#18880 - 01/25/09 11:34 AM
Re: 2012
[Re: daevid777]
|
H.setesh
stranger
Registered: 01/24/09
Posts: 29
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
History, is a mystery, when you start going back a few thousand years... especially if that culture didn't necessarily "write it down".
History is decided by those who can argue it best, and you simply have not presented any sane, rational, reasonable, or logical argument reinforcing your claims that The Vikinger bequeathed The Maya with advanced mathematical/symbological and building methods 1000 years prior to their existence. Are you suggesting The Vikinger traveled through time? The Vikinger never developed an astrological/astronomical technology, barely had a written language, and knew little or nothing of mathematics. Their greatest achievements were developing a pseudo-democratic system, judge-by-jury, and drinking mead.
Edited by H.setesh (01/25/09 11:34 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#18881 - 01/25/09 11:38 AM
Re: 2012
[Re: H.setesh]
|
Dimitri
veteran member
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 1357
|
People sometimes confuse the Nordic ritual of nailing a man to a tree in worshiping the goddess Freya, insuring bountiful harvests on land and sea. It's thought that the reason the Norse regions so quickly adapted to Catholicism is that when the first priests arrived they were carrying crucifixes, which the Norse tribesmen though to be the equivalent of sacrifices to Freya. Second thing for adapting christianity into the German mythology was due to the fact Baldr and Christ had some points in common.
Back to H.Setesh: They say they executed people; social outcasts and so on. Executing vs sacrifice.... there is a difference. But still waiting for a link from you. Not that I don't believe jake. But I prefer to read it from another source. Little article or so..
_________________________
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#18885 - 01/25/09 11:51 AM
Re: 2012
[Re: H.setesh]
|
Dimitri
veteran member
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 1357
|
The Vikinger never developed an astrological/astronomical technology, barely had a written language, and knew little or nothing of mathematics. vs
The Vikings actually did travel to North America via Iceland and Greenland. Vikings had boats... to build a boat.. well you need the ability to count. And to navigate you must have astronomical knowledge. Rudimentary, yes; but they had it. Unless you believe they travelled by foot to North-America. Or how else do you explain they knew how to return home?
_________________________
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#18890 - 01/25/09 12:03 PM
Re: 2012
[Re: Jake999]
|
Dimitri
veteran member
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 1357
|
Donna Rosenberg book... I think I have that one if I'm not mistaken. Not really had the time to read/start reading it YET. I'll take a look for it and put it on top of my "to read list". After the exams at least. ...
You are correct, although I still don't think they rose out of the sea and enlightened the Maya (which was my original point in that post). Why should they enlighten the Maya? If I find a new tribe which is pretty primitive I'm not feeling the urge to "enlighten" them.
Edited by Dimitri (01/25/09 12:06 PM)
_________________________
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#18901 - 01/25/09 01:17 PM
Re: 2012
[Re: H.setesh]
|
Dan_Dread
senior member
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 2010
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
Why is this thread still continuing? Are we really arguing about which civilization has brought the most and most advanced technology to the table?
We have instantaneous global communication, air travel, the Internet, surgery, cars, skyscrapers, computers, etc etc etc.
You would have to be a complete idiot to believe people that lived in mud huts and caught their food with spears can rival that just because they figured out a way to keep time.
REALITY. Embrace it.
And for fucks sake setesh, go read and learn what 'ad hominem' actually means. I realize you probably only stumbled across the list of fallacies last week on some random website and had that 'aha' moment, but you are still using the term wrong.
An 'ad hominem' argument is when you use an argument that focuses on the one arguing the point in an attempt to discredit the point itself.
For instance, if I were to say your argument is crap because you seem like a complete flake, that would be an 'ad hominem' In reality, the two things (your argument being crap, and you being a flake) are separate, but true, statements.
See how that works?
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|