History should offend.

I concur.

History should offend or history should be found offensive?

you are aware that there are certain schools in the states that are doing something similar. Only what they did is rewriting why the pilgrims came to the states and removing all the religious reasons out of it

Not sure if captpicard is trying to stir controversy or something, but he is failing to cause any. The religious reasons that motivated the pilgrims to come here should be told along with all of what happened - history is fact, not fiction. However, I think that classrooms also need to make sure they paint the accurate history of the white man's atrocities - these include our relations with the American Indians, immigration, and the 1960s racial war that never really got resolved.

Teaching history seems hard, because applying a bias to it seems natural, I suppose.

"History should offend or history should be found offensive?"

Both, in fact. History should offend: the tyrant should be offended by the rise of the people. The acolytes of madmen should be offended by the fall of their master.

History should be found offensive: if the Holocaust doesn't offend you, then there is something wrong in your psyche.

"you are aware that there are certain schools in the states that are doing something similar. Only what they did is rewriting why the pilgrims came to the states and removing all the religious reasons out of it"

Okay. Of course, most schools teach the fiction that the Pilgrims came here in search of 'religious freedom'. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, before landing here, they traveled to The Netherlands where they found absolute religious freedom. They hated it.

"Both, in fact. History should offend: the tyrant should be offended by the rise of the people. The acolytes of madmen should be offended by the fall of their master.

History should be found offensive: if the Holocaust doesn't offend you, then there is something wrong in your psyche."

You are talking about history being found offensive in both of these cases. I still don't understand why history "should offend".

No. Re-read the first. Yes, the examples speak of a person who 9I suppose) should find history offensive, but that is not the point. The point is: if things 'turn out right in the end' certain people or classes will be offended. Assholes need to be offended. For the world to become a better place, some will will have to suffer blows.

And again the same.

You are now arguing that no matter the outcome, history will be found offensive by someone. You are making a statement about the offended and not the offender.

I still don't understand why "history should offend".

Let me sort out the terms to begin with. History is the course of human events. I assume that we already agree on what it means to offend. That’s leaves us with ‘should’ as the sticky term.

Let’s have a look at dictionary.com. It reveals that should means:

1. plan to, intend to, or expect to
2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will
3. must; is or are obliged to

Now, it seems clear that history doesn not plan or intend to offend, but it will have to and must.

"Now, it seems clear that history doesn not plan or intend to offend, but it will have to and must."

Glad we got those terms sorted out. I now don't understand the following...

History will have to offend.
History must offend.
History should offend.

What I do understand, and what you are arguing, is that history will offend (which I think we will all agree is common sense). It is, however, under no obligation to do so.

2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will

3. must; is or are obliged to

I don't this can be more clear. History definitely will offend (we agree on this). History must offend (it must because it definitely will). Thus, from the meanings of 'should' history should offend.

I think that you are giving should some extra layer of meaning: assuming that should implies that it would be best if it did or something like that. I don't think that is warranted.

I said, "history will offend". I didn't say, "history definitely will offend". We are not in agreement on that.

I have trouble seeing a meaningful difference between the implications of "I will go home" and "I definitely will go home".

It seems that saying that I "will" obviously means that I definitely will.

In fact, a dictionary check reveals that "will" is defined as "am (is, are, etc.) determined or sure to" which seems to fit my thesis.

Tossing that aside, though, are you saying that you do not agree that history will, at some point, definitly offend some individual or group?

Let me go pick up what you've tossed aside and unwad it...

"I will go home" is a statement of purpose. You are certainly sure that you will, and have every intention of doing so.

You may say, "I definitely will go home", but it is not necessarily truth. You do not know the definite course of events that will end with your arrival at home.

None of these restatements of your initial comment, however, carry the same implications as the original. To be honest, if I scoured through enough definitions from dictionary.com, I could make "Fred eats mealworms" equate to "Ralph Waldo Emerson vomits chicken".

"Tossing that aside, though, are you saying that you do not agree that history will, at some point, definitly offend some individual or group?"

Yes, that is what I am saying. Do I believe that it is likely? Yes. This is a pointless exercise unless your initial comment was meant to equate with "History will definitely offend people in the future".

“Yes, that is what I am saying. Do I believe that it is likely? Yes. This is a pointless exercise unless your initial comment was meant to equate with "History will definitely offend people in the future".”

