The Truth About Thanksgiving

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

The idea that the end justifies the means is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

Plenty of times we have seen and learned otherwise, such utilitarianistic ideas are fatally flawed to say as an answer to everything.

He is teaching his students how Pilgrims took advantage of hospitality, exploited it, and got away with it, and survived, dare I say it, thrived. What kind of message is this to teach the kids?

The message is that part of our history wrongs were done, everything in the world that is "good" had unjust or wrong actions taken to get it. Good can come out of evil. Also it is the same basic message any person who even remotely pays attention to world history would know, if a society remains isolated it will fall behind in development and technology, and when it contact with another society it will be greatly disadvantaged. We have seen it time and time again.

It is through this lie that we teach children basic moral understanding and how friendship can lead to wonderful things.

That is a lesson everyone has learned through many OTHER means. Children shows, books, etc. I agree that friendship is wonderful but I can assure you, I didn't learn that from the Thanksgiving Massacre.

And besides, do we want these kids to learn at an early age that one can get ahead in life by lying, cheating, stealing, and taking advantage of others?

Oh please, you obviously don't know children. They already learn that at around the age of seven, that they could get away with things from lying (especially when they learn their parents or someone else lied to them to achieve), stealing, cheating, etc. Everyone knows this is true and the very fact that actions have to be taken to punish those who steal is further truth that it is common knowledge.

That's why we lie, we teach them the moral of working together so that they can be a good American and work for the betterment of the country.

And that worked out so great in the past hundred years, right?

[Twilight Wolf]

The idea that the end justifies the means is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

Plenty of times we have seen and learned otherwise, such utilitarianistic ideas are fatally flawed to say as an answer to everything.

End of world war 2 came via the bomb.  More lives would have been lost otherwise.  Freeing those Iraqis of the evil that was Saddam, even if it cost countless of billions of dollars, many many lives, was worth it to instill democracy.  More often than not it does work out.

The message is that part of our history wrongs were done, everything in the world that is "good" had unjust or wrong actions taken to get it. Good can come out ofevil. Also it is the same basic message any person who even remotely pays attention to world history would know, if a society remains isolated it will fall behind in development and technology, and when it contact with another society it will be greatly disadvantaged. We have seen it time and time again.

So what's wrong with isolationism?  Communist Russia did well for a while, until it came in contact with the Western ideals of capitalism.  The Native Americans did well enough until the Pilgrims came.  This is what we shouldn't be teaching our kids.  Isolationism works out well if it can be maintained.  After all, who cares about falling behind a little, dragging the intellectuals and gifted down for the sake of those not as gifted and not as intellectual?  We can't leave a child behind, even if that means dumbing down the system.  We'll do fine as a country- we produce the third most amount of Oil out of any country in the world.  And so long as we maintain an isolationist policy spearheaded by John Bolton (if he came back), we would do just fine.

That is a lesson everyone has learned through many OTHER means. Children shows, books, etc. I agree that friendship is wonderful but I can assure you, I didn't learn that from the Thanksgiving Massacre.

When did you learn of the thanksgiving massacre?  And what's wrong with keeping the same lessons in education?  Instilling the same time honored values that will lead to a society where no one harms each other?  After all, anything going against this or speaking ill of it is un-American.  Do you want to be unAmerican?

Oh please, you obviously don't know children. They already learn that at around the age of seven, that they could get away with things from lying (especially when they learn their parents or someone else lied to them to achieve), stealing, cheating, etc. Everyone knows this is true and the very fact that actions have to be taken to punish those who steal is further truth that it is common knowledge.  And that worked out so great in the past hundred years, right?

Look, clearly you don't get it.  We LIE to them.  They don't find out about it.  Soon enough, the lie becomes truth.  After all, history is just a set of lies agreed upon.  So once we spread that lie, it becomes truth, and no one is lying anymore.  After all, were you there at the first thanksgiving?  NO!  Not a chance.  You learn from pieces of paper with writing on them bound together.  What makes that any more true?  Because it's agreed upon?  Fact is, unless you were there, you have no idea what the truth is.  Fact is, there is no truth.  My truth is not your truth.  Example: if I was colorblind, I saw the sky as green, that's my truth.  Your truth (assuming you're not color blind, if you are, I apologize), you see it as blue.  That's your truth.  One doesn't hold any value over the other.  Basically, the grand plan is to perpetuate this "lie" until it becomes truth, and then create a utopian society where everyone treats everyone equally and become friends and work together.

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

End of world war 2 came via the bomb. More lives would have been lost otherwise.

We do not know that for a fact.

Now if you are speaking "more american lives would have been lost" that is true, but not as many civilians would have died.

