Fundraising complete, next renewal is August 2022. Paypal Donation Links US dollars CDN Dollars

Ancient site destruction thread

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Grundbegriff »

Grifman wrote:To them the defeats had to be a sign of God's disfavor - they had to be doing something wrong to be suffering his wrath. Casting about for reasons, they came to icons. The Muslims banned most religious art and were obviously successful against Byzantium. Could infidels though they were, could they be receiving God's favor because of this ban? Could God be using them to point the way for his people, the Christians? You can't underestimate what severe defeat will do as people seek reasons for those defeats.
At first, the defeated Byz people theorized that God showed favor to the Muslims because they had been giving him various gifts.
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

Let me apologize beforehand for any odd language or mis-speaks on my behalf. I had all four wisdom teeth removed this weekend and the pain meds are knocking me on my ass. On the plus side, I'm not in pain, haha.
Unagi wrote:If I may; How many, out of 100, muslims (living today) would you estimate have (or wished they could have) participated in the destuction of some cultural icon?

60?
10?
ballpark...

just trying to get a feeling for how you picture it, and what you mean by 'mainstream'.
The mainstream belief I'm referring to is iconoclasm, not specifically the desire to destroy a particular cultural icon. They aren't bond villains, but this belief makes them seem that way at times. 75-90% of Muslims fall into the particular denomination that affirms and drives iconoclasm (Sunnis). Of those I'd have to conduct a scientific study to see exactly what percentage of those practice their beliefs. In any event, a significant number of Muslims affirm iconoclasm in principle at least.
Malachite wrote:snip
I have to repeat myself because you aren't getting what I'm calling mainstream. I'm not talking about destroying the Sphinx being mainstream. I'm talking about iconoclasm being mainstream. The problem here is that the Sphinx falls into the iconoclastic mandate as both an icon and an idol. I will have to continue to repeat myself until you stop debating like I'm saying it the other way around. Iconoclasm itself is one of their largest, most culturally informing (where art and architecture is concerned) beliefs. They'll occasionally let certain images slide, but almost never idols when they're in their control to destroy. I'm aware of a few that have been left around during their occupation but generally just Christian icons since their prophet left the Christian icons in Mecca.

Do you guys disagree that Iconoclasm is a mainstream Sunni belief that has largely informed iconoclastic activities throughout its existence? I'm perplexed by this particular disagreement. It isn't a subjective guess, it's an easy fact.
Malachite wrote:And the fact that it hasn't been repeated in 600 years tells us absolutely nothing. Gotcha.
This in particular is why I assume you're not getting it. Iconoclasm has reared its head repeatedly all over the place for over a 1,000 years at the hands of Muslims. The thing is though, there's a lot of inconsistency. Some groups move in and destroy everything, other groups move in and only destroy icons being worshipped. This is an interesting event because it is a very public idol and yet allowed to remain. I can only conclude that there are other factors at play, such as cultural heritage. This Sphinx is a symbol of Egypt's powerful history. It means more to them than idolatry.
Malachite wrote:What a fascinating assumption to make! Because someone who is 14 years old at the time an event happens would (a) not be able to write about it later in his life without "practicing prophetic license". Really? It must have come from God, because there's just no way he could have remembered it a few decades later??
? What are you talking about? I was debating against the notion that Napoleon or the British had anything to do with the nose. Your comment brought the need for it: "Since then some of Napoleon's soldiers may have lobbed a cannonball at it. Or maybe some British dudes. Or maybe not."

Because you made that comment, I was pointing out that he was alive to give credence to his works and saying that had the nose not been removed yet, it would have been prophetic. I dont' think we disagree here. You should review what you think I'm saying.

To reiterate, iconoclasm is a mainstream belief and the Sphinx is at odds with it. All the people who are willing to act on it need is one success. The people wanting to protect it, they need to never fail.
Last edited by Gavin on Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23867
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by noxiousdog »

Malachite wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Vandalism is part of every culture I've been around. Even if it's a small percentage of the population, it's ubiquitous.
And you see this guy threatening to blow up the great pyramids and the sphinx to be just the same as a bored kid carving his name on a park bench, or a gang banger tagging an overpass?

Do you think Morgan Al-Gohary, a jihadi sheikh with a history of radicalism sees himself as just a punk kid tagging the landscape?


Edit: Punctuation matters...
The sphinx and pyramids are strawmen. It's perfectly logical to claim that destruction of sites is common throughout all cultures and accept that their are certain landmarks that are very unlikely to be targeted.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
msduncan
Posts: 14405
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by msduncan »

It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.

