Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Crimes of Crusaders Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 16:50 |
Originally posted by Tobodai
I think its a very valid point to bring up the
original Muslim expansion to compare with the crusades. People
often concentrate on the good rather than the bad and what the Muslims
did especially to Africa was major crimes that are overlooked.
But we also must remember, who started the Crusades? The
Crusaders did. That was was started by their aggression and thus
they should not be treated favorably. It would be like blaming
hte Soviet Union for Germany invading it. Although that is a good
analogy, Soviets and Germany, both were pretty evil, though one was
certianly the aggressor, and that sums up the crusades quite well i
think. |
Of course it would be wrong to try and justify the Crusades as they
were often very savage and cruel. Western civilization must take
account for what occured in these series of military adventures whose
benefits were heavily outweighed by the suffering which they caused. I
just think it is a case of double standards to demonize the crusaders
as a bunch of cannibalistic barbarians and then omit the crimes of
their enemies. As I have said rather exhaustively both sides committed
wrongs, I am happy admitting the Crusaders did the wrong thing yet some
people choose to act like their opponents were an innocent bunch of
angels.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 17:05 |
I agree Constantine, nobody as far as im aware has tried to say the Crusaders were anything other than what history shows them to be.
Criticising one side does not mean you support the other, its just very clear the Crusaders are unfairly criticised whilst there enemies recieve little to no criticism.
Propaganda has ensured that the Muslims are depicted as peaceful, progressive good guys, whilst the west as a whole is depicted as backward semi-barbaric savages with a penchant for eating human flesh.
Its asburd and clearly total crap to hold such a biased view when you look at the acts of the Muslims before during and after the medieval period.
Edited by Heraclius
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 17:05 |
Well yes i agree with you, my primary bone of contention is with Quetzacoatl saying he was proud of the crusaders. Its like me saying Im proud of US air strikes on Hanoi. Sure the Viet Cong were evil bastards too, but Im not going to use that as a pretext for justifying the flattening of Hanoi.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 17:08 |
Yes I found it abit odd that somebody could be proud of the crusaders, its possible to be impressed by the bravery of some of the crusaders and the success they at one point enjoyed but proud? I dont see how really.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 17:18 |
There, a little problem with editing...
Originally posted by ill_teknique
actaully he was widely known in the muslim world/ are you muslim? if
not how would you actually know on the heroes of the muslim world and
who muslims view as a hero?. Salah ad Din was viewed as the
biggest anti - cursader by muslims. for example in egypt they still
make treats in the shape of salah ad din. he is an extremely important
figure in the islamic world and has been given his due respect since
his death. I dont understand where you get your b/s info from. That is
like saying that Caesar wasnt celerbated by westerners or by italians
until someone ressurceted his image in the 19th ct.
|
Whether I am Muslim, Christian, Atheist or a devout believer in the Great Bean-eating Wolverine matters naught. Saladin was not the greatest hero - sultan Baybars, who finally threw out the last crusaders (and was certainly no angel either), was. Saladin didn't become the icon he is today until Sir Walter Scott's romantized praising of him reached the Middle East in the late 19th century. If you don't believe me, search for Muslim works or praise of Saladin dating from, say, the period 14th-19th century and compare with the same for the Mameluke sultan.
Styrbiorn, Please check the information you have. Saladin did not excute the prisnors of Hattin. To be more precise, he executed Rynald and his knights for their previous oath-break attacking Muslim pilgrimage caravans and slaughtering them despite a treaty signed already to allow them passage and ammunity. |
He did execute prisoners, namely all members of the Orders, who had absoultely nothing to do with Reynald's peace-breaking (Reynald, who by the way was a bastard ill-liked by the Christians as well who got what he deserved). The Knights were not feared among the Muslims for plundering and pillaging (which they didn't take part in), but for their ferocious skills in battle.
Saladin was not respected only for being brave, but a noble person, merciful, and who forced his army to go with the war code of conduct. In fact, after conquering Jerusalem, he prevented Muslims from revenging for the massacre of their relatives and fathers 99 yeas ago. |
Yeah, that's what I said. Didn't prevent him to slaughter prisoners on least at two occasions though. About Acre, so Saladin broke the deal, and Richard responded with an atrocity - what is your point?
