|
cafel posted:Though I find the idea that finding out if Jesus or Mohammad were historical figures is unimportant strange. I mean confirming that kind of thing seems like it would be good spring board for a better understanding of the very early stages of two of the most influential religions in history, and that seems fairly 'important'. I mean it's not likely that kind of thing could be confirmed in any kind of definitive way, but from a historical perspective it doesn't seem trivial.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
veekie posted:Especially if some rabble rouser uses it as their excuse. Rabble rousers will always find an excuse, and its not going to be some historian, its going to be some whackjob straight up making lies on Youtube about it. Historical truth vs. comforting myth is a false dichotomy, and science (or whomever values truth) will just as readily debunk slander as well as mythology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
The wikipedia article on Judas says; quote:Another account was preserved by the early Christian leader, Papias: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."[16] How much of a threat was getting run over a chariot in Roman times?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Rabble rousers will always find an excuse, and its not going to be some historian, its going to be some whackjob straight up making lies on Youtube about it. Historical truth vs. comforting myth is a false dichotomy, and science (or whomever values truth) will just as readily debunk slander as well as mythology. Naturally, but it should be considered in terms of how you publish and publicize it. Easier to win acceptance within academic circles before working outwards than slam it into the public's face in the news. People get all kinds of irrational.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
veekie posted:Naturally, but it should be considered in terms of how you publish and publicize it. Easier to win acceptance within academic circles before working outwards than slam it into the public's face in the news. People get all kinds of irrational. But is that the researchers' fault? When does it become self-censorship? When will Arglebargle continue his series on the Han Dynasty? I'm just asking questions. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
Not at all, but there's a difference between academically saying that Jesus probably existed as a collage of notable figures, and issuing a press release on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:Then again, if a historian published something about the historical Jesus that the knew would cause rioting and destruction they'd better have a better reason for it than "I was just publishing the truth" and I would consider them partially responsible for any harm that came from that. Bullshit. There is no good reason to withhold the truth from people and if the truth pisses people off then that's on their heads, not the head of the one who spoke it. Imagine applying this bullshit argument to someone publishing facts about life outside an oppressive regime and then blaming the messenger for the popular uprising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:Bullshit. There is no good reason to withhold the truth from people and if the truth pisses people off then that's on their heads, not the head of the one who spoke it. If "pisses people off" meant angry comments on the Internet, then yes, it would be on their heads. If it meant someone getting their skull caved in by a violent man with a baseball bat, then things get a bit more complicated. Imagine someone finding absolute proof that a notable historical figure of some group was a complete rear end in a top hat towards members of another group. (let's say that the divide is on a national basis) Furthermore, let's say that there is a lot of tension between the groups, the group that the figure belongs to is in a dangerous position, and that the right spark can cause an explosion of violence. Knowing that it would most likely cause an incredible death tally, would you publish those findings? This is not a completely hypothetical scenario by the way, I know a situation that played out this way and had a very gruesome end. One of the most frequently used excuses is that something else would have caused the spark anyway, and that you might as well publish it now. Except there are so many crises we never heard of because they never happened. Because the trigger simply didn't happen, or happened too late, or wasn't strong enough. When you publish your findings, and are aware of the consequences, you can be held responsible for them. You're not the sole contributor to the disaster by any means. You're one of many, in fact, and your contribution is pretty tiny. But, like the infamous "I was just following orders", "I was just publishing the truth" becomes pointless when considering things that end up being justified by it. Here's a simple, everyday example from journalism. A very real one, too, happened a few months ago. A man searched for (and found) a safe house for women (and their children) his wife was hiding in, wounded their son and almost killed her. When that happened, several papers published both the location of the safe house and the fact that it has zero security. Would the journalists who published those articles be blameless if one of the violent assholes who caused all those women to take shelter there decided to use the info to track down his wife too, safe in knowledge that there's nobody there to stop him? Man, this was a lot longer than intended.  Don't get me wrong, most of the time I'm all for saying the truth, and gently caress the consequences. But none of us live in an ivory tower. There is nothing wrong with finding the truth (unless you're taking the Mengele route of finding it) and publishing it - but the act of publishing it is something you unfortunately need to consider the implications of, and cannot wash your hands of the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:The wikipedia article on Judas says; Well, most of the actual shipping and whatnot was handled by the carts at night and only Romans up to no good stayed out that late. So I'd say not very?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:Bullshit. There is no good reason to withhold the truth from people and if the truth pisses people off then that's on their heads, not the head of the one who spoke it. "The truth?" I thought we were talking about history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:"The truth?" I thought we were talking about history. In that case, nobody should publish history at all. I guess we should probably just close the thread now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Herodotus: Best Historian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
