Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

blog.mass.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–216 of 216 posts

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#211

Post by Andre_Wanglin »

threepipeproblm wrote: post #207
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it an oversimplification if 90% of the population decrease was because of initial contact, not overt actions by the Europeans against the natives?

Do you really need this spelled out, like for real? Your statement that the genocide was not due to overt actions by Europeans is false. Accidentally wiping out 90% of a population through spread of disease is one thing. Deliberately killing off much of the rest is another.. you seem to think of that as a rounding error lol? I also provided a citation in which an American soldier admits to attempting to infect native…

Yes, the number killed by warfare is a rounding error in this context. And finding a single instance where someone suggested (there is no proof it was carried out) trying to infect the natives is an anecdote, not proof of a systematic program of biological warfare.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#212

Post by CodeCube »

icebraining wrote: post #67
CodeCube wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And places like China are now seeing the same kind of untrammeled progress, as their economy completely explodes under political conditions that 'the west' would consider counter to what they would consider correct/right/whatever. Now to be clear, I'm obviously not advocating human rights violations, and strict governmental control ... I'm only pointing out that things like 'freedom of speech', while awesome and righ…

It's not the same kind of progress; they're mostly playing catch up.

it's precisely the same kind of progress ... in the early 1900s, we were the poor country with plucky workers willing to do the hard manufacturing work. Then our middle class grew, and we no longer wanted to do that work, so we offloaded it to other countries. China is now going through that same growth. Eventually, their people will not want to do that work, and they will shunt it off to some other country (maybe using their massive investments in africa)

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#213

Post by threepipeproblm »

Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #211
threepipeproblm wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really need this spelled out, like for real? Your statement that the genocide was not due to overt actions by Europeans is false. Accidentally wiping out 90% of a population through spread of disease is one thing. Deliberately killing off much of the rest is another.. you seem to think of that as a rounding error lol? I also provided a citation in which an American soldier admits to attempting to infect native…

Yes, the number killed by warfare is a rounding error in this context. And finding a single instance where someone suggested (there is no proof it was carried out) trying to infect the natives is an anecdote, not proof of a systematic program of biological warfare.

I just provided the historical evidence. It was written in the past tense. Do you think he fictionalized his account so that hundreds of years later you'd have a stronger argument on HN lol? Can you think of another reason to fictionalize such an account? Will be be ignoring the fact that just a few posts ago you maintained with equal confidence that this could not have happened at all?

More importantly, the argument that American settlers and later government policies deliberately exterminated large populations of natives does not even remotely rest on this. Are you really conflating them? Are you that ignorant of the history?

You also don't seem to understand the concept of genocide, the whole point of which is that it's extra bad to kill off a population as it gets smaller.

What a disgusting excuse for a thought process. What is it do you think that's wrong with you that gives you such a deep need to ensure that your ancestors were morally pure?

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#214

Post by Andre_Wanglin »

threepipeproblm wrote: post #213
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the number killed by warfare is a rounding error in this context. And finding a single instance where someone suggested (there is no proof it was carried out) trying to infect the natives is an anecdote, not proof of a systematic program of biological warfare.

I just provided the historical evidence. It was written in the past tense. Do you think he fictionalized his account so that hundreds of years later you'd have a stronger argument on HN lol? Can you think of another reason to fictionalize such an account? Will be be ignoring the fact that just a few posts ago you maintained with equal confidence that this could not have happened at all? More importantly, the argument…

Calling something an anecdote is not saying it is untrue. Anecdotes can be entirely true yet still tell us nothing about the prevalence or significance of the described activity. And I never stated that the kind of activity described in your anecdote never happened. (Please provide a citation for this assertion.) I stated such activity was not the reason for the reduction in the population of indigenous Americans. Who do you think my ancestors are and why do you think this? My ancestors had nothing to do with any of this. And there is no such thing as moral purity, not that I would care about it if there were. What we like we call good (moral) and what we don't like we call bad (immoral) and that's the entire scope of what "morality" is. You should engage in some self-reflection and evaluation regarding your own poor reasoning abilities before criticizing those of others.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#215

Post by threepipeproblm »

Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #214
threepipeproblm wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just provided the historical evidence. It was written in the past tense. Do you think he fictionalized his account so that hundreds of years later you'd have a stronger argument on HN lol? Can you think of another reason to fictionalize such an account? Will be be ignoring the fact that just a few posts ago you maintained with equal confidence that this could not have happened at all? More importantly, the argument…

Calling something an anecdote is not saying it is untrue. Anecdotes can be entirely true yet still tell us nothing about the prevalence or significance of the described activity. And I never stated that the kind of activity described in your anecdote never happened. (Please provide a citation for this assertion.) I stated such activity was not the reason for the reduction in the population of indigenous Americans. Wh…

"As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was intentional."

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#216

Post by Andre_Wanglin »

threepipeproblm wrote: post #215
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling something an anecdote is not saying it is untrue. Anecdotes can be entirely true yet still tell us nothing about the prevalence or significance of the described activity. And I never stated that the kind of activity described in your anecdote never happened. (Please provide a citation for this assertion.) I stated such activity was not the reason for the reduction in the population of indigenous Americans. Wh…

"As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was intentional."

What is the subject that intentional modifies in that sentence? That would be the 90% reduction in the native population, right? You aren't going to win any attempt at verbal/logical gamesmanship with me.
Post reply on HN