My point is that you and others have a totally black-and-white view on the Crusade. To believe that Saladin was an angel without any guilt whatsoever and all Muslims were nice people who followed the non-existing Geneva convention and all Christian Crusaders were Baby-Eating Scum is exactly as bad believing the opposite, that the Crusaders were angels and Muslims devils. History is never so one-sided. What is even worse is that some people bring this their 'knowledge' into judging peoples, groups and actions today. Blabbering Bush talking about a Crusade, Muslims taking up on that etc. That's simply stupid. The Crusades were not black and white, one side was not Good; the other Evil. They are and should be considered history though, even if some people tend to forget that. It is absurd to be proud of them and it is equally absurd to be angry or want revenge for them.
Oh Please, where is your link or reference? |
Uh, I didn't copy-paste anything, thus it's quite hard for me to tell where I copy-pasted stuff from (clarification: since I didn't copy-paste anything).
Edited by Styrbiorn
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 18:54 |
Nope, you still miss the point. The point is to state evidance as much as possible for us to return back and reveiew them instead of telling tales and stories. I tried my best to site any new information I bring. Please take the time too to do the same, at least for some of the controversial points, as Saladin massacring war prisoners after Hattin for no reason.
And yes, Salahdin was perceived to break the deal by not surrendering knights with the other prisoners. That is clear and stated in my copy-paste version. The point is, The Lion Heart killing 2700 mostly women and children. I guess it explains the concept of inferiority in the western mind that time, where a knight person can worth tens of peasants and civilans. Got it? Aslo my copy-paste version came with a link to Wekipedia, which is unknown to be biased, though it is information is derived from other books you can site them down on the page.
And no, saying Crusaders were a punch of dogs and savages does not mean Western civilization is inferior, except at that time by Western scholars themselves. So no need to feel defensive when you hear that Crusaders are savage. It is not even a new information to absorb.
P.S: Sorry that we were able to get the Leventine and North Africa to be Musilm without the need of mass converstion and exiling those who don't want to .
Edited by ok ge
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 19:59 |
Originally posted by ok ge
Nope, you still miss the point. The point is to state evidance as much as possible for us to return back and reveiew them instead of telling tales and stories. I tried my best to site any new information I bring. Please take the time too to do the same, at least for some of the controversial points, as Saladin massacring war prisoners after Hattin for no reason.
And yes, Salahdin was perceived to break the deal by not surrendering knights with the other prisoners. That is clear and stated in my copy-paste version. The point is, Lion the heart killing 2700 mostly women and children. I guess it explains the concept of inferiority in the western mind that time, where a knight person can worth tens of peasants and civilans. Got it? Aslo my copy-paste version came with a link to Wekipedia, which is unknown to be biased, though it is information is derived from other books you can site them down on the page.
And no, saying Crusaders were a punch of dogs and savages does not mean Western civilization is inferior, except at that time by Western scholars themselves. So no need to feel defensive when you hear that Crusaders are savage. It is not even a new information to absorb.
P.S: Sorry that we were able to get the Leventine and North Africa to be Musilm without the need of mass converstion and exiling those who don't want to .
|
cok gec:
That is ok. Spain is sorry about exiling the Moors and Moriscos (maybe).
|
|
great_hunnic_empire
Janissary
Joined: 12-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 21:00 |
Gibbon also says of the Crusaders that "in the dire necessity of
famine, they sometimes roasted and devoured the flesh of their infant
or adult captives." [185:5] Bohemond slew some Turkish prisoners and
roasted them publicly. [185:6] Cannibalism was also resorted to at the
siege of Marra. One chronicler dryly says there is nothing surprising
in the matter, and wonders that they sometimes ate dogs in preference
to Saracens. [185:7]
Mutilation of the dead was indulged in as a sport. The heads of two
thousand Turks, who fell in a sortie from Antioch, were cut off; some
were exhibited as trophies, others were fixed on stakes round the camp,
and others shot into the town. On another occasion they dragged infidel
corpses from their sepulchres, and exposed fifteen hundred heads to the
weeping Turks. [185:8]
Fighting for Christ did not keep the Crusaders chaste. During the siege
of Antioch they gave the rein to their passions, and "seldom does the
history of profane wars display such scenes of intemperance and
prostitution." One archdeacon of royal birth was slain by the Turks as
he reposed in an orchard, playing dice with a Syrian concubine. [185:9]
Michaud, who on the whole admires the Crusaders, is obliged to deplore
that the temptations of a beautiful sky, and a neighborhood once
devoted to the worship of Venus and Adonis, "spread license and
corruption among the soldiers of Christ."
