Tehran Condemns 300

POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 21:56
VIEWED: 28099
PAGE 5 of 15

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:14 AM

"The problem is that your particular phrasing misleads the reader into the understanding that your "aversion" to homosexuality leads to the conclusion that you believe they shouldn't be cast as archetype for "proud warriors" and rather in fact you are glad they no longer exist as part of the human race."

Hunh??? No misleading. I said exactly what I meant. You just need to R-E-A-D _ T-H-E _ W-O-R-D-S I wrote.

"I am not sure if further padding (or perhaps some needed "back-paddling" on your part) your response leads me to think otherwise. Your description of those selected parts of their culture sounds on the level to what I remember, but I am not sure how judging them with today's standards of morality and any other ruler deserves them to be cast out of the human gene pool."

I didn't add or subtract anything from my first post when I quoted it. No padding or back-paddling at all. You just need to read my words literally.

And, btw, evolution's tool is transmitting on your charcteristics to the next generation ad infinitum. The culture that literally dies out has failed in the most basic way possible. That's not a moral judgement.

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:19 AM

You know, I'd love to see some research. I've done a bit, and some of what you're saying is close to being right, but none of it is exactly right. For instance: yes, city elders examined infants and discarded small and deformed ones. But your term "in large numbers" is ambiguous--large numbers in comparison to what? And is that large numbers in a year? A month? Over the course of their civilization? At any rate, they lasted as a dominant power for about three hundred years (roughly from 630 BCE to around 300 BCE), so their program of abandoning infants didn't deplete their numbers as seriously as you're making out. In addition, Bradford (same book as before) describes boys being taken from their mothers at seven or eight to begin their military training (suggesting that they didn't roam in wild packs of boys up to that point). And a Spartan man was in active military service (and hence in the barracks) from twenty to thirty, at which he became essential a reserve soldier and could leave the barracks to live with his family.

Now, here's the difference: I've done my research; I can reference scholars who've written on the subject. You, on the other hand, are getting mad on behalf of Iran (odd choice, but hey, it's yours to make) because you feel that the movie has some cultural/political overtones that even the director has said he didn't intend. So to discredit the movie, you're throwing out bold assertions about Spartan life and culture--but it seems obvious that you haven't really done any research on the subject at all. If all you really want to do is insult Geezer, whose intention, I believe, was to provide a moment of levity, then carry on (though I think it's safe to say most of us wish you wouldn't). But if, on the other hand, you're going to try to speak authoritatively about historical matters, you're going to have to do one hell of a lot better in your scholarship and your argumentation than you've done up to this point.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: they never died out the way you seem to think so. Check a map: there's still an inhabited city of Sparta to this day. What they did do was lose influence in Greece and so declined from their former position of dominance (like all great powers must).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:29 AM

Causal,

Here is some information gleaned from the internet. (It is the most easily posted.) I was actually accurate with nearly all of it.

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

http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/educational/lesson1.html

Social Structure of Sparta:
Three classes: Spartiates (military professionals who lived mostly in barracks and whose land was farmed by serfs; they served in the army and could vote).

Perioeci or "neighbors/outsiders" who were freemen; they included artisans, craftsmen, merchants; they could not vote or serve in the army; foreigners could be in this class.

Helots (serfs descended from those peoples who had resisted subjugation by Sparta and who were constantly rebelling. They were treated like slaves and gave 1/2 of their produce to the Spartiate citizens who owned the land.)

Boys: Boys were taken from parents at age seven and trained in the art of warfare. They were only give a cloak - no shoes or other clothes, and not enough food so they had to steal (to learn survival skills). At age 20 they were placed into higher ranks of the military. To age 30 they were dedicated to the state; then they could marry but still lived in barracks with other soldiers.

The men lived most of their lives in military barracks.

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

I got the age wrong where they were set out into the hills, but the rest right.

As to 'how many' children were set out to die from exposure, it was enough that the particular cliff has the bones of thousands of infacts at its bottom. (I'll have to find the source for that.)

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

I didn't just post cause of Slick, I had and have sources of information as well. Now your sources and my sources may not say the same thing. But my posts are, as usual, researched and fact-based. And my sources are credible.

