Quote:
|
Someone who doesn't know even about what is going on in his own society with men, when he claims to be a man, how can he judge my appraisal of the ancient societies or of the indigenous ones or the pre-industrialised western societies?
|
Easily. I carry two University degrees in History and Anthropology (Appalachian State University, 2006-07), with concentrations in Physical Anthropology and Ancient/Medieval History. I have presented and defended a number of papers dealing with the time-frames you refer to, and have assisted in the collection of research data for numerous peer-reviewed articles and one book. I have precisely the academic qualifications needed to asses your positions. And your positions simply do not jive with -ANYTHING- in the historical or anthropological record. This is not a case of me and RoachBoy arguing over interpretations of events in history, like whether Richard Lionheart was gay or whether Ogudai Khan deserved his bad rep: this is me asking you to provide proof that something you insist against all evidence happened, happened. You might as well be insisting that Eleanor Of Acquitaine actually died in infancy and was replaced with a transsexual dwarf imported from Jerusalem at the insistence of the Space Pope. This is why I've asked for your sources: so that I can double-check them against my own notes, academic journals, etc. Your refusal to provide such sources, beyond a single non-peer-reviewed article which is mostly irrelevant to the discussion and does not support your points, is very telling.
Quote:
|
If you ask for sources, I can understand.
|
Then please provide them. Stop prevaricating, stop with the "I would" and "I understand" and just show us the effin' source material. You keep insisting that things happened for which I am unaware of any documentation, and then not providing the documentation when asked, all the while insisting that you would like to do so. You cannot simply make historical claims, especially those which fly in the face of 5,000yrs of recorded human history, and expect people to take you at your word.
Quote:
|
But if you lay down the condition that any discussion has to be necessarily within the framework of definitions and concepts provided by the West, then its going to be a problem.
|
Any discussion needs definitions. So far, you have declined to provide any definition, for anything, which does not come down to "X = 3 because I say X = 3. X may = 17 in a few minutes, but for right now X = 3." Furtheremore, you say "Framework of definitions and concepts provided by the West..." What this actually refers to is the agreed-upon definitions which prevail worldwide across a vast field of study. You're attempting to arbitrarily redefine, without any support whatsoever, the meanings of words and concepts as they are near-universally understood in a scientific community. That's like trying to change the Equation of Relativity from "E=MC2" to "E=ABCatfish" and insisting that everyone take you seriously on your own word alone. Doesn't work that way.
Quote:
|
Then it would mean you're just plain bigoted.
|
The man who insists upon stuffing other people's sexuality into boxes accuses the man who'd like him to stop of being a bigot. I've heard a lot of logical stretches in my day, but this beggars the imagination. That's like a Klansman accusing the Deacons For Defense of being violent racists.