At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

Wow, that's really weird. I wonder what they think they'll get for them or how they'll sell them.
Malachite
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Malachite »

Gavin wrote:
Malachite wrote:snip
I have to repeat myself because you aren't getting what I'm calling mainstream.
No, Gavin, you have to repeat yourself because you aren't paying any attention to what I'm saying. You are arguing with what you've chosen to imagine I'm saying.
Gavin wrote:I find it interesting that the media feels the need to say "Extremist" before anything involving religiously incited violence/destruction is mentioned.
You originally commented on the fact that the media says "extremist" before discussing these ancient site destructions.
I pointed out that the reason the media uses the word "extremist" to refer to these actions is because the actions are extremist. That's it. That's all I've been saying, this whole time. The media uses the word "extremist" because the act of blowing up ancient monuments is not mainstream, but rather extremist. The people who actually commit these acts are not average, mainstream Muslims, but extremists out to make a point.
Here, let me help you see the pattern:
Malachite wrote: If destroying things like the Sphinx and the pyramids was mainstream ...
Malachite wrote: ...the act of blowing ancient sites up IS extremist.
Malachite wrote: ....people who make extremist threats and actions are labelled extremist, because they are not mainstream.
Malachite wrote: .... only the extremists see those beliefs as a reason to actually blow shit up.
There, now do you get what I've ACTUALLY been saying?

Not once have I claimed that iconoclasm, as a general belief, is not a widespread belief among Sunnis. Go back. Look at what I've written. Every time you have responded to me, you have been ignoring what I said, and arguing with something I did NOT say. Hence, my posting :grund:
Gavin wrote: I'm not talking about destroying the Sphinx being mainstream.
Since you apparently agree with me, why do you keep quoting me, and then writing lengthy posts that appear to be attempts to rebut something with which you agree? Heck, why do you rebut yourself?
Gavin, in the space of one single post wrote:No disagreements that their actions are extremist, correct.
....
The fact that the scale of the action is larger doesn't make it extreme, not necessarily.
....
So I understand the use some times, but not in this event.
Gavin wrote:
Malachite wrote:What a fascinating assumption to make! Because someone who is 14 years old at the time an event happens would (a) not be able to write about it later in his life without "practicing prophetic license". Really? It must have come from God, because there's just no way he could have remembered it a few decades later??
? What are you talking about? I was debating against the notion that Napoleon or the British had anything to do with the nose. Your comment brought the need for it: "Since then some of Napoleon's soldiers may have lobbed a cannonball at it. Or maybe some British dudes. Or maybe not."
See those words "or maybe not"? Obviously, I'm well aware that those stories aren't true. However, now that I get that you are completely unable to detect sarcasm, I will do my best to clearly label any sarcasm directed at you.
Gavin wrote: Because you made that comment, I was pointing out that he was alive to give credence to his works and saying that had the nose not been removed yet, it would have been prophetic. I dont' think we disagree here. You should review what you think I'm saying.
Hmmm... let me review what you said.
Gavin wrote: As for the writer from the 1400's, who would have been 14 when the nose was destroyed, it would also have to be assumed that he likewise practiced prophetic license.
Ah, yes, I see the problem. And I agree - clearly the error is on my part. I should not have assumed that your sentence was internally consistent. I should have realized that you were simultaneously saying the nose was removed when the historian was alive AND that it wasn't. Silly me. :roll:

Note, the last paragraph is dripping with sarcasm. Especially the words, "silly me". And the rolly eyes.
Malachite
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Malachite »

noxiousdog wrote:The sphinx and pyramids are strawmen. It's perfectly logical to claim that destruction of sites is common throughout all cultures and accept that their are certain landmarks that are very unlikely to be targeted.
Nah, I'm pretty sure the Sphinx is made of actual stone. :wink:

Just to clarify, I have no issue with the concept that vandalism is ubiquitous, or that destroying remnants from previous civilizations is common (especially by those who just took out the previous civilization). My point all along is simply that using the word "extremist" to describe people who are pre-announcing their intention to blow up the pyramids and sphinx in order to get media attention is neither surprising nor inappropriate.


Murder is a fairly common occurence in our culture. The belief that abortion is murder is a common belief among conservatives. Would it be accurate to state that murdering abortion doctors is a mainstream activity among conservatives, or would it be fair to say that those who murder abortion doctors are extremists?
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23867
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by noxiousdog »

Malachite wrote: Murder is a fairly common occurence in our culture. The belief that abortion is murder is a common belief among conservatives. Would it be accurate to state that murdering abortion doctors is a mainstream activity among conservatives, or would it be fair to say that those who murder abortion doctors are extremists?
I've never really seen the word "common" used like that before. Once it was used with a rate approaching one in 200,000 (guestimating). The second time it was used at a rate approaching 66%.

Since the number of doctors murdered outside of domestic disputes is closer to 1 every 5 years, I'm going to go with the latter.

Anyway, clearly anyone trying to destroy the sphinx or pyramids is an extremist. But I certainly wouldn't call all acts of destruction extremist.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

Malachite wrote:You originally commented on the fact that the media says "extremist" before discussing these ancient site destructions.
I pointed out that the reason the media uses the word "extremist" to refer to these actions is because the actions are extremist. That's it. That's all I've been saying, this whole time. The media uses the word "extremist" because the act of blowing up ancient monuments is not mainstream, but rather extremist. The people who actually commit these acts are not average, mainstream Muslims, but extremists out to make a point.
The actions are only relatively extreme. Muslims have been destroying these things since the 7th century starting with their Prophet's invasion of Mecca when he destroyed the ancient icons in the Kaaba. The only icons he left standing were Christian ones and even that practice of tolerance was ended by the Caliphate a few centuries later (it may or may not be maintained to this day, I'm unsure, it's more likely regional to permit or destroy Christian icons).

