What do you think of?

Twotribes · Post by **Twotribes** » Sun May 25, 2014 6:28 pm

What do you think of when confronted by someone that insists that no recorded history is true but insists on trying to participate in discussions of historical nature? The claim being that every one lies and that history is a big lie perpetrated by the side with the power and that there is no way to determine when this happens so NO recorded history is truthful?

Terminus · Post by **Terminus** » Sun May 25, 2014 6:41 pm

I think of calling some friendly men with a very long-sleeved jacket for the individual.

TulliusDetritus · Post by **TulliusDetritus** » Sun May 25, 2014 7:33 pm

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think of calling some friendly men with a very long-sleeved jacket for the individual.

+ 1

Zap · Post by **Zap** » Sun May 25, 2014 7:37 pm

There are those saying that about the holocaust. It never happened. So yes, its hard to believe these people have any intellectual honesty. Or are delusional.

Yogi the Great · Post by **Yogi the Great** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:50 am

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

What do you think of when confronted by someone that insists that no recorded history is true but insists on trying to participate in discussions of historical nature? The claim being that every one lies and that history is a big lie perpetrated by the side with the power and that there is no way to determine when this happens so NO recorded history is truthful?

Well, just accept his belief and apply his statements to his own posts. Everyone lies would include him and since he believes that there is no way to determine when this happens there is also no way for him to make a point that can be taken seriously. All kidding aside though the fact is that there will always be people who will only believe what they want to believe. There will always be people who will invent a version of history that makes them personally comfortable. Denial can be a powerful feel good medication for the brain that needs to believe otherwise.

Most of us at some point in time probably believed a conspiracy theory or two. Why some of you still don't believe that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen baffles me to this day.

wings7 · Post by **wings7** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:23 am

ORIGINAL: Zap

There are those saying that about the holocaust. It never happened. So yes, its hard to believe these people have any intellectual honesty. Or are delusional.

There is too much evidence to the contrary.

KISSMEUFOOL! · Post by **KISSMEUFOOL!** » Mon May 26, 2014 10:14 am

Most people are cynics and the remainder are daft. I studied logic in college but the professor stated that even after years of study, less than 5% of his students ever utilized the knowledge, even in major life decisions. The blind lead the blind.

Jim D Burns · Post by **Jim D Burns** » Mon May 26, 2014 10:32 am

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
What do you think of when confronted by someone that insists that no recorded history is true but insists on trying to participate in discussions of historical nature?

Never waste your time trying to hold an intelligent discourse with someone who is the proponent of a conspiracy theory. They will never accept proof to the contrary, because they want/need the conspiracy to be true.

Jim

KISSMEUFOOL! · Post by **KISSMEUFOOL!** » Mon May 26, 2014 10:38 am

Define "conspiracy theory". Just the facts Ma'am.

decaro · Post by **decaro** » Mon May 26, 2014 10:53 am

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

What do you think of when confronted by someone that insists that no recorded history is true but insists on trying to participate in discussions of historical nature? The claim being that every one lies and that history is a big lie perpetrated by the side with the power and that there is no way to determine when this happens so NO recorded history is truthful?

If that's true, then why are they on a website dedicated to historical battle simulations in the first place?
If none of this actually happened, why even bother to be here?

tcarusil · Post by **tcarusil** » Mon May 26, 2014 2:00 pm

Words to live by:

You should never argue with a crazy mi mi mi mi mi mind... Billy Joel

TomC

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Mon May 26, 2014 2:32 pm

Look, some folks get off on doing nothing but trying to stir things up, so your best bet is to use that little green button and place them on "ignore".

shaddock · Post by **shaddock** » Mon May 26, 2014 3:03 pm

It sounds like a person with a very short term memory. History is what has happened. Whether it was 1,000 years ago or just a second ago. To deny history is to also deny your own existence. And as such I'm sure he won't mind me taking his car, as he has no recollection of ever owning one