But, you said: “history will offend” implying that you believe that history will offend. It seems clear (at least to me) that if you believe that something will happen, then you must believe that it definitely will happen. If that were not the case then you would actually believe that that thing MAY happen (or is likely to happen) which is not at all the same thing.

The sun will rise tomorrow, but it may not seems a bit like nonsense. I might rather say I Think the sun will rise tomorrow, but it may not.


“This is a pointless exercise unless your initial comment was meant to equate with "History will definitely offend people in the future".”
“

Because I tend to argue for the joy of it and to float along whatever current the waters offer, I’ve chosen to defend one position, although it was not my initial intent.

Let’s just start over. The Statement in question is: History should offend.

There are multiple readings of this statement. The syntactic meaning seems to be something along the lines of: I believe it proper that the events of history actively cause offense to some. A semantic reading could give us something more along the lines of: History will (or likely will, if we use a common although imprecise usage of should) offend some.

To be honest, the first reading was my intent, although I certainly believe the second one firmly.

To be clear: I hope for substantial improvement in the conditions of life on this planet. I believe it proper and good that such changes occur. Those changes, if they occur, will offend certain members of the human race. I take that as good. Fuck them, I say. The tyrant should suffer the offense of losing his position. History should offend. That was my original meaning, but I enjoy discussing the other as well

Oh, and if you can :""Fred eats mealworms" equate to "Ralph Waldo Emerson vomits chicken". " I'd love to see it.

"But, you said: “history will offend” implying that you believe that history will offend."

Isn't that what I just fucking said?

"It seems clear (at least to me) that if you believe that something will happen, then you must believe that it definitely will happen. If that were not the case then you would actually believe that that thing MAY happen (or is likely to happen) which is not at all the same thing."

I could supply the definition of "believe" at this point, but why bother? You're just going to argue this to pointlessness. Oh, wait...

"The sun will rise tomorrow, but it may not seems a bit like nonsense."

It might seem that way to you. It's entirely possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow. In fact, it's entirely possible that there won't be a tomorrow. Will it rise tomorrow? Yeah. Will it definitely rise tomorrow? No.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. ~.0

I return to the explanation I already gave above.

"I will go home" is a statement of purpose. You are certainly sure that you will, and have every intention of doing so.

You may say, "I definitely will go home", but it is not necessarily truth. You do not know the definite course of events that will end with your arrival at home.

At this point, I am finished with this discussion, as I now fully understand what you meant to convey with "history should offend". I think it is an errant position to take and wanted to discuss with you why, but at this point have become uninterested due to the wasted struggle with semantics.

Honestly I thought I had it covered when I said:

"History should offend or history should be found offensive?"

Both, in fact. History should offend: the tyrant should be offended by the rise of the people. The acolytes of madmen should be offended by the fall of their master.

History should be found offensive: if the Holocaust doesn't offend you, then there is something wrong in your psyche.


I was having fun. I guess you got frustrated. Perhaps it would of cleared things up had I said :

The acolytes of madmen should suffer the offense of the fall of their master.
it was here "And again the same.

You are now arguing that no matter the outcome, history will be found offensive by someone. You are making a statement about the offended and not the offender.

I still don't understand why "history should offend"." that I started to think that you just wanted to wrangle semantics, so I played along.

sorry if the game became annoying. I thought it was your game.

if you still have any interest, why do you think it is an errant position to take ?

The acolytes of madmen should suffer the offense of the fall of their master.
it was here "And again the same.

You are now arguing that no matter the outcome, history will be found offensive by someone. You are making a statement about the offended and not the offender.


Not at all, by the way. Notice the 'should' tucked neatly in there. It is just too obvious that I am not saying that someone will be offended, but that it is right that offense should be given.

Now you are associating my response to one comment of yours with a completely different and earlier comment.

This is what you said to prompt my comment you are referring to in the comment immediately previous this one, "The point is: if things 'turn out right in the end' certain people or classes will be offended."

This is why I discontinued my pursuit here. With you it's not about a logical discussion. It's about how you can argue around things to make it seem as if you were right, when nobody called you wrong to begin with.

Edit: And of course, this is the point that the comments decide to go out of order. Methinks the Vent bug knows that this discussion is over as well as I do.