Freeing those Iraqis of the evil that was Saddam, even if it cost countless of billions of dollars, many many lives, was worth it to instill democracy.

Oh?

Don't you think it is too soon to list what the results of that was?

More often than not it does work out.

Because you counted each and every time?

So what's wrong with isolationism?

You just answered your own damn question

Communist Russia did well for a while, until it came in contact with the Western ideals of capitalism.

The Native Americans did well enough until the Pilgrims came

Isolationism works out well if it can be maintained

It is impossible to maintain isolationism by staying isolated. Being isolated defeats that actual purpose. You can't be isolated forever, the simple fact is that we are all part of the same planet. You can't just close your eyes and pretend what is going on around you isn't there. Dee de deee

After all, who cares about falling behind a little, dragging the intellectuals and gifted down for the sake of those not as gifted and not as intellectual? We can't leave a child behind, even if that means dumbing down the system.

If we keep lowering the bar, everyone will suffer. Soon the "best" are subpar compared to what the truly best would have been. For example, if we started making the grade letter A be from 80% - 100% that would significant causes. In the end, it doesn't make anyone smarter. It only makes everyone stupider. Challenging children is best, to weed out the weak. Life is a competition, that is a fact. We shouldn't make it easier for the untalented. They very fact they need handicaps prove they lack it.

After all, anything going against this or speaking ill of it is un-American.

This will end up in a debate over sematics, what is "un-american" *rolls eyes* Also being "unamerican" is hardly a good arguement for anything, unless you're speaking politics.

Look, clearly you don't get it. We LIE to them. They don't find out about it. Soon enough, the lie becomes truth.

Hey, that's a great idea! Lying to them and eventually it becomes true!

Oh wait, nothing can BECOME true. It is either false or true. Instead, they'll only think it is true and become a bunch of dumbasses. Like teaching them 2 + 2 = chair, eventually they'll think it is true but is it really? No, that will lead to our destruction.

Fact is, there is no truth.

You're right, there is no truth.

For example, the sky isn't blue. *rolls eyes* and the Earth isn't round. You have a point that I don't know PERSONALLY what happened in the past, but that what history is about. Looking at the evidence, and reasoning, and making analysis. I trust the history books when it comes to certain matters unless they are recent incidents. I am onguard then for propaganda. For example, a text book tells me that the Moon has gravity less then the Earths. I haven't been to the moon, but I will take their word for it.

No good can ever come out of a world of lies. The truth always reveals itself, unless you want to be like The Giver and kill anyone who discovers "the truth"

The idea that my truth doesn't equal your truth is true, but even so there is still an absolute irrefutable truth that exists.

You may be color blind, but t hat doesn't mean you see Blue as green. Instead it is hard for you to distinguish between the two colors. Color blind people don't look at a blue sky and see "green", they just see a shade of color that looks extremely similar to the shade they see in blue.

The sky is still blue, regardless.

[Matt]

I find your glorification and cheer leading of historical revisionism very disturbing. It's beyond Orwellian. Honestly, reading your posts, I cannot tell if they are satire or not. You sound like Stephen Colbert.

History, despite what you preach, is not merely a contest to see who's ideas are able to perpetuate themselves better. It also does not exist to make American's "feel good" about themselves or their country. Historians do not just "make up" theories that are most suitable to them, but rather draw conclusions based upon records and empirical evidence. This is then open to academic debate and peer review. While observing American politics and the general prevalence of the "us vs. them" mentality in society today may lead otherwise, honest and intellectual debate does exist and is valuable.

If South Africa instituted a policy refusing to acknowledge the history of apartheid in order to make themselves "feel good", would mean the apartheid never happened? No, of course not. Now, I understand you're trying to say the truth doesn't really matter if you can force your "truth" on other people. My retort would be that that approach is ethically appalling. A free democracy bases itself upon the ideal of individual freedom, and the individual, at least the majority, has always moved without ulterior motives, that is, to what is factually correct.

End of world war 2 came via the bomb. More lives would have been lost otherwise. Freeing those Iraqis of the evil that was Saddam, even if it cost countless of billions of dollars, many many lives, was worth it to instill democracy. More often than not it does work out.

Congratulations on taking the argument out of context. The ends do not ever justify the means within the intellectual realm. To the contrary, it is often beneficial for a population to be as informed as possible. In a military context, of course we cannot have a completely pacifist foreign policy, and we would most likely not exist as a free country right now. If killing for survival falls into the "ends justifying the means," then we do. We must kill sometimes in order not to be killed ourselves, or at least that's the theory.

Example: if I was colorblind, I saw the sky as green, that's my truth. Your truth (assuming you're not color blind, if you are, I apologize), you see it as blue. That's your truth.