So yes, the actions are extreme, but the adherrents are not practicing anything other than basic orthodoxy. The idea of "extremist" carries two things with it:
1.The notion that their actions are extreme in relation to our values
2. the notion that their beliefs that they acted on are extreme.

The addenum of "extremist" by reporters is for both ideas and primarly to express that the actions of these few should not be considered indicative of the beliefs of the many. This is a noble intention and is in response to the biggoted outlash against Muslims all over after 9/11. While I understand the desire to not incite a repeat of such bigotry, they are not technically being correct because these people are only adherring to mainstream and even legal (Sharia Law) beliefs. The reporters would be more honest in their attempt by creating a "don't be a dick, not every Muslim believe this but many do and not all would go to these lengths especially where local laws forbid it" caption to be played every time this happens or explaining that stereotyping based on religions is just as bad as stereotyping based on race. Though it's a bit different, because religions are a set of beliefs whereas race carries only aesthetic differences caused by expressed alleles.
Malachite wrote:There, now do you get what I've ACTUALLY been saying?
I get what you've been saying, but iconoclasm is a mainstream practice. It just doesn't usualy happen on such a grand scale as well-known icons. There is a reason why you don't find many images in Sunni-run countries. It's actually against the law in some places, how outlandish is that? These people would only be upholding their laws in such places. So at the risk of this whole thing just coming down to a difference of semantics, it is extreme in relation to the freedom and tolerance of expression we uphold while not being extreme or abnormal in their cultures.
Malachite wrote:Not once have I claimed that iconoclasm, as a general belief, is not a widespread belief among Sunnis. Go back. Look at what I've written. Every time you have responded to me, you have been ignoring what I said, and arguing with something I did NOT say. Hence, my posting :grund:
If you agree that iconoclasm is a mainstream/widespread belief, then how do you mean that acting on it is not? It is readily enforced on a microcosmic (not sure if microcosm can be conjugated that way) scale and it's only when it reaches iconic scales that we really hear about it
Malachite wrote:No disagreements that their actions are extremist, correct.
In the sense that it is extreme in relation to our own values, yes, it is extreme. In the sense that it is a fringe movement whose beliefs are extreme in relation to the Religion's own orthodox beliefs? No, it is not extreme. The practice of destroying representative imagery and especially idols is remarkably commonplace. You must have missed the part where I made the same distinction between the two possible interpretations of "extreme" in the very first post you responded to on this. To have missed this interpretation of the word would have easily caused the confusion between us where my use of extreme going forward was the person's actions in relation to widespread beliefs of their own culture rather than in relation to how we view it. For example, a Muslim destroying the Sphinx would likely be considered extreme in Egyptian culture but justified by Muslim culture. The only thing is you can't really seperate out the two so there'd be conflicting feelings.
Malachite wrote:The fact that the scale of the action is larger doesn't make it extreme, not necessarily.
The point of scale here was size. The importance (rather than necessarily size) of the object does make the action more or less atrocious. If they throw Timmy's drawing of a horsey into the fire and spank him, that's bad, but it isn't as extreme as destroying the Sphinx or the giant Buddha statues or any of the other ancient pieces of human history. Now then, give Timmy's horsey drawing a hundred years of existence and widespread popularity and you get destruction of an icon on par with destroying 100 year-old art today.
Malachite wrote: Obviously, I'm well aware that those stories aren't true. However, now that I get that you are completely unable to detect sarcasm, I will do my best to clearly label any sarcasm directed at you.
Why bring up the sentence at all? It firmly fell into Poe's Law with the appearance of saying we really don't know what happened to it. It very much seemed like a disagreement and hopefully if you looked back over it you'd see that too.
Malachite wrote:Ah, yes, I see the problem. And I agree - clearly the error is on my part. I should not have assumed that your sentence was internally consistent. I should have realized that you were simultaneously saying the nose was removed when the historian was alive AND that it wasn't. Silly me. :roll:
You clipped away the first part of the context. The part where I first used the term "prophetic artistic license" as ridiculous in relation to the legitimate response informs the use in the next paragraph:

"At the very least, we have a 1737 sketch from Frederick Lewis Norden with it missing the nose. This is not to be confused with another 1737 drawing with it having one. Now then, we must assume that either Norden was taking prophetic artistic license with the nose missing or that it significantly predated Napoleon. As for the writer from the 1400's, who would have been 14 when the nose was destroyed, it would also have to be assumed that he likewise practiced prophetic license."

