Hillary Clinton displays astonishing lack of knowledge

[Broomstick]

It never occured to you that Bounty, as a Belgium, might be speaking about European law? Which, in its function as universal law, did originate with the Romans.

Roman law was never universal, unless you consider Europe to be the entire world.

Universal as in a nationwide system governing both civil, criminal and administrative law. I am sorry, I could have phrased that better.

And I probably could have quibbled less.

You indicated uncertainty as to whether or not Britain has a common law system.

My statement wasn't meant to be a question, actually. I was merely saying that all of Europe with the exception of Britain has the continental system. Having studied British law extensively, I am quite well-read on the subject.

Indisputably, you are highly knowledgeable on the subject.

I wasn't arguing - that's probably why you can't find the "point". I simply stated, very briefly and crudely, the origin of the US legal system. Not everything has to be an argument.

Yeah, this seems to have been a misunderstanding.

Agreed - despite the fact we are both typing in English it seems that communication has not always taken place. Given that, and because I really have no more to add, I'll be ending my contribution to this sub-thread here.

[Samuel]

The lack of action has a direct impact in how the modern world is formed. We need to understand why the Native americans didn't build a technological civilization rivaling China or Rome, and be aware of the fact that if they did so, the modern world will be totally unrecognizable to us.

You cannot look at history in isolation.

That doesn't require looking at their culture- there are a bunch of other societies that you can group together with them to ask that question. In fact, cultural differences are mostly unrelated to their failure to get guns, germs and steel first.

The only reason people don't bother to mention how a tiny event 4000 years ago can have a huge impact on what we are doing today is due to the fact that it is a hard if not impossible task.

To say any event that has happened in our history is not important is bull.

There are multiple views on this actually. Does an event get smoothed out and rendered irrelevant over time or is its effect multiplied over time? Obviously it depends on the event, but what is the cut off?

And what causes the European to rise to such a dominant position in the 18th and the 19th century? You cannot look at history in isolation at all. What happens in China or Japan can easily affect what has happened in Europe. For example, the production of silk and invention of gunpowder in China has a huge impact in Europe. Hell, the use of non-roman numerical also have a huge impact on the development of science as well.

The Mongol invasion of European also affected the course of European history as well. Western medicines is also affected by the interaction between the middle East and Europe during the middle ages and so forth.

What happens you think the people from central asia and the Arabs for instance never changed the world completely? Like I have said before, we cannot view history in isolation. To fully understand the history of the 20th century, we have to go back to the 19th century, and to fully understand the Renaissance, we have to understand the middle ages. To fully understand the modern world, we have to understand histories from all cultures and group.

True, but that requires knowledge of technological trade- knowing about the cultures is not important for understanding that. We only need to understand the culture to comprehend why they did not exploit the technology effectively, although knowing about China and India are important due to the countries current importance.

Both sides are at fault.

But which side is the most to blame?

[ray245]

That doesn't require looking at their culture- there are a bunch of other societies that you can group together with them to ask that question. In fact, cultural differences are mostly unrelated to their failure to get guns, germs and steel first.

I'm not claiming that the failure to develop guns and steel is due to cultural issues at all, as the reasons why they fail to do so is due to their climate and etc. Finding out why didn't the native Americans develop steel for instance allowed us to fully understand the impact of steel on society.

There are multiple views on this actually. Does an event get smoothed out and rendered irrelevant over time or is its effect multiplied over time? Obviously it depends on the event, but what is the cut off?

I'm viewing at history from a determinist point of view, that everything will have an effect, and these effect cannot be rendered as irrelevant. These effect is purely relative as well in my opinion.

True, but that requires knowledge of technological trade- knowing about the cultures is not important for understanding that. We only need to understand the culture to comprehend why they did not exploit the technology effectively, although knowing about China and India are important due to the countries current importance.

Understanding events in history and culture of a people can be said to be two separate thing. History is universal while culture as we understand, isn't. A lack of proper understanding in history will only cause us to make a same mistake twice.