Horrible example. While a medical deficiency may obscure your personal perception, anyone can measure the frequency of light refracted into the sky. Whether or not you are color-blind, you would still derive the same value. That is to say, your personal perception does not change the actual frequency of the light. When it comes to history, we may never be completely accurate, but we can do our best to eliminate bias and perception.

We'll do fine as a country- we produce the third most amount of Oil out of any country in the world. And so long as we maintain an isolationist policy spearheaded by John Bolton (if he came back), we would do just fine.

https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Oil production: 7.61 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil imports: 13.15 million bbl/day (2004)

Oops!

Or are these "facts" disputable? ****, it SAYS ESTIMATE RIGHT THERE! After all, how could the CIA possibly know more about US oil consumption than me? If I want to believe all internal combustion engines are driven by fairy power, and all oil exports are derived from a magical oil well in Oregon, that is my right and in no way damages my credibility.

And whatever your view of the Iraq War, I think it's indisputable that it was an ideological war. How we could be both an isolationist country, and engage in ideological warfare is beyond me.

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

Well Matt did a much better job then me.

[Twilight Wolf]

Okay, I'm having far too much fun.

If we keep lowering the bar, everyone will suffer. Soon the "best" are subpar compared to what the truly best would have been. For example, if we started making the grade letter A be from 80% - 100% that would significant causes. In the end, it doesn't make anyone smarter. It only makes everyone stupider. Challenging children is best, to weed out the weak. Life is a competition, that is a fact. We shouldn't make it easier for the untalented. They very fact they need handicaps prove they lack it.

Using that logic, you are basically saying that all handicapped people deserve to be weeded out.  I find that offensive as I am handicapped (bum leg).  So thanks for saying I don't deserve the same chances!  Thumbs up!

For example, the sky isn't blue. *rolls eyes* and the Earth isn't round. You have a point that I don't know PERSONALLY what happened in the past, but that what history is about. Looking at the evidence, and reasoning, and making analysis. I trust the history books when it comes to certain matters unless they are recent incidents. I am onguard then for propaganda. For example, a text book tells me that the Moon has gravity less then the Earths. I haven't been to the moon, but I will take their word for it.

There is no sky.  We look at space.  The blueness is caused by refraction of dust particles in the atmosphere.  So we look at the "sky" at night, and it is black with white specs.  And the earth is not round.  Well, not perfectly, anyway.  So nice job on both counts there.

Oh wait, nothing can BECOME true. It is either false or true. Instead, they'll only think it is true and become a bunch of dumbasses. Like teaching them 2 + 2 = chair, eventually they'll think it is true but is it really? No, that will lead to our destruction.

You realize that mathematics is entirely universal convention, right?  

My retort would be that that approach is ethically appalling. A free democracy bases itself upon the ideal of individual freedom, and the individual, at least the majority, has always moved without ulterior motives, that is, to what is factually correct.

Ethics?  Oh no doubt it is ethically appalling.  Most things in this world are. Example.  Would you kill a man to save your own family if that was the only way?  It is ethically wrong to kill a man.  I did not come here to argue ethics my friend, I came to argue a view of a utopian society.  

When it comes to history, we may never be completely accurate, but we can do our best to eliminate bias and perception.

Most history comes from first hand accounts, so that is difficult, if not impossible.  

Or are these "facts" disputable? ****, it SAYS ESTIMATE RIGHT THERE! After all, how could the CIA possibly know more about US oil consumption than me? If I want to believe all internal combustion engines are driven by fairy power, and all oil exports are derived from a magical oil well in Oregon, that is my right and in no way damages my credibility.

Now go argue your point of view.  


------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Okay, I can't keep this up anymore.  It is A) no fun when everyone agrees in a LoT topic.  B). I thought I was over-the-top enough to make it to the point of satire.  Oh well.  Nonetheless, I can't really retort any more with that point of view without it being SO over the top sarcastic satirical.

[Matt]

Gotcha. That's what I thought, the only reason I wasn't convinced was because you did it so convincingly, heh.

[Dacicus]

An elementry school teacher has broken tradition and instead of teaching how pilgrims and indians helped each other out and celebrated their good friendship with thanksgiving the teacher actually told the truth. How the pilgrims were simply taking advantage of the indians and when the time came they would steal their property and kill their families.

The way you wrote it, you seem to be implying that the Pilgrims' thoughts during the original Thanksgiving event were strictly about how they could steal the Indians' land. Do you have some sort of document to back this up? From what I've read, they barely survived the first winter, and they were sincerely grateful to God for their survival. That they or their descendants along with other people who came here later treated the Indians horribly is a fact that should be dealt with independent of the Thanksgiving event, if you ask me.