So you see, the much more rational understanding of what transpired would have been that both things significantly predated Napoleon. I assumed "prophetic license" would be a ridiculous notion and that only acceptable option would be that the nose was gone when they said it was short of belief in a well-documented miracle of fortelling the future. So yes, you should have realized that I was saying the nose was removed during the historian's lifetime and it was. But that involves remembering the sentence immediately preceding it. If you had recalled it and understood that I thought you were dismissing the evidence. You'd know that I was saying that you, Malachite, would have to claim that the writer was using prophecy in a writing that predates Napoleon and British involvement by centuries to dismiss them.

I hope that you read this and see where the confusion lays. I am genuinely sorry that we're having such difficulty conversing here. I don't think we're nearly so much at odds as we appear.
Malachite
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Malachite »

Gavin wrote: The idea of "extremist" carries two things with it:
1.The notion that their actions are extreme in relation to our values
2. the notion that their beliefs that they acted on are extreme.
American Heritage wrote:One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.
Merriam Webster wrote:advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism
And still, I suspect if you poll most Egyptians "we should blow up the Pyramids" is just not going to turn out to be a mainstream view.

Gavin, in the space of one single post wrote:No disagreements that their actions are extremist, correct.
....
The fact that the scale of the action is larger doesn't make it extreme, not necessarily.
....
So I understand the use some times, but not in this event.
Those were YOUR comments, not mine. You apparently also have problems understanding how quotes work, so you spent a large amount of time arguing with yourself, not me.

Gavin wrote: If you agree that iconoclasm is a mainstream/widespread belief, then how do you mean that acting on it is not?
Gavin wrote:No disagreements that their actions are extremist, correct.
See? You already answered your own question!
Gavin wrote:
Gavin wrote:No disagreements that their actions are extremist, correct.
In the sense that it is extreme in relation to our own values, yes, it is extreme. In the sense that it is a fringe movement whose beliefs are extreme in relation to the Religion's own orthodox beliefs? No, it is not extreme. ....For example, a Muslim destroying the Sphinx would likely be considered extreme in Egyptian culture
And again, you feel the need to answer yourself.
I'm not an Egyptian. Are you? So it's not just in terms of OUR culture, now is it? Even within your one paragraph response to yourself, you manage to rebut your own statement.
Gavin wrote:
Gavin wrote:The fact that the scale of the action is larger doesn't make it extreme, not necessarily.
The point of scale here was size. The importance (rather than necessarily size) of the object does make the action more or less atrocious. If they throw Timmy's drawing of a horsey into the fire and spank him, that's bad, but it isn't as extreme as destroying the Sphinx or the giant Buddha statues or any of the other ancient pieces of human history. Now then, give Timmy's horsey drawing a hundred years of existence and widespread popularity and you get destruction of an icon on par with destroying 100 year-old art today.
Hey, look, again you respond to yourself, and answer your own point!

And FYI, the Sphinx and Buddha are/were both a wee bit more than 100 years old. And kinda massive. So Timmy's horsey drawing? Probably not comparable. Good try, though, I guess. I'm sure Timmy appreciates your support.
Gavin wrote:
Malachite wrote: Obviously, I'm well aware that those stories aren't true. However, now that I get that you are completely unable to detect sarcasm, I will do my best to clearly label any sarcasm directed at you.
Why bring up the sentence at all? It firmly fell into Poe's Law with the appearance of saying we really don't know what happened to it. It very much seemed like a disagreement and hopefully if you looked back over it you'd see that too.
Malachite wrote: you are completely unable to detect sarcasm
Oh, and Poe's Law? It doesn't really fit this situation. It refers to actual instances of extremist or fundamentalist posts, or parodies thereof, not just online discussions of real world extremists.
Gavin wrote: I hope that you read this and see where the confusion lays. I am genuinely sorry that we're having such difficulty conversing here. I don't think we're nearly so much at odds as we appear.
Oh, I think by now it's quite clear where the confusion lays.

Given that you spent a good amount of your post arguing with yourself, and the last three paragraphs blathering about historical issues that I clearly understood in the first place, I seriously doubt your 'conversations' will ever get easier for you. On the other hand, since you ARE so good at arguing with yourself, I can clearly bow out and let you keep at it for another half dozen posts!
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

Malachite wrote:And still, I suspect if you poll most Egyptians "we should blow up the Pyramids" is just not going to turn out to be a mainstream view.
Suspicion does not a fact make. But why do you think Egyptians in particular are the ones I'm talking about. I'm specifically referring to Sunni Islam and have already demonstrated a conflict between Sunni iconoclasm and Egyptian nationalism and heritage. This would be like asking why an American Muslim doesn't want Abe Lincoln's statue demolished despite it being representative art (not to say there aren't some who would rather it not exist). What you should ask is if they feel that Islam teaches that Icons like the Sphinx should be destroyed. If you get really lucky, one of the people you poll will think it's a good idea and go do it. The Pyramids are something else that I wouldn't expect most anyone to particularly want to destroy. They aren't really worshipped and they aren't representative art of living things or really any naturally existing thing or supposed god. They're just the way to build a large structure with limited technology.

So the pyramids specifically should be safe. What I've been talking about here is the Sphinx specifically because it crosses both lines and yet still exists in part. It is basically a miracle that it's still around considering what has happened to what I consider to be more impressive Buddha statues.
dictionaries wrote:American Heritage wrote:One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.