CAUSAL

Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Boys: Boys were taken from parents at age seven and trained in the art of warfare. They were only give a cloak - no shoes or other clothes, and not enough food so they had to steal (to learn survival skills).

It sounds like you're confusing two separate things. The military training all Spartan male children received was given in the agoge. They were trained from the age of 7 or 8 until about the late teens. The conditions were harsh, but not brutal. They did have to scrounge for food, but not because they weren't given any at all, just not enough. During this period they lived with the other trainees--not in comfort, for sure, but also not on the streets or in the wilderness.

The other thing that you seem to describe is called the crypteia. But it wasn't as barbarous as you're describing. Participation in the crypteia was limited to the most promising young trainees, those who had leadership potential. They were sent out into the countryside basically to fend for themselves, but also to keep an eye on the helots (in typically Spartan brutal way) who the Spartiates worried might be prone to insurrection if they weren't controlled.

Quote:
At age 20 they were placed into higher ranks of the military. To age 30 they were dedicated to the state; then they could marry but still lived in barracks with other soldiers.

The men lived most of their lives in military barracks.

Actually, because the Spartans didn't expand their population through colonial expansion, as did the other Greek poleis, the Spartans took marriage very seriously. They were expected to marry immediately after the crypteia period, which would put them in their late teens or early twenties. Spartan culture placed such a high premium on reproduction (which was strictly limited to married couples) that unmarried men were shunned during public ceremonies, and, in some case, not allowed to take part at all. In addition, while it is true that Spartan men were "dedicated to the state" for a period, it only lasted 10 years: from a man's twenties to his thirties. During this period he lived in the barracks, not with his family. After the age of thirty, a Spartan man was still expected to be available for military service (though in a "reserve" capacity) and so was free to live with his family, rather than in barracks.

Quote:
As to 'how many' children were set out to die fromn exposure, it was enough that the particular cliff has the bones of thousands of infacts at its bottom. (I'll have to find the source for that.)

That sounds like something you might have picked up from the movie (which was, obviously, not a accurate depiction of the reality of the situation). In any event, I'm sure predators and scavengers made off with the remains long before there was a chance for the bones of "thousands of infants" to collect. That's dramatic and everything, but I'm not convinced that it's the case.

Quote:

I didn't just post cause of Slick

I wish you would give him the courtesy of calling him by his name, instead of this demeaning nickname (that no one else bothers to use, anyway). Calling him “Slick” just isn't very nice, and it doesn’t seem to promote open dialogue, nor a friendly atmosphere on these boards.

Quote:
I had and have sources of information as well. Now your sources and my sources may not say the same thing. But my posts are, as usual, researched and fact-based. And my sources are credible.

Well, no question, historians disagree about what’s actually the case over their interpretation of the evidence. But my trouble isn’t so much that you have different sources than me. My trouble is that you seem to post without doing very much research first. This can lead to basic factual errors that could have been avoided given proper antecedent research.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, a

RUE

Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:49 AM

Hey Causal,

I have to get on with life. So I'll check back tomorrow for your post.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

I didn't just post cause of Slick

I wish you would give him the courtesy of calling him by his name, instead of this demeaning nickname (that no one else bothers to use, anyway). Calling him “Slick” just isn't very nice, and it doesn’t seem to promote open dialogue, nor a friendly atmosphere on these boards.

Actually, I appreciate the nickname Slick. Geezer is a master at moving the topic to exactly where he wants it to be. It's pretty impressive. I remember long ago discussions where I've gone back and forth with Geezer and realized he'd manuevered me all over the map and I was so busy playing catch-up that I never did get to make that point I wanted to make. Slick works.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Re-edited to add: when did this thread go from funny to snarky? Oh, wait, we're in RWED, where people disagree with each on the basis of who the other person is, not the argument they're making. Maybe we should petition Haken to change the name of the forum to "Real World Ad Hominem."

Rue is one of those types that can’t find anything funny unless it involves some derogatory comment about Bush.