But which side is the most to blame?

That depends on the individual historian's personal perception of things. Hell, historians are still trying to determine when did the cold war really begin. Unless you can determine the exact date the cold war started, there is no point in saying who is more responsible.

[Samuel]

I'm not claiming that the failure to develop guns and steel is due to cultural issues at all, as the reasons why they fail to do so is due to their climate and etc. Finding out why didn't the native Americans develop steel for instance allowed us to fully understand the impact of steel on society.

We can simply look at pre-steel European society or the transition when they got cheap steel. Seeing other cultures is not required.

I'm viewing at history from a determinist point of view, that everything will have an effect, and these effect cannot be rendered as irrelevant. These effect is purely relative as well in my opinion.

That has nothing to do with determinism. Determinism is that all the effects can calculated from the starting conditions if you had perfect foreknowledge... well, I put it badly, but that is basically how it works. It has nothing to do with whether or not certain things could be replaced for each other and cause the same effects.

Understanding events in history and culture of a people can be said to be two separate thing. History is universal while culture as we understand, isn't. A lack of proper understanding in history will only cause us to make a same mistake twice.

Your statement is unclear. You are trying to say that looking at multiple cultures history will allow use to see what parts of history are culture dependent and what is universal correct?

[Master of Ossus]

The lack of action has a direct impact in how the modern world is formed. We need to understand why the Native americans didn't build a technological civilization rivaling China or Rome, and be aware of the fact that if they did so, the modern world will be totally unrecognizable to us.

You cannot look at history in isolation.

Only if your view of history requires others to chase down endless and ultimately pointless hypotheticals. They didn't build a technological civilization rivaling China or Rome for a whole host of reasons, none of which is relevant to modern history. Indeed, the "failure to develop a technological civilization rivaling China or Rome" was the NORM among peoples around the world since very few groups were able to ascend to such levels of geopolitical power. It doesn't require any deep soul-searching to lump these people together and say that they had nowhere near the impact on the modern world as China or Rome.

The only reason people don't bother to mention how a tiny event 4000 years ago can have a huge impact on what we are doing today is due to the fact that it is a hard if not impossible task.

To say any event that has happened in our history is not important is bull.

Bullshit, and you know it. Events in history can easily be rendered unimportant by subsequent events. If someone in Hiroshima had just come up with a unifying theory of the universe on August 6, 1945, what impact would that have on the world? To use a more concrete example, do you honestly believe that Viking colonization and exploration of the New World is as important and worthy of study as Colombus' voyages? You're the one viewing history in isolation because your analysis of what's important in history isn't remotely answerable to the modern world.

To say that a tiny event 4000 years ago could have a large impact on the modern world does not remotely justify your bold assertion that all tiny events throughout history are important. Indeed, part of being an historian is being able to distinguish between material events and ones that were rendered inert by subsequent developments.

And what causes the European to rise to such a dominant position in the 18th and the 19th century? You cannot look at history in isolation at all. What happens in China or Japan can easily affect what has happened in Europe. For example, the production of silk and invention of gunpowder in China has a huge impact in Europe. Hell, the use of non-roman numerical also have a huge impact on the development of science as well.

The Mongol invasion of European also affected the course of European history as well. Western medicines is also affected by the interaction between the middle East and Europe during the middle ages and so forth.

Okay, and I think that virtually everyone accepts that those things should be studied (at least to some extent) because it is easy to show a demonstrable impact on the modern world. They're not as important as some other things, but they're vastly more important than others.

What happens you think the people from central asia and the Arabs for instance never changed the world completely? Like I have said before, we cannot view history in isolation. To fully understand the history of the 20th century, we have to go back to the 19th century, and to fully understand the Renaissance, we have to understand the middle ages. To fully understand the modern world, we have to understand histories from all cultures and group.