Merriam Webster wrote:advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism
And here you solidify the idea that our disagreement is based on semantics. My argument is that the reporters are using the term to indicate that these individuals deviate from the norm. The thing is, the guys destroying icons aren't necessarily the same people attacking civilians. It would be incorrect to group them as such.

I guess this is my question: Would you consider anyone who believes in iconoclasm, the destruction of representative art (particularly if it is used in worship) to be extremist? Relative to America's ideals of freedom of speech and religion, the notion is extreme. But the way the term is being used in the media is to indicate that such actions and beliefs are not typical of the Muslim tradition. But iconoclasm is. There needs to be a distinction between acts of wanton violence against civilians (something that Islam does NOT advocate) and destruction of icons (something that is found in their faith and laws which are likewise based on their faith). Do you see the contrast now?
Malachite wrote: Those were YOUR comments, not mine. You apparently also have problems understanding how quotes work, so you spent a large amount of time arguing with yourself, not me.
I figured you presented my quotes as arguments against me, my responses were elaborations of my meaning, not a rebuttal. I apologize for the confusion the misquotes caused. But if you read back over it, you can better understand why I might say something like, "The point of scale here was size". It indicates that I'm explaining what I meant in the context of that quote. You just cut out a quote and present it as evidence for some reason without any remaining context. It's how many Christians use scripture and it's dishonest without proper context. So I just provided that context to alleviate what appeared to be a misunderstanding.
Malachite wrote:See? You already answered your own question!
But, and this is important, before you spoke up I defined meanings of extremist and the way I believe reporters to be using it. People taking what we consider to be extreme actions in relation to our expectations is indeed a correct statement to be made according to the definition. But I've explained why the use of this term in the media is referring to them being extreme in contrast to other Muslims rather than just extreme in relation to us. We don't need to clarify when actions are extreme. If we needed to, then the actions wouldn't be.
Malachite wrote:I'm not an Egyptian. Are you? So it's not just in terms of OUR culture, now is it? Even within your one paragraph response to yourself, you manage to rebut your own statement.
Huh? No, I've already said that there are conflicting desires here. There is the proud and ancient history of Egyptian culture that is at stake where the destruction of these icons are considered. This is in direct conflict with the Islamic belief of iconoclasm. I'd wager that it is Egyptian culture that has protected the Sphinx all this time.

Understand, Islam is only part of Egyptian culture, it is a subset of it. It's like a hand wanting to do naughty things that the mind or the rest of the body wouldn't like. If you do not recall me making this claim before, here is one of the times I said it:
Gavin wrote:Destroying the Sphinx in particular does not appear to be mainstream because they are also Egyptian and it is part of their cultural heritage. These two things, iconoclasm and heritage are in conflict and one will win out.
So, iconoclasm is a mainstream Sunni belief, but iconoclasm where the Sphinx is concerned is not an Egyptian belief despite Sunni Islam being the mainstream religion. It's quite an interesting conflict.

Followup questions: You say you're Egyptian, cool. Have you lived in Egypt and are you also an adherrent of the Sunni expression of Islam? There is some potentially more in-depth information I could gain from you if so.
Malachite wrote:Hey, look, again you respond to yourself, and answer your own point!
Just a clarification, not a rebuttal. Again, we appear to not agree on what is meant by extreme yet despite me having defined what I thought it to mean. Being that you're not arguing with what I think they're using it to mean and just using the word accordingly, I'm responding to you based on that notion. If you are aware of it, we disagree, but it seems more like you missed that bit of semantics. Atrocity does not necessarily have anything to do with "extremeness" when the word is being used to contrast one's actions with the group they're identified with IF their group's beliefs are in line with the one's actions. If a group hold the belief that burying babies alive will save the town, then they are extreme to those of us that think that belief is atrocious and incredibly severe, but it is NOT extreme where one might say that one particular villager in that group is unlike the others when they all hold that.

Again, to thoroughly beat the horse (much more tender meat that way), reporters are not telling us that these people are doing things that are extreme. We know that, it is intrinsically true according to our culture. They are saying it to define for us that their beliefs/actions are not normal of the group. In this case, we are talking about Sunni Muslims who do hold an iconoclastic view where icons are concerned. Again, this is not to be confused with actual extremist actions like murdering innocents who aren't at war with them.
Malachite wrote:And FYI, the Sphinx and Buddha are/were both a wee bit more than 100 years old. And kinda massive. So Timmy's horsey drawing? Probably not comparable. Good try, though, I guess. I'm sure Timmy appreciates your support.
I'm just explaining that the "deplorability" of the action increases with time. Time actually gives importance to objects that would otherwise not be important. "That statue looks like crap!" "Oh, it's 500 years old? Fascinating!" So comparing a drawing that Timmy wrote yesterday with a drawing that is 100 years old is pertinent in this side discussion. Because Muslims currently destroy and punish things that would be equivalent to a drawing that Timmy made yesterday. But we don't complain about it because it's their culture and those works aren't particularly important. But when it's applied to things of historical and/or cultural significance we sure as hell find out.
Malachite wrote:Oh, and Poe's Law? It doesn't really fit this situation. It refers to actual instances of extremist or fundamentalist posts, or parodies thereof, not just online discussions of real world extremists.
Actually, the term has expanded since its creation 7 years ago despite the actual wording of the law.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Co ... he_concept" target="_blank
Wikipedia wrote:"Over time it has been extended to include not just creationist parody but any parody of extreme ideology, whether religious, secular, or totally bonkers."