"If contemporary accounts are to be credited, all the vices of the
infamous Babylon prevailed among the liberators of Sion. Strange and
unheard-of spectacle! Beneath the tents of the Crusaders famine and
voluptuousness formed a hideous union; impure love, an unbounded
passion for play, with all the excesses of debauch, were mingled with
the images of death." [186:1]
Antioch at last fell by treachery. Traitors inside lowered ropes in the
night, by means of which the Crusaders scaled the walls. They seized
ten towers and slew the guards. A gate was then opened and the whole
army entered the city with trumpets braying. Shouting "Deus il vult,"
they began to butcher the sleeping inhabitants.
"For some time the Greeks and Armenians were equally exposed with
the Mussulmans; but when a pause was given to murder, and the
Christians became distinguished from the infidels, a mark was put on
the dwellings of the former, and their edifices were regarded as
sacred. The dignity of age, the helplessness of youth, and the beauty
of the weaker sex, were disregarded by the Latin savages. Houses were
no sanctuaries; and the sight of a mosque added new virulence to
cruelty." [186:2]
The number massacred on this night was at least ten thousand. The
Turkish commander escaped with a few friends and reached the mountains.
An old wound opened in his head, the loss of blood produced giddiness,
he fell from his horse, and was left behind. "His groans," says Mills,
"caught the ear of a Syrian Christian in the forest, and he advanced to
the poor old man. The appeal to humanity was made in vain; and the
wretch struck off the head of his prostrate foe, and carried it in
triumph to the Franks." [186:3]
|
The land that my horse has rode on, there shall not be a grass againAtilla the Hun
p2.forumforfree.com/turan.html
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 21:05 |
I find it odd, your obviously a big fan of the Huns, arguely the most barbaric people to have come before the Mongols how can you glorify the Huns even though they were as bad if not a great deal worse than the Crusaders? and yet slaughter the Crusaders relentlessly?
It is double-standards again.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 21:11 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
I find it odd, your obviously a big fan of the Huns, arguely the most barbaric people to have come before the Mongols how can you glorify the Huns even though they were as bad if not a great deal worse than the Crusaders? and yet slaughter the Crusaders relentlessly?
It is double-standards again.
|
Heraclius:
Give it up.....you are expecting logic and objectivity from bigots and jackasses. There are a lot of people on the web who just get off twisting others around.
Edited by pikeshot1600
|
|
great_hunnic_empire
Janissary
Joined: 12-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 21:13 |
Huns and Mongol werent worse than Crusaders or any other nations.. please check my new thread and see who were worse
Edited by great_hunnic_empire
|
The land that my horse has rode on, there shall not be a grass againAtilla the Hun
p2.forumforfree.com/turan.html
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 21:33 |
Hmmm, I am not sure about the Huns, but definitely the Mongol Invasion before they settled down and adopted the religion and customs of the conquered land, was much more savage than the crusade. This analysis is derived when it comes to the crimes committed by both side as per number and magnitude.
Originally posted by Heraclius
Originally posted by ok ge
Here we go again, John Julius Norwich |
He speaks infinitely more sense than you do im afraid, you may learn something from him though I wouldnt bet on it. |
So what is he? Your new prophet?. Just give me another source and leave the man in peace. Very interesting the tendencies to depend on him solely. Kinda make you wonder if he is the new savor of Crusader's image. And don't worry, I am looking for his book too.
Edited by ok ge
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 22:40 |
Tell me, since when has it been a crime to use a reliable source to back up your argument? just because this particular source tears your argument to pieces is your problem not mine.
great_hunnic_empire
The Mongols and Huns conquered territory and when on occasion a city resisted annihilated its population or tortured its inhabitants more so the Mongols, even though the Mongols often spared people they believed to be useful to them this could not of been much comfort to the average man woman or child who was then butchered.
Countless millions were killed in the Mongol conquests you dont create an empire that big unless the reprisels for defiance are savage and merciless. The Mongol practise of making an example of one luckless city to scare others into surrender to ensure peace clearly worked wonders, but again little comfort to the people who were massacred to make that example.