Non-sequitur. We need not ask ourselves deep and involving questions about the culture and practices of different tribal groups in the Congo or Papua New Guinea in order to fully understand the Renaissance or the Dark Ages, nor frankly is it even productive to look at these groups in order to understand the modern world (indeed, even if our goal was limited to understanding the modern Congo or Papua New Guinea these tribal practices would be largely irrelevant because they affect such a tiny portion of the population in both areas and are largely ignored even by modern inhabitants of both areas). I suppose if your goal is to be able to view the world omnisciently across all space and time then you might have to devote time to such studies, but given the limitations of human understanding and their clearly negligible impact on modern life to do so would be completely divorce oneself from any sense of cost-effectiveness in the study of history.

Both sides are at fault.

And, again, you return to a relativistic outlook with no effort to justify your conclusion.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm not claiming that the failure to develop guns and steel is due to cultural issues at all, as the reasons why they fail to do so is due to their climate and etc. Finding out why didn't the native Americans develop steel for instance allowed us to fully understand the impact of steel on society.

You could much more easily and productively do that by looking at historical societies that had not, yet, developed steel (e.g., the Greeks), or at European history if you wanted to get some idea of what it's like to live without metallurgy at all (a situation which did not describe the entirety of the 15th century Americas). This is better because you can understand what conditions precipitated the development of steel (or whatever other technology you're looking at), and thus more accurately evaluate what is required to develop such technologies rather than trying to scan through random data to try and see what conditions do NOT lead to the development of the same technology.

I'm viewing at history from a determinist point of view, that everything will have an effect, and these effect cannot be rendered as irrelevant. These effect is purely relative as well in my opinion.

Precisely--you have retreated to relativism, which in this case is purely nonsensical. Your assertion that because some events have continued importance we should therefore study all events presupposes the self-evidently false condition you assert, here: "that everything will have an effect, and these effect cannot be rendered as [sic] irrelevant."

Understanding events in history and culture of a people can be said to be two separate thing. History is universal while culture as we understand, isn't. A lack of proper understanding in history will only cause us to make a same mistake twice.

Ironically, this is an extremely limited view of history to go along with your spectacularly expansive view of its goals. In order to understand events you must frequently understand the culture from which they arose. The Crusades make no sense unless you understand the mentality that drove them (hence why most people today fail to comprehend them), and it is impossible to understand the "same mistake" that drove them unless you have some knowledge of that culture. It is no exaggeration to say that an understanding of a culture is necessary to the understanding its history. In effect, your view of history reduces it to a series of events with no possible causal chains or connections because you deny yourself any ability to understand them.

That depends on the individual historian's personal perception of things. Hell, historians are still trying to determine when did the cold war really begin. Unless you can determine the exact date the cold war started, there is no point in saying who is more responsible.

Yet more relativism, and yet more bunk. What possible significance does a date have in our weighing of responsibility? Why can we not evaluate what "mistakes" precipitated an event in our study of that event without first assigning a necessarily artificial and arbitrary date to it, first?

[TC Pilot]

Master of Ossus: You confused me for a minute there, putting my name on ray's quote.

And what causes the European to rise to such a dominant position in the 18th and the 19th century? You cannot look at history in isolation at all. What happens in China or Japan can easily affect what has happened in Europe. For example, the production of silk and invention of gunpowder in China has a huge impact in Europe. Hell, the use of non-roman numerical also have a huge impact on the development of science as well.

And? I certainly did not deny that Asian civilizations affected Western civilizations. Quite the contrary, if you'll read carefully. The fact remains, though, that Western civilization to a vastly greater extent affected Far Eastern civilization than it was affected in turn.

Like I have said before, we cannot view history in isolation. To fully understand the history of the 20th century, we have to go back to the 19th century, and to fully understand the Renaissance, we have to understand the middle ages. To fully understand the modern world, we have to understand histories from all cultures and group.

So what? That doesn't change the fact that some cultures and histories are vastly more important in that respect than others.

Both sides are at fault.

That's what your option 3 was.

[ray245]

We can simply look at pre-steel European society or the transition when they got cheap steel. Seeing other cultures is not required.