"However, the usage of the law has grown, and now the term "Poe" is applied to almost any parody on the internet."
Understand that satire or sarcasm in the way you used it is parody. I assume you know that though.

The earliest cited appearance of the rule was broader and is as follows:
Wikipedia wrote:Jerry Schwarz in 1983 stated If you submit a satiric item without this (smiley) symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.
Is there another term that also means the same thing but doesn't have the term "fundamentalism" in its original definition for no apparently necessary reason? This 1983 quote is generally the way Poe's law is used today.
Malachite wrote:Given that you spent a good amount of your post arguing with yourself, and the last three paragraphs blathering about historical issues that I clearly understood in the first place, I seriously doubt your 'conversations' will ever get easier for you. On the other hand, since you ARE so good at arguing with yourself, I can clearly bow out and let you keep at it for another half dozen posts!
It's convenient to mistake my clarifications for rebuttals but not accurate in this case as described above. I believe you to have stepped into this debate with a clear misunderstanding of my position due to missing my initial definition of how I take reporter's use of the terms extremist/radicals and also missing some likewise important comments that would have clued you in to my actual intention. Please let me know if any actual disagreement between us continues to exist.
Last edited by Gavin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Scuzz
Posts: 9856
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: The Arm Pit of California

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Scuzz »


I tried to find this to post here.

I can't believe there is that big a market for these carvings but then I guess you never know.
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

Scuzz wrote:

I tried to find this to post here.

I can't believe there is that big a market for these carvings but then I guess you never know.
It sounds like someone dumb. But now if they find the crook and get these carvings back we'll have a new museum exhibit somewhere. Or will they just put them back in the ground?
User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by silverjon »

Sometimes, the "market" consists of people who like to own things nobody else owns.

Not so sure about ancient carvings, but other unsellable stolen art of high value can be used as collateral for other dealings. (Did Grundbegriff touch on this somewhere?)
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?
Malachite
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Malachite »

Gavin wrote: But why do you think Egyptians in particular are the ones I'm talking about.
Oh, I think no such thing. I'm well aware that what you're talking about has nothing to do with what I say, or with the article that started the 'conversation'. I'm talking about Egyptians because, well...

Cairo (CNN) -- I took a long stroll through the cavernous Egyptian Museum....
....There are some in Egypt, however, who seem hell bent on repudiating, indeed destroying, the link between Egypt's distant past and its messy present....
....Morgan Al-Gohary, a jihadi sheikh with a history of radicalism, appeared on the private Egyptian TV channel ....
....he and his ilk ever came to power, they would not hesitate to destroy the Sphinx and the pyramids....
....His threat was met by Al-Abrashi and the other two guests with shock. Just to be clear, Al-Abrashi asked the same question three times....
....One of the guests, writer Nabil Sharaf Al-Din, seemed repulsed by this and told the sheikh: "You don't know the history of your country well....
....Cairo's prolific blogger, known simply as Zeinobia, to write a blog on her website, egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com....

and so on. But yeah, clearly, there's no reason why any of this has anything to do with Egypt, or Egyptians. :roll:

Gavin wrote: The Pyramids are something else that I wouldn't expect most anyone to particularly want to destroy. They aren't really worshipped and they aren't representative art of living things or really any naturally existing thing or supposed god. They're just the way to build a large structure with limited technology.
So the pyramids specifically should be safe.
Reading comprehension for the win...
Morgan Al-Gohary, a jihadi sheikh with a history of radicalism, ....they would not hesitate to destroy the Sphinx and the pyramids.
Al-Abrashi: "Am I going to wake up tomorrow to find that.... you have demolished the Sphinx and the pyramids?"
Al-Abrashi: "If you are in power, will you destroy the Sphinx and the pyramids and all the pharoanic statues and all the pharoanic artifacts?"
Al-Abrashi: "So you would destroy the Sphinx and the pyramids?"
Al-Gohary: "Yes, we will destroy them, if they were worshipped before or afterwards."
Al-Gohari's threat inspired Cairo's prolific blogger, known simply as Zeinobia, to write a blog on her website, egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com, titled "Visit the pyramids while you can!!"

