|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 0:39:02 GMT
Thank you Big Lin.
When people begin to exchange views there are differing ways to approach the exchange. Obviously one way is for each to provide their views for the other to consider. They can offer sources that support their views and the validity of the source will (in part) define the worth of the words extracted from that source. The initial goal of such exchanges is to find some degree of common ground, both sides accepting the validity of a source is a single step.
In fact, the validity of the sources can be view from several perspectives. One such perspective is to have the person using that source simply say that this particular source is a good one and can be trusted. Of course, such a position has little meaning as it doesn’t contribute to any development of common ground. Of course the person offering that source can step up their recommendation by intensifying their support of the source. This could mean supporting that source through other sources sort of acting as character witness for the source. Or, they could support their offered source by an attempt at browbeating others into accepting their source (their facts so to speak) with referring to the others as being stupid or some other pejorative description for not accepting their source and the offered facts from that source. That is, either accept what I say or you are branded an idiot. Not a positive way of garnering support for one’s position.
In this particular instance the sources of the supposed facts are not just suspect as to credibility but rather as close to a criminal enterprise (Southern Poverty Law Center) as can be developed.
Now, it is clear that our views (yours and mine) of the words of Bill Warner are quite different. The focus on the reference of his on the Germanic people speaking Roman has apparently made you nearly have a break down based on your emotional resistance to it, even after the context of such a reference has been explained by more than one person. That those who traveled or had commerce those days had multiple languages is factual. Primarily such languages would be comprised of Latin, of Greek, of the local (wherever) language. The languages of Latin and Greek (in each of their varied forms) were the language of Rome from the unwashed plebeian to the high discourse of rhetoric debate. That apparently you find the generalized description of this personality distasteful to the degree that it has become your excuse for rejecting Bill Warner, is quite definitive of your position over all.
However, that is anything but the core of this dialog. Bill Warner described in graphic form the attack on Europe attack by attack. If his descriptions of these attacks happening and the pointing out that they did happen is wrong, then his entire presentation is suspect. However, I happen to believe his presentation, not because I think he is a swell guy, but rather because I had done my own research on the same thing before I ever heard of Bill Warner. I too can list those attacks one by one (at least up to the Crusades) and in comparing my research to Bill Warner’s, if anything, I find him lacking in not enough numbers of attacks and descriptions.
In the world I live in (and have been part of for more than 40 years) would result (if there is a desire to go farther) in increasing the sources, redefining their credibility, and working to dispute that the attacks ever happened. You know, put the lie to Bill Warner’s proposed facts. You know, using a scientific approach.
Or . . . . . . .
One side could simply intensify pejorative descriptions of the other side and stressing the disappointment in the other side not agreeing with them. When one side intensifies and continues trying to belittle the persons of the other side, I think we can be quite sure that they are walking ever deeper into a mire sans factual information.
So Big Lin, do as you wish as you control the game, but I for one will not exchange what I believe to be true to grovel at the trunk of the tree of no knowledge.
|
|