Yet the native American managed to refine their stone tools to a rather impressive level.

That has nothing to do with determinism. Determinism is that all the effects can calculated from the starting conditions if you had perfect foreknowledge... well, I put it badly, but that is basically how it works. It has nothing to do with whether or not certain things could be replaced for each other and cause the same effects.

I may have gotten the idea of determinism wrong, but what I am trying to say was, every single event has an effect and leave its mark onto the modern world. Come to think of it, what I am trying to say was more along the lines of a butterfly effect.

Your statement is unclear. You are trying to say that looking at multiple cultures history will allow use to see what parts of history are culture dependent and what is universal correct?

Something like that, but it seems that I cannot convey my ideas properly with my poor English.

Precisely--you have retreated to relativism, which in this case is purely nonsensical. Your assertion that because some events have continued importance we should therefore study all events presupposes the self-evidently false condition you assert, here: "that everything will have an effect, and these effect cannot be rendered as [sic] irrelevant."

I did not say we should study all events as it is an impossible task. What I am saying is, the desire to understand all events is an admirable goal. Understanding a reasonable of history and having a full understanding of history is two different thing altogether.

Bullshit, and you know it. Events in history can easily be rendered unimportant by subsequent events. If someone in Hiroshima had just come up with a unifying theory of the universe on August 6, 1945, what impact would that have on the world? To use a more concrete example, do you honestly believe that Viking colonization and exploration of the New World is as important and worthy of study as Colombus' voyages? You're the one viewing history in isolation because your analysis of what's important in history isn't remotely answerable to the modern world.

How about the fact that our understanding of the unifying theory of the universe will get delayed by half a century or more? Is that not a big effect on our modern world?

The reason no one would fully understand how a tiny event 4000 years ago can impact our modern world is due to the fact that this is an extremely hard to keep track of all this tiny details. What happens today is a result of what happened yesterday, and what happened yesterday is a result of what has happened 2 days before.

Unless we somehow reach perfection, we will have hard, if not impossible time understanding how a butterfly in China can cause a tornado in the US.

Ironically, this is an extremely limited view of history to go along with your spectacularly expansive view of its goals. In order to understand events you must frequently understand the culture from which they arose. The Crusades make no sense unless you understand the mentality that drove them (hence why most people today fail to comprehend them), and it is impossible to understand the "same mistake" that drove them unless you have some knowledge of that culture. It is no exaggeration to say that an understanding of a culture is necessary to the understanding its history. In effect, your view of history reduces it to a series of events with no possible causal chains or connections because you deny yourself any ability to understand them.

I concede. We would have to take into account of the human mindset.

Okay, and I think that virtually everyone accepts that those things should be studied (at least to some extent) because it is easy to show a demonstrable impact on the modern world. They're not as important as some other things, but they're vastly more important than others.

Easy to understand does not meant you fully understood history to begin with. We don't have all the time in the world to study history, even historians don't have the time to do so. Understanding 10% of our history is not as good as understand 100% of our history. Which is why we tend to disregard certain history as less useful.

Non-sequitur. We need not ask ourselves deep and involving questions about the culture and practices of different tribal groups in the Congo or Papua New Guinea in order to fully understand the Renaissance or the Dark Ages, nor frankly is it even productive to look at these groups in order to understand the modern world (indeed, even if our goal was limited to understanding the modern Congo or Papua New Guinea these tribal practices would be largely irrelevant because they affect such a tiny portion of the population in both areas and are largely ignored even by modern inhabitants of both areas). I suppose if your goal is to be able to view the world omnisciently across all space and time then you might have to devote time to such studies, but given the limitations of human understanding and their clearly negligible impact on modern life to do so would be completely divorce oneself from any sense of cost-effectiveness in the study of history.

How about this, the Renaissance in our history is shaped by the fact that we have a lack of contact with the tribal groups in Papua New Guinea. A Renaissance era where we do have contact with those tribes will not be our Renaissance so to speak.