Yeah, I totally see why you think the Pyramids have nothing to do with this, and are completely safe. :horse:

Gavin wrote:And here you solidify the idea that our disagreement is based on semantics. My argument is that the reporters are using the term to indicate that these individuals deviate from the norm.
Gavin wrote:But the way the term is being used in the media is to indicate that such actions and beliefs are not typical of the Muslim tradition.
Gavin wrote: But, and this is important, before you spoke up I defined meanings of extremist and the way I believe reporters to be using it.
Gavin wrote:Again, we appear to not agree on what is meant by extreme yet despite me having defined what I thought it to mean. Being that you're not arguing with what I think they're using it to mean and just using the word accordingly, I'm responding to you based on that notion.
Gavin wrote: reporters are not telling us that these people are doing things that are extreme. We know that, it is intrinsically true according to our culture. They are saying it to define for us that their beliefs/actions are not normal of the group.
There's this thing called a "dictionary". In it, people called "lexicographers" compile lists of words, along with the definitions that most people are referring to when they use those words. Most people find that communication works much better when everyone in the conversation is using the same meaning for words.

Now, some people don't like to use the same meanings for words. Some people, for instance, think "octopus" is a much better word than "hat", so they use "octopus" whenever they mean "thing you wear on top of your head". Sometimes, it makes their conversations more complicated. But they know that's because everyone else is wrong.
Gavin wrote:The thing is, the guys destroying icons aren't necessarily the same people attacking civilians. It would be incorrect to group them as such.
Of course not, they would never gyre. They only gimble.
Gavin wrote:Do you see the contrast now?
Oh, I definitely see a contrast. :ninja:
Gavin wrote: I figured you presented my quotes as arguments against me, my responses were elaborations of my meaning, not a rebuttal.
Oh, yes. Most definitely.
So I just provided that context to alleviate what appeared to be a misunderstanding.
As if such a thing were possible!
Gavin wrote:We don't need to clarify when actions are extreme. If we needed to, then the actions wouldn't be.
You... it really is breathtaking, sometimes. A true master!
Malachite wrote:I'm not an Egyptian.
Gavin wrote: Followup questions: You say you're Egyptian, cool.
:doh:

Gavin wrote:Understand, Islam is only part of Egyptian culture, it is a subset of it. It's like a hand wanting to do naughty things that the mind or the rest of the body wouldn't like.
Gavin wrote: It's like a hand wanting to do naughty things that the mind or the rest of the body wouldn't like.
Gavin wrote: It's like a hand wanting to do naughty things that the mind or the rest of the body wouldn't like.
:shock:

:shock: :shock: :shock:

<steps back>


<steps back some more>

Gavin wrote:Please let me know if any actual disagreement between us continues to exist.

No, no. I'm sure we're fine. Very, very, very sure.
User avatar
msduncan
Posts: 14405
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by msduncan »

Malachite, that was an utterly douche response. Try using conversation with him instead of spewing this shit.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.

At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 14475
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Is there any way have a specific thread not show up in VIEW YOUR POSTS list if you have (foolishly, ohhhh so foolishly) posted in them? Like a "forget" feature or something. I could sure use it for a couple to three that I REALLY wish I had not posted in.

*COUGH*
User avatar
msduncan
Posts: 14405
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by msduncan »

Carpet_pissr wrote:Is there any way have a specific thread not show up in VIEW YOUR POSTS list if you have (foolishly, ohhhh so foolishly) posted in them? Like a "forget" feature or something. I could sure use it for a couple to three that I REALLY wish I had not posted in.

*COUGH*
Not to my knowledge. They are like a curse. If your memory is as bad as mine you sometimes forget what they were about and then stumble into them again.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.

At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

Carpet_pissr wrote:Is there any way have a specific thread not show up in VIEW YOUR POSTS list if you have (foolishly, ohhhh so foolishly) posted in them? Like a "forget" feature or something. I could sure use it for a couple to three that I REALLY wish I had not posted in.

*COUGH*
You don't have to worry about me continuing that particular conversation. I don't see anything to respond to anyways. I apologize for its blight in your queue.
User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by silverjon »

Enough wrote:This time it's not religious fundamentalists destroying a 2,600 year-old Buddhist city in Afghanistan, it is instead a Chinese copper mine.
One of my colleagues just circulated this article about the site
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/20 ... aynak.html" target="_blank
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

silverjon wrote:
Enough wrote:This time it's not religious fundamentalists destroying a 2,600 year-old Buddhist city in Afghanistan, it is instead a Chinese copper mine.
One of my colleagues just circulated this article about the site
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/20 ... aynak.html" target="_blank
What an incredible site. This will be a tremendous loss the World is about to have. To think that it's mandated by their own government.

Can't believe I hadn't heard of the place. I wonder how it has survived this long in Afghanistan? I mean, a lot of the heads have been smashed off which is a typical Muslim practice so it hasn't entirely survived, but it's simply too large for anyone to have found everything. Perhaps the Shi'a influence in the region helped (they're not as whiney about images)?
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

Grundbegriff wrote:This digital model of the site is neat.
Is that a legitimate link? It is trying to get me to update my browser and then has three icons of three different browsers.
User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Grundbegriff »

Gavin wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:This digital model of the site is neat.
Is that a legitimate link? It is trying to get me to update my browser and then has three icons of three different browsers.
No. I deliberately and with malice aforethought linked to a wholly unrelated site that I hadn't tested for legitimacy myself.
User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Grundbegriff »

@Gavin,

Here's how the 3d model looks in a standard, suitably equipped browser (say, Chrome or Firefox):
Image

Here's how it looks in a broken or inadequate browser:
Image
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

Grundbegriff wrote:Here's how it looks in a broken or inadequate browser:
Image
*sigh* there are clearly some disadvantages in working for a software companing that is a microsoft partner and largely enforces use of microsoft software...