my dad posted:Here's a simple, everyday example from journalism. A very real one, too, happened a few months ago. A man searched for (and found) a safe house for women (and their children) his wife was hiding in, wounded their son and almost killed her. When that happened, several papers published both the location of the safe house and the fact that it has zero security. Would the journalists who published those articles be blameless if one of the violent assholes who caused all those women to take shelter there decided to use the info to track down his wife too, safe in knowledge that there's nobody there to stop him? This is a real concern for journalists, but conversely there's also the issue where if that journalist does not publish, reform does not happen, and the exposed and unprotected safe house is attacked again. A journalist that participates in a cover-up is not blameless either. There's a degree of responsibility to publish. This is why journalism studies are laden with ethics courses. And the general consensus is that while people should minimize the potential harm or publication, they need to balance that with the societal value of their story. In that case, the fact that the safe house needs more security is useful information that the public needs to know, while the street address of that safe house is not and would be harmful to expose. To borrow a line from the Supreme Court, censorship is not the right approach, but writers (be they journalists or historians) must be sensitive about the time, place and manner of their stories in order to avoid harming others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Fire, crowded theater etc. etc. Also, this is a bit of a derail, can we call it quits?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Is Alberto Angelo's "A Day In The Life Of Ancient Rome" pretty accurate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:In that case, nobody should publish history at all. Nobody is making this argument. Using the logic espoused above, every time someone says "What do you think of this outfit?", one should state one's unabridged opinion, and the other person's feelings be damned. Instead, most well-adjusted adults temper accuracy with tact. Whether we speak truth or lies, we are accountable for the things we say, for good or for ill. If we did not, than why laud the work of an investigative journalist who uncovers corruption? Or the letters of a man in prison advocating peaceful resistance? If truth is to be judged in a vacuum, with no context of intent or purpose, why indeed study history? History could then be replaced by a mere recitation of events: hardly useless, but far less valuable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Hipster Occultist posted:Well, most of the actual shipping and whatnot was handled by the carts at night and only Romans up to no good stayed out that late. So I'd say not very? Also, if the streets of Pompei are an indication, you had sidewalks. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
And it looks like traffic abatement devices. Those rocks seem to be designed to keep noisy commercial traffic off residential streets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
They're crosswalks for pedestrians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Koramei posted:They're crosswalks for pedestrians. Yep. That road would've been gross as hell, even with the relatively good sanitation of a Roman city compared to the literal thoroughfares of poo poo in a medieval city. They clean it but with animals making GBS threads on it all day long there's only so much you can do. So you use the crosswalk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Here's to an auspicious and interesting ancient history thread in 2767 AUC. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
AUC is now the only acceptable dating scheme in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
In that case, the new year doesn't start until April. Who do you think will be elected consul this year? Won't be able to name the year until then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep. That road would've been gross as hell, even with the relatively good sanitation of a Roman city compared to the literal thoroughfares of poo poo in a medieval city. They clean it but with animals making GBS threads on it all day long there's only so much you can do. So you use the crosswalk. The roads (in Pompeii at least?) were constantly being rebuilt on top of layers as trash as well, weren't they?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
sullat posted:In that case, the new year doesn't start until April. Who do you think will be elected consul this year? Won't be able to name the year until then. I've placed quite a large bet on this new up-and-comer called Catilina. Illustrious patrician family and lots of money - how can he lose?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Octy posted:I've placed quite a large bet on this new up-and-comer called Catilina. Illustrious patrician family and lots of money - how can he lose? I've been observing the sky for omens for awhile now and I think Bibulus is gonna be our most proactive and hardworking Consul ever!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I've been observing the sky for omens for awhile now and I think Bibulus is gonna be our most proactive and hardworking Consul ever! Pleb, don't you know the gods only speak to us through the entails of birds?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 09:33
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Pleb, don't you know the gods only speak to us through the entails of birds? Pfft, my birds wouldn't eat so I threw them in the ocean, maybe they'd prefer to drink 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
sullat posted:In that case, the new year doesn't start until April. Who do you think will be elected consul this year? Won't be able to name the year until then. I hope it's Bilius Flatus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
I hope Crismus Bonus is re-elected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
That Marcus Antonius seems like a cool dude, you hear that he's Julius's friend?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Vote Paxiconus censor for 2767! Truly, I shall return the Roman thread to true roman posting and banish from the thread of those who post of the greeks, the parthians and the seres. Also, I'll take the census and revoke the citizenship of anyone who drags up the argument about whether Rome ends in 476 or 1453 and the definition of barbarian in the late Empire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
But most importantly for the year 2767, Carthage must remain destroyed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
A more accurate name for this year would be Obama and Cruz year, being Obama's 6th year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:A more accurate name for this year would be Obama and Cruz year, being Obama's 6th year. He's not MY consul.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Proscribe Obama! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
You idiots, there's only one person who should be consul, someone who can and will last through the ages. May I present this year's and every year's consul, the honorable Hologram Ronald Reagan. Also this is pretty cool http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-roman-aqueducts-20140101,0,2669673.story quote:Roman aqueduct volunteers tap into history beneath their feet Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
quote:They have also found risque graffiti underneath the San Cosimato convent near Rome, where the Claudio and Marcio aqueducts run parallel. The words date to 18th century monks, who were jealously accusing one another of having liaisons with other monks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
People never change. I wonder how many drawings of dicks they've found. I'm guessing many.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:People never change. I wonder how many drawings of dicks they've found. I'm guessing many. There's always the myth about the vault full of carved dicks hidden somewhere from when a series of popes
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 01:59
|
|
