, so your logic is instead that, since you can't prove anything beyond documentation that something happened, thus it can possibly not have?
That can be applied too to things you personally can't achieve. Meaning, say, you can't go deep sea diving, so how do you know bottom dwelling animals exist, other than through documentation from others?
Eyes aren't the only things that can provide solid proof, especially considering eyes can play tricks on you.
Though then again you said...
So how does ANYTHING become a fact, then? You can't go by what you witness and what is documented... so what is it that makes things facts? Is nothing concrete?Allegro said:
I believe I've made my logic pretty clear so far and my methods of understanding positive science are not relevant to our current subject and discussing them would only derail our subject. What appeared to me was his questions, with a tint of rhetorical, were actually challenges based on irrelevant matters, rather than curiosities.DameGreyWulf said:
Again, my views on things other than historical matters are completely irrelevant to our subject. Objects tend to fall on ground in our earth and that's a fact, whereas Armenian Genocide is not. Existences of you and bottom sea dwellers can meet since they are present at the same time period, unlike historical events. If you havent done so or your acquired proofs through other sources don't satisfy you, then be my guest, you may go ahead and challenge their existence, I do not care. Nor do I will to discuss seas or volcanos or moons any further.DameGreyWulf said:
Similar threads
- Poll
