2
27lw
Guest
Strangely, that’s not what her daughter said.
- Status
G
gam197
Guest
The daughter is defending her parents. She lived with them and is saying her parents were loving people to each other.
Yes but where are the resources in this case. If they are there, let it be known.
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
Believe it or not, I usually read threads (not just individual posts) before responding, and am well aware, as mentioned upthread, of what her daughter has said. That is precisely why I posed my comments as hypothetical rather than real.
L
LilyM
Guest
Please do me a favour and look up the word “hypothetical”. I was posing a “what-if” scenario to make a broader point about sources of historical information, that has clearly eacaped you. Not a comment about this instance in particular.LilyM:
The daughter is defending her parents. She lived with them and is saying her parents were loving people to each other.
Last edited:
G
gam197
Guest
I know what hypothetical means. But there are 6 children still alive who lived with their parents and no one is saying the father abused the mother. In fact this daughter is saying the opposite.
The movie is taken place today not 50 years from now when the children will be dead. Who or where are they getting this information from, that the father was abusive.? That is all I am questioning.
Last edited:
2
27lw
Guest
That’s an interesting “hypothetical” you chose: the exact opposite of documented truth.
L
LilyM
Guest
It is quite valid and common to use elements of truth and fact as launching pads for speculation and hopefully reachimg deeper more abstract truths.
And hypotheticals often start with elements of specific cases being discussed as those staring points. And often might exactly flip some elements of specific fact. “What if the man in real-life scenario xyz who did abc had actually been a woman - would.we react differently?” Is a common one.
I very carefully made.clear at the outset that I knew little of Ms Schlafly and was well aware.that hee daughter denies and disbelieves claims of raoe.
I was simply wondering why gam would (apparently) implicitly believe a (theoretical, non-existent) first-hand account as opposed to a (theoretical, totally non-existent) second hand account which may in fact be more reliable.
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
I believe Concerned Women for America, the organization that she founded, is still active and capable of defending Ms. Schlafly.
I admired her, BTW. If it were not for her, the ERA would be in the Constitution.
L
LilyM
Guest
But historians analyse, on a daily basis, the lives of people who are passed. Should we stop discussing Henry VIII, for example, because he is ‘no longer here to defend himself?’ And because those who admire him (and yes, there aee some) may be put out by it?gam197:
I believe Concerned Women for America, the organization that she founded, is still active and capable of defending Ms. Schlafly.
I admired her, BTW. If it were not for her, the ERA would be in the Constitution.
Last edited:
G
gam197
Guest
She did not found Concern Women for America. That is a very powerful group. She founded Eagle Forum.
Last edited:
G
gam197
Guest
He died hundreds of years ago. She is dead 4 years now and has 6 live children and many grandchildren who do not want their father/grandfather slandered.
Last edited:
2
27lw
Guest
You think showing a rape scene of a recent political figure is the same as a discussion of Henry VII?
I don’t. It would be more akin to a show making things up and showing explicit scenes about Ted Kennedy, or Reagan, or some other political figure who has living children or relatives.
It’s disgusting, and I’m surprised more fellow Catholics aren’t disgusted by a hit piece on a Catholic woman, whether or not they liked her politics.
I don’t. It would be more akin to a show making things up and showing explicit scenes about Ted Kennedy, or Reagan, or some other political figure who has living children or relatives.
It’s disgusting, and I’m surprised more fellow Catholics aren’t disgusted by a hit piece on a Catholic woman, whether or not they liked her politics.
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
LOADS of film and tv has covered the lives of the Kennedys, some of it certainly salacious and probably far from historically accurate. I don’t recall living Kennedy family members getting hot under the collar about what is, after all, emphatically not intended as documentary history.
2
27lw
Guest
Really? There are shows showing recent famous Democrats being raped by their spouses? I’d be curious if you could name one.
L
LilyM
Guest
Oliver Stone’s JFK shows a recent famous Democrat (President no less - LBJ) being complicit in his predecessor JFK’s murder.
Chappaquuddick shows a recent famous Democrat (Ted Kennedy) all but murdering a girl by knowingly leaving her to die in a car that he drove into a creek.
How many murders have living Democrats (the Clintons) been accused of by now, in addition to running a pedophile ring and Lord knows what else?
In relation to JFK and Jackie there are the loads of affairs, the alleged drug use, Jack or Bobby supposedly murdering Marilyn Monroe because she knew too much. lost count of the shenanigans they are supposed to have gotten up to.
Unless you think someone should be OK with having relatives accused of the above, but draw the line at rape? Sounds highly arbitrary if you do.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So what actually happened in the past didn’t actually happen? Puzzling.
No objectivity at all? No more objective vs less objective?
J
Jbrady
Guest
How is relative objectivity any different from subjectivity?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Subjectivity implies that the determiner for (or basis of) subjective truth is within the subject. I prefer to eat cheese rather than meat. Where do you go to determine the truth of that statement? To the subject’s internal world of preferences. There is no external way of determining subjective preference besides directly from the subject and that depends upon whether the subject wishes to reveal the truth in all honesty.HarryStotle:
How is relative objectivity any different from subjectivity?
Objectivity implies that the determiner for (or basis of) what is objectively true is to be found in objective reality. Part of the reason objective truth is objective is because the object of truth can be a shared experience since it happens in objectively accessible reality and can be validated by multiple experiencers or other corroborating evidence.
There is a difference.
History is not concerned with the internal sensibilities or personal experiences of historical figures, although that kind of access might enrich the historical narrative on a human level and make it more interesting as it is made more personal. History, objectively speaking, and at its most basic, is concerned with what happened in the objective world in the past, and what about those events can be known with relative certainty.
Relative certainty about objective reality is still concerned with objective reality. Subjective truth is concerned with truth that depends upon the subjects themselves.
See the difference?
Last edited:
J
Jbrady
Guest
(First of all, I am going to use the term “reporting” not to mean what journalists do, but what historians do, so don’t get misled).
No. You didn’t answer the question at all, which was about objective reporting, not objective truth.
Isn’t all reporting by necessity subjective? Is there such a thing as an unbiased reporter? Even chroniclers listing simple events are biased as to what events to include on their list.
So can you have a more or less biased reporter? Yes. But not a more or less objective one, unless you are using the word loosely.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
No you are conflating “reported by a subject” with “subjective reporting.”HarryStotle:
(First of all, I am going to use the term “reporting” not to mean what journalists do, but what historians do, so don’t get misled).
No. You didn’t answer the question at all, which was about objective reporting, not objective truth.
Isn’t all reporting by necessity subjective? Is there such a thing as an unbiased reporter? Even chroniclers listing simple events are biased as to what events to include on their list.
So can you have a more or less biased reporter? Yes. But not a more or less objective one, unless you are using the word loosely.
Subjects can and do function within the objective world and within their own subjective (personal) world. Most reasonable people understand the difference, although it appears that in the post-modern period there has been an amplified attempt to undermine objective truth in order to undermine the public’s capacity to distinguish truth from untruth, by falsely making it appear that all truth is subjective.
It takes work to glean the objective truth from reality, but those not very concerned to know the truth will simply shrug the entire enterprise off as if truth isn’t important nor accessible.
- Status