The huns were little if any better, clearly the records are written by the enemies of the Huns and so have more than a little bias in it, but its quite clear the Huns were not only savage in battle and no better if you compare them to the Crusaders centuries later.
You cant criticise the Crusaders for their comparably tiny offences without critising the Huns and Mongols who were often much worse. Shouldnt really need me to tell you that one. This "great" hunnic empire was built on the blood of many people to you know.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 22:43 |
Pikeshot. Your right.
But I have to believe there is hope for these people perhaps im to patient, but I shall give them one more chance to make sense and drop the bias before my patience finally gives out. Cant say I didnt try.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 23:12 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
Tell me, since when has it been a crime to use a reliable source to back up your argument? just because this particular source tears your argument to pieces is your problem not mine. |
Yeah, I know it is great to switch the argument toward fillers such as: My argument is better than yours, I teared you down, no hope of those peoples...etc Last time I heard those phrases were in my junior high school . As I said, I'm looking forward getting that book too, meanwhile, expand your horizon beyond that book too my friend.
Now, I really feel everybody here got defensive for labeling the crusades "savages". Well, the statement per se is not wrong? is it? Prove me wrong? Oh yeah! Musilms, Muslims, those people killed us too. Well, just in theory let us say the Muslim Army of Coco Loco attacked the Christian town of Hahah-MeMe and they eat them alive! Question: Were the Crusades savage? Unfortunately still Yes. Muslims being worst or better does not change their description away from "savage".
I think I posted enough Western sources to document that Muslims during crusades were way way civilized, but I guess instead of accessing them first, defensive members start collecting tales and stories opposing that concept. Sorry again, I didn't write those sources or made them accepted publically, they are Americans, British, and French resources, go ask them why their ideas differ to yours?
Damn I think Im giving Heraclius a hard time, he is already mad. Wait! I just sounded like him now
Edited by ok ge
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 00:29 |
Your criticising me for my choice of a source, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of this source and the sources the author uses, therefore what grounds can you have to criticise me on my selection? The fact it is one source is irrelevant if the information is accurate, if you can prove otherwise then please do so.
Has the source I have used not already proven muslim armies were as savage? is not the sack of amorium and the massacre of its population similar to the sacks and slaughter the crusaders were responsible for years later? I believe it has and is. Disagree if you wish but prove me wrong.
Ive never once made the crusaders out to be anything other than what history shows them to, harsh, brutal and sometimes merciless, my only objection is to the unfair share of criticism the crusades recieve, when if you look up on the times etc they were no worse than anybody else.
Criticise the crusaders if you want it doesnt bother me aslong as it is fair criticism and it is atleats pointed out that the enemies of the Crusades had would and later did things as bad.
The medieval age being renowned for its general savagery and barbarism, west and east, christian and muslim. You cant just focus on one part of that, I think you would object if I focused solely on the atrocities the Muslims are responsible for and ignored those by the Christians. Youd be right to aswell.
Edited by Heraclius
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 00:52 |
Originally posted by ok ge
Originally posted by Heraclius
Tell me, since when has it been a crime to use a reliable source to back up your argument? just because this particular source tears your argument to pieces is your problem not mine. |
Yeah, I know it is great to switch the argument toward fillers such as: My argument is better than yours, I teared you down, no hope of those peoples...etc Last time I heard those phrases were in my junior high school . As I said, I'm looking forward getting that book too, meanwhile, expand your horizon beyond that book too my friend.
Now, I really feel everybody here got defensive for labeling the crusades "savages". Well, the statement per se is not wrong? is it? Prove me wrong? Oh yeah! Musilms, Muslims, those people killed us too. Well, just in theory let us say the Muslim Army of Coco Loco attacked the Christian town of Hahah-MeMe and they eat them alive! Question: Were the Crusades savage? Unfortunately still Yes. Muslims being worst or better does not change their description away from "savage". |
No one here, with the possible exception of Quetzalcoatl, has tried to argue that many of the Crusaders were not savages. Therefore there is no need to argue a point everyone has already accepted.
I think I posted enough Western sources to document that Muslims during crusades were way way civilized, but I guess instead of accessing them first, defensive members start collecting tales and stories opposing that concept. Sorry again, I didn't write those sources or made them accepted publically, they are Americans, British, and French resources, go ask them why their ideas differ to yours?