Look, I'm not going to spend my time trying to view the world omnisciently, what I am simply doing is viewing that kind of goal as something that cannot be ignored.

And, again, you return to a relativistic outlook with no effort to justify your conclusion.

Look, almost every historians has his or her views about the starting date of a cold war, and every different date would mean different things. On some days, the US acts like the bigger asshole while on other days it is the Soviet government that acts like a a bigger asshole. One can make a pretty long argument that due to what happened on this day, the US government is responsible for the cold war, that what happens in the starting date makes you responsible for the cold war.


P.S. I think I'm feeling tired in regards to debating recently, so I will just concede to any further rebuttals brought up by you guys.

[Master of Ossus]

We can simply look at pre-steel European society or the transition when they got cheap steel. Seeing other cultures is not required.

Yet the native American managed to refine their stone tools to a rather impressive level.

So did paleolithic Europe.

Precisely--you have retreated to relativism, which in this case is purely nonsensical. Your assertion that because some events have continued importance we should therefore study all events presupposes the self-evidently false condition you assert, here: "that everything will have an effect, and these effect cannot be rendered as [sic] irrelevant."

I did not say we should study all events as it is an impossible task. What I am saying is, the desire to understand all events is an admirable goal. Understanding a reasonable of history and having a full understanding of history is two different thing altogether.

And, yet, you advocate studying all peoples and cultures to an equal degree and argue that all events are important. Are you saying that we should avoid studying important events?

How about the fact that our understanding of the unifying theory of the universe will get delayed by half a century or more? Is that not a big effect on our modern world?

Of the Hiroshima bomb; not the guy's unified theory of everything.

The reason no one would fully understand how a tiny event 4000 years ago can impact our modern world is due to the fact that this is an extremely hard to keep track of all this tiny details. What happens today is a result of what happened yesterday, and what happened yesterday is a result of what has happened 2 days before.

Nonsense--there were and are plenty of trivial events that occur every day that have little or no effect on anything. What I bought today for lunch, for example.

Unless we somehow reach perfection, we will have hard, if not impossible time understanding how a butterfly in China can cause a tornado in the US.

Given that that isn't possible, I'd say you are right.

Easy to understand does not meant you fully understood history to begin with. We don't have all the time in the world to study history, even historians don't have the time to do so. Understanding 10% of our history is not as good as understand 100% of our history. Which is why we tend to disregard certain history as less useful.

Precisely--a position that you argued against, earlier:

many people simply cannot understand why I view Chinese or East Asian history as important as Roman history, native American history being just as important as what happened in the cold war.

How about this, the Renaissance in our history is shaped by the fact that we have a lack of contact with the tribal groups in Papua New Guinea. A Renaissance era where we do have contact with those tribes will not be our Renaissance so to speak.

Why not? What possible material impact would such people have on the Renaissance? They have hardly any impact today, on a society far more amenable to other ideas. It's not like Renaissance Europe had no contact with tribal peoples, either--indeed the era was almost defined by European contact with tribal peoples in the Americas and Africa, and none of those groups had much of an impact even when they were far more powerful and populous than any peoples in modern Congo or Papua New Guinea.

Look, I'm not going to spend my time trying to view the world omnisciently, what I am simply doing is viewing that kind of goal as something that cannot be ignored.

Even at the expense of a realistic appraisal of history that operates within the limits of human scholarship?

Look, almost every historians has his or her views about the starting date of a cold war, and every different date would mean different things. On some days, the US acts like the bigger asshole while on other days it is the Soviet government that acts like a a bigger asshole. One can make a pretty long argument that due to what happened on this day, the US government is responsible for the cold war, that what happens in the starting date makes you responsible for the cold war.

So in other words, there is debate as to the date on which a persistent state of escalating tensions transitioned into the Cold War. That doesn't remotely mean we should throw up our hands and say, "Well, no one can agree as to the exact date on which these two sides decided to make it a Cold War, I guess we can't evaluate the mistakes that each side made."