OttoVonBlotto · Post by **OttoVonBlotto** » Mon May 26, 2014 3:57 pm

While it is reasonable to arguable that history can written by the winners and can be corrupted by propaganda from vested interests to view themselves in a better light, to argue all history is wrong is just silly.

aaatoysandmore · Post by **aaatoysandmore** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:05 pm

Who is this person you speak of? I'd be interested in knowing? That is IF your wording is correct in that he said "no recorded history" is true? and this statement "NO recorded history is truthful? " Can you show us where this person wrote that? do you have the actual "history" of that conversation? [:D]

Maybe you just changed what he actually said into what you "THOUGHT" he said to promote your own agenda and he didn't use those exact words at all. Maybe? Hrmmm? [:D]

Qwixt · Post by **Qwixt** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:13 pm

It is naive to think that written history is not skewed by the victors. So I agree with the statement that most of history is not True (as in absolute truth), but that's because truth is always subjective from the viewpoint of the observer. But a good understanding of what happened can be achieved if enough viewpoints are available. Reading only one side of a historical event, should be taken with some skepticism.

As far as saying everything is lies and untrue, then proceeding to derail all discussion with repeatedly bashing everyone with that, is slaakman like conduct, and annoying to the say the least.

TulliusDetritus · Post by **TulliusDetritus** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:26 pm

One of the first things you learn when you study History at university (as I did) is...

Methodology

[;)]

Looks like that person never heard about this essential thing. Methodology is (among other things) what makes the difference between charlatans and scholars.

z1812 · Post by **z1812** » Mon May 26, 2014 5:24 pm

There is a saying that the " first casualty of war is truth".

Social and Political History is to some degree in the same boat. It will never be a fixed representation as it is interpreted by people who generally have a point of view they are looking to further.

The more ancient history is the harder it can be to determine Social and Political "Truth".

We may know fixed facts such as what people wore, what they worshipped, what type of transportation they used and even what they ate.

The idea of a definitive Social and Political truth is much, much more difficult if not impossible to arrive at.

Consider events occurring right now. The various interpretations and points of view are legion, not considering the amount of pure propaganda. How much harder will that be to adjudicate 200 or 300 years from now.

We know facts. But the reality of the circumstance and activities that established those facts is very difficult to arrive at.

aaatoysandmore · Post by **aaatoysandmore** » Mon May 26, 2014 5:33 pm

A lot of ancient history has been passed down by word of mouth though in songs and such but not necessarily written history of those times.

Bob Barker on truth or consequences showed one day how word of mouth conversations and history can be changed by the passing of the story from person to person in just a 10 man panel right then and there let alone a few 100 to 1000 years apart. With each passing of the story it got changed until it was quite different from the original story that was up on the screen as the 10th man told the story that was passed to him from the 9th man. Without discussing religion: those bibical stories as oppose to hebrew ones. where's the truth? Who's the historian? Who's to be belived and who's not? That is why I question history but of course not ALL history as some would have you believe.

If we do not question what is truth how are we to accept what is suppose to be fact.

Twotribes · Post by **Twotribes** » Mon May 26, 2014 5:45 pm

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

A lot of ancient history has been passed down by word of mouth though in songs and such but not necessarily written history of those times.

Bob Barker on truth or consequences showed one day how word of mouth conversations and history can be changed by the passing of the story from person to person in just a 10 man panel right then and there let alone a few 100 to 1000 years apart. With each passing of the story it got changed until it was quite different from the original story that was up on the screen as the 10th man told the story that was passed to him from the 9th man. Without discussing religion: those bibical stories as oppose to hebrew ones. where's the truth? Who's the historian? Who's to be belived and who's not? That is why I question history but of course not ALL history as some would have you believe.

If we do not question what is truth how are we to accept what is suppose to be fact.

Well except you argued that we could not know the history of the American civil war. That we could not know anything as fact from the past. Then you claimed we could not know if the North killed off all the Southern surviving Generals politicians and Government officials after the war.

What do you think of?

What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?

RE: What do you think of?