Thanks for the picture at least. I'll eagerly await getting home to view it.
User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Grundbegriff »

Gavin wrote:there are clearly some disadvantages in working for a software companing that is a microsoft partner and largely enforces use of microsoft software...
I feel your pain. Although my employer does not enforce the use of a particular browser, some of our customers require IE. We lobby for change from time to time, but turning to Normalize.css (and the like) rocks fewer boats.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 68682
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Isgrimnur »

Say goodbye to those Nazca Lines:
A group of ancient lines in the archaeological zone of Buenos Aires, in Nazca, have been destroyed by heavy machinery, El Comercio reported.

According to the daily, the machinery belongs to a firm that is removing limestone from the area.

The lines are located near kilometer marker 444 of the Panamericana Sur Highway. The area adjacent to the lines have reportedly also been affected, due to land being removed from the area.
Black lives matter
User avatar
msduncan
Posts: 14405
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by msduncan »

Isgrimnur wrote:Say goodbye to those Nazca Lines:
A group of ancient lines in the archaeological zone of Buenos Aires, in Nazca, have been destroyed by heavy machinery, El Comercio reported.

According to the daily, the machinery belongs to a firm that is removing limestone from the area.

The lines are located near kilometer marker 444 of the Panamericana Sur Highway. The area adjacent to the lines have reportedly also been affected, due to land being removed from the area.
ugh
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.

At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Gavin »

Isgrimnur wrote:Say goodbye to those Nazca Lines:
A group of ancient lines in the archaeological zone of Buenos Aires, in Nazca, have been destroyed by heavy machinery, El Comercio reported.

According to the daily, the machinery belongs to a firm that is removing limestone from the area.

The lines are located near kilometer marker 444 of the Panamericana Sur Highway. The area adjacent to the lines have reportedly also been affected, due to land being removed from the area.
While this is really stupid of them, I will point out that these weren't the popular ones or all of them by any stretch of the imagination. Just so no one thinks all of them are gone.
User avatar
msduncan
Posts: 14405
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by msduncan »

It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.

At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 37449
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Kraken »

We should start a scorecard for sites destroyed for profit vs. sites destroyed for gods.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 44348
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Smoove_B »

5,000-year-old pyramid destroyed in Lima
The pyramid El Paraiso, located near the river Chillon, is one of the oldest structures constructed in the Americas, made up of 12 pyramids and covering over 64 hectares.

...

Despite its obvious importance to Peruvian culture, this pyramid was knocked down and later burned by several clandestine groups that entered the site on Saturday.
That is seriously f-ed up.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 24824
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Holman »

Unbelievable. 5,000 years gone for what?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 44348
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Smoove_B »

I couldn't really figure that out.
Archaeologist Marco Guillén Hugo was in charge of the research and excavation of this site and reported to El Comercio that he had reason to believe two private building companies, Compañía y Promotora Provelanz E.I.R.L and Alisol S.A.C Ambas, were behind the destruction.
No idea what the private building companies are involved in. I'm sure it was important.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
msduncan
Posts: 14405
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by msduncan »

This thread continues to make me sad. Not the thread per se... but the news of so many precious sites being lost forever.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.

At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 37449
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Kraken »

Holman wrote:Unbelievable. 5,000 years gone for what?
“This isn’t the first time they have tried to take over this land,” Guillén told the daily. “They say they are the owners, even though this land is untouchable.”.

Now the land can become a golf course or a shopping mall or a subdivision or something else that's profitable.
User avatar
msduncan
Posts: 14405
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by msduncan »

What's terrible is that these sites can be worked AROUND. South east Georgia are filled with tabby Spanish ruins. I remember riding through several neighborhoods that were built around the ruins. Literally you can have ruins of tabby buildings right in the middle of a street, and the street just moves around it and leaves it undisturbed. Makes for great scenery and history in a neighborhood.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.

At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14618
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Enough »

Some Boy Scout leaders in Utah thought it would be hilarious to knock over a 200 million year old rock formation at Goblin State Park in the name of "safety." Uggh, what total assholes. At least own up that you did it for your inner-child and skip the story that you did it to be a hero. "We have now modified Goblin Valley." :roll:
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Ancient site destruction thread

Post by Fitzy »

Enough wrote:Some Boy Scout leaders in Utah thought it would be hilarious to knock over a 200 million year old rock formation at Goblin State Park in the name of "safety." Uggh, what total assholes. At least own up that you did it for your inner-child and skip the story that you did it to be a hero. "We have now modified Goblin Valley." :roll:
It was about to fall any minute!
Post Reply