Damn I think Im giving Heraclius a hard time, he is already mad. Wait! I just sounded like him now
|
Well actually you posted sources on Saladin. You basically condensed the Crusades down to the actions of one particular individual in an effort to alleviate any blame that Saladin's followers, successors and predecessors are liable for. So you cannot exonerate an entire side in a war by limiting the scope of your analysis to one individual.
Already sadistic lunatics such as Baybars have been mentioned, so deeply entrenched in cruelty was he that he actually ended up dying after accidently drinking a drink he poisoned to kill off one of his political enemies. This is leaving aside the numerous excesses he committed. If you expand your scope beyond Saladin and be prepared to examine the conduct of the Crusaders' enemies during other time periods apart from Saladin's lifetime you will find plenty of examples of atrocities (you have been provided with numerous examples already).
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 00:52 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
Your criticising me for my choice of a source, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of this source and the sources the author uses, therefore what grounds can you have to criticise me on my selection? The fact it is one source is irrelevant if the information is accurate, if you can prove otherwise then please do so. |
Go back my friend to previous posts. I already posted a credible source that conflicted with yours. The question would be which one is more credible? that Im working on and I'm not a hardcore defensive over my sources. I just said share with me the expansion of your horizon. Unless you like to stick with that book regardless.
Originally posted by Heraclius
Has the source I have used not already proven muslim armies were as savage? is not the sack of amorium and the massacre of its population similar to the sacks and slaughter the crusaders were responsible for years later? I believe it has and is. Disagree if you wish but prove me wrong. |
I already talked about that specific story, Please go back to previous posts.
Originally posted by Heraclius
Ive never once made the crusaders out to be anything other than what history shows them to, harsh, brutal and sometimes merciless, my only objection is to the unfair share of criticism the crusades recieve, when if you look up on the times etc they were no worse than anybody else. |
Are we talking a comparison of their opponent on the same time line? If it is? Let us build a chart comparing between Muslims aggression and Crusade aggression from the start of the crusade to the end of the crusade and then we will see if Crusade were better, at average, or below the accepted standard of that time. That is easier than going back and forth from 635 AD to 2005 AD.
Originally posted by Heraclius
Criticise the crusaders if you want it doesnt bother me aslong as it is fair criticism and it is atleats pointed out that the enemies of the Crusades had would and later did things as bad. |
I thought we are criticizing the crusades, what need do we have to bring up the Mongols, Romans, and Abbasids? If I criticize you Heraclius, would you expect me to criticize your neighbor too so you can be happy?
Originally posted by Heraclius
The medieval age being renowned for its general savagery and barbarism, west and east, christian and muslim. You cant just focus on one part of that, I think you would object if I focused solely on the atrocities the Muslims are responsible for and ignored those by the Christians. Youd be right to aswell. |
Well, if you decided to open a thread about the atrocities commited by Muslims conquering for example Egypt, would you like people to start listings of Christian massacres to Muslims in the Byzentine raids of the northern borders of the Abbasid empires?
No, you would prefer to hear opponents of the ideas of Muslims massacres in Egypt and their evidance, and supporters of those massacres occurance and their evidance. This way you learn. Otherwise, why do we have a specific topic for our thread?
P.S: to those who started listing massacres done for military purposes and way beyond religious prosecution, shall i start stating the Nazis massacres as them being Christian? that is non-sense.
Edited by ok ge
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
ill_teknique
Colonel
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 636
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 01:57 |
how can you compare salah ad din massacring soldiers vs richard massacring the townspeople?
|
|
vagabond
Colonel
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 524
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 02:32 |
Mm - just what the forum needed - another "My grandmother beat up your grandmother - your grandmother was ugly, mean, a bad cook and smelled funny and my grandmother was pretty, nice, a great cook and smelled like peppermint - therefore I'm better than you" thread.
Some of you have tried to raise the level of conversation above this level in spite of the obvious intent of the others. It can't be done - no one who starts from the "My grandma was better" position will ever admit that their grandmother might also have been a human flesh eating hag.
Proof texting is not research no matter how you frame it. Anyone can find loose material to support any argument if they want to. How about some real research - with sources - both pro and con - that enlightens everyone for a change?
|
In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)
|
|