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

Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#61

Post by eric4smith »

Well, if we were to look at this with different eyes, the Spartans, while having to deal with the urgencies of Battle would probably do it.

But really, do we do any differently???

Think about it -- "weak" children are set aside from society into a room upstairs, or a care home, or some kind of environment where they are not exposed to the harshness of the real world.

The same goes for adults too.

Even if the spartans never did it, they probably put the weaker children and adults into a situation where they would never come into contact with battle or even slow a community for doing normal everyday duties.

Which is exactly the same as we do.

We put slower children into special classes. Put them on special buses, send them to special psychological and physical practitioners. For adults we put them into care homes. Or keep them at home and the government generally cares for them with special provisions.

And we accept that.

Putting infanticide aside -- are we any different from ancient cultures??

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#62

Post by dash2 »

rendall wrote: post #12

> ...Christian Laes, a classicist at the University of Manchester. “But absence of evidence does not mean the phenomenon itself was absent.” I also see at least one comment here making this same argument. The article covers the evidence against, including, that disabled ancient Greeks lived to adulthood. The evidence cited in favor is Plutarch's assertion, and that "other societies" do it. That last is particularly w…

From Plato's Republic:

"The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be."

This was just a hypothetical, but Plato was thought to be influenced by Sparta. He's very explicit about the eugenic principles behind this idea.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#63

Post by zdragnar »

eric4smith wrote: post #61

Well, if we were to look at this with different eyes, the Spartans, while having to deal with the urgencies of Battle would probably do it. But really, do we do any differently??? Think about it -- "weak" children are set aside from society into a room upstairs, or a care home, or some kind of environment where they are not exposed to the harshness of the real world. The same goes for adults too. Even if the spartans…

Rich countries, predominantly western Europe, especially I.e. Denmark and Iceland, abort nearly 100% of babies when a prenatal screening tests positive for Down's syndrom.

I don't think we are any different at all. Sadly, the worlds countries that are best able to provide a good life for such people are the quickest to prevent them from existing.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#64

Post by [deleted] »

ReptileMan wrote: post #33
ajuc wrote: post #31

In 3000 years archeologists will think we practiced Purge and Hunger Games. But Cold War was obviously a religious metaphor for climate warming.

Dude get your facts right - the USSR and USA leaders were trying to bring global nuclear winter to thwart the global warming. They were willing to put humanity through suffering to save it. But their efforts were cut short by the deep state. Which lead to the events in the documentary mad max.

[deleted]

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#65

Post by thwave »

okl wrote: post #46
rendall wrote: post #12

> ...Christian Laes, a classicist at the University of Manchester. “But absence of evidence does not mean the phenomenon itself was absent.” I also see at least one comment here making this same argument. The article covers the evidence against, including, that disabled ancient Greeks lived to adulthood. The evidence cited in favor is Plutarch's assertion, and that "other societies" do it. That last is particularly w…

> “But absence of evidence does not mean the phenomenon itself was absent.” If you believe things for which you have no evidence, you're liable to believe everything.

There's always inference.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#66

Post by snovv_crash »

ReptileMan wrote: post #33
ajuc wrote: post #31

In 3000 years archeologists will think we practiced Purge and Hunger Games. But Cold War was obviously a religious metaphor for climate warming.

Dude get your facts right - the USSR and USA leaders were trying to bring global nuclear winter to thwart the global warming. They were willing to put humanity through suffering to save it. But their efforts were cut short by the deep state. Which lead to the events in the documentary mad max.

Mad Max only tells part of the story, they left out the hybrid human-kangaroo soldiers, as documented in Tank Girl.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#67

Post by torstenvl »

okl wrote: post #46
rendall wrote: post #12

> ...Christian Laes, a classicist at the University of Manchester. “But absence of evidence does not mean the phenomenon itself was absent.” I also see at least one comment here making this same argument. The article covers the evidence against, including, that disabled ancient Greeks lived to adulthood. The evidence cited in favor is Plutarch's assertion, and that "other societies" do it. That last is particularly w…

> “But absence of evidence does not mean the phenomenon itself was absent.” If you believe things for which you have no evidence, you're liable to believe everything.

I've seen this form of argument a lot lately. It's epistemologically unsound.

Both the claim "Spartans did this" and "Spartans did not do this" are affirmative claims that require evidence. Insufficient evidence leads solely to the conclusion "We do not know with any confidence whether Spartans did this or not." You cannot just assume that one of the affirmative positions is true because the other one lacks sufficient evidence.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#68

Post by krisoft »

colordrops wrote: post #20
gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #2

I haven’t read the archeologist’s work. I did read the article. The archeologist claims that evidence across the Aegean and Athens particularly shows weak babies were cared for until death. That’s fine. However we’re not discussing Athenian nor general Aegean baby care. We’re discussing Spartan care. Nothing in the article (and I could have missed it) proved evidence, from digs, against the idea of infanticide by the…

Is there a name for being arbitrarily biased against a counterclaim? The simple fact that this is posed as a counterclaim itself seems to invoke skepticism, even when the original belief itself isn't even presented or has a poor basis itself. A weak counterclaim does not imply the claim to be truth.

> A weak counterclaim does not imply the claim to be truth.

Yes. So? The options are not just that we accept whatever fact is presented, or accept whatever is the oposite of it. We can just say: “looks like we don’t know” and that is perfectly fine.

A claim or a counterclaim (is there even a distinction?) warrants the same amount of proof.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#69

Post by Lhiw »

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #2

I haven’t read the archeologist’s work. I did read the article. The archeologist claims that evidence across the Aegean and Athens particularly shows weak babies were cared for until death. That’s fine. However we’re not discussing Athenian nor general Aegean baby care. We’re discussing Spartan care. Nothing in the article (and I could have missed it) proved evidence, from digs, against the idea of infanticide by the…

Did you even read the article? Or even its title? Did anyone in this thread?

This is about ancient Greeks [not] abandoning deformed babies. Spartans aside.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#70

Post by cafard »

rendall wrote: post #12

> ...Christian Laes, a classicist at the University of Manchester. “But absence of evidence does not mean the phenomenon itself was absent.” I also see at least one comment here making this same argument. The article covers the evidence against, including, that disabled ancient Greeks lived to adulthood. The evidence cited in favor is Plutarch's assertion, and that "other societies" do it. That last is particularly w…

Tacitus writes of the Jews that

"Still they provide for the increase of their numbers. It is a crime among them to kill any newly-born infant."

(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...)

Were it otherwise in the peoples around them, would Tacitus have thought this worth of mention?

Post reply on HN