Frankly, I was enjoying Geezer’s witty remarks. I was actually thinking of joining in the fun. Something scathing about how Alexander conquered the entire Persian Empire and some in less then ten years, while the Persians spent 150 years getting their collective butts kicked out of Greece on successive invasions. But then it occurred to me that the Spartans actually weren’t involved in that particularly Greek exploit. And the mood seems to have passed anyway.

Spartans were not big players in the homoerotic camp like many other Greeks, but most Greeks didn’t accept it nearly as much as some people today want to believe. There was no wide consensus among classical Greek City-states. In some cities it was acceptable, but in others it was not. And you have to draw a distinction between homosexuality and homoeroticism. Homosexuality was not widely accepted in the classical Greco-Roman world at all. Homoeroticism, on the other hand was acceptable in certain places. Probably not Sparta as much as other Greek cities. However, this was almost universally limited to pederasty, not sex between adults, which was far more likely to be viewed contemptuously by most Greek societies, even those that were open to the idea of sexual pederasty. So homoeroticism between soldiers of the same age was probably not generally considered acceptable by Greek, particularly Lakodaemon, societies. It seems clear to me that it happened, but I’m sure that it happens in modern militaries as well. Contemporary references by Xenophon explicitly denying it occurred, says to me that it wasn’t acceptable regardless of whether it was happening or not. Now it may have been more common among Spartan soldiers then among modern US infantry today (it’s hard to quantify that) but to attempt to elevate that to a homosexual tendency defining the Spartan military society is a gross misunderstanding of the Lakodaemon culture and Greek culture in general, and probably says more about the desires of certain modern social political ideas then ancient Spartan/Lakodaemon military culture.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:34 AM

Sorry. I misread the title. I thought somebody was giving away free condoms.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

KHYRON

Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And you won't find 'gay', 'faggot', or any sexual perjorative term in my post.

Of course not, I wasn't implying that there was, just pointing out what seems to be a double-standard on your part. I quoted the word "faggot" not because you said it, but because Coulter said it and I didn't want to leave it unquoted because then it would seem like I was saying it.

Quote:
That's YOUR interpretation, probably based on your own homophobia. Oh, and ingnorance. Can't forget the ignorance, either.

Yes, I disagree with what you said, therefore I must be a homophobic ignorant fool. Very good, glad we established that.

Quote:
Just to reiterate what I said, since you seemed to have missed understanding the big words:

I do tend to struggle with those big two- and three-syllable words you use, but I promise to concentrate this time.

Quote:
Before Spartans are portrayed as uber-men in the heroic western mold I think people need to know Spartan men lived together in groups exclusively and never with women. And the men in those clubs had great sex with each other. The Spartans didn't have a whole lot of children who survived, thanks to their bizarre child-rearing practices. Because of that, and despite the massive use of slaves, the Spartan culture died out quite early. If ever a culture deserved the Darwin Award, it would be them.

Boy, that sure gave me a headache. That last sentence alone made me grab the dictionary six times! But did I get your drift this time?

Clearly homosexuality wasn't as frowned upon back in those days as it is in contemprary society and for that reason it was probably more common, but what you said, and especially the way you said it, sounds like something PN would say. It's intentionally divisive and not backed up by anything I've ever read on the topic.

As for weeding out the weakest, it's an example of artificial selection. We do the same with domesticated animals all the time and it seems to work - it's not nice when applied in human societies, but, speaking objectively, a society should become stronger because of it. Unless they got rid of almost all of the next generation, which seems very unlikely.

Regarding the thousands of infant skeletons thing, if that's true, the Spartans were around for centuries, so that number may be high in absolute terms but definitely not high enough to justify saying they eradicated themselves. Spartans liked warfare, and in a lot of wars thousands of people can get killed in a day, yet you don't argue along these lines, you'd rather use an emotionally manipulative argument for their demise such as 'baby-killers' than one that would make slightly more sense.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

GEEZER

Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Actually, I appreciate the nickname Slick. Geezer is a master at moving the topic to exactly where he wants it to be.

Sort of like in this thread, where everyone was having good clean fun ragging on the Iranians until I came in and got all snarky about the Spartans. No. Wait. That was Rue.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE