Click Bait Threads

[Bronson66]

I always like to look at what we can with an eye for our own prejudices because often enough it is not the source, but us who can be in error. Plato was considered a historian. A lot of what he wrote not concerning Socrates was historical. He very matter of factly stated that Atlantis had existed according to the account of Egyptian Priests who were considered "historians" by the Greeks. By virtue of this statement modern historians often stutter, then gaslight Plato's efforts. "Ohh he is speaking alligorically," "he is using ideas fantastically to appeal," and on it goes... Do I think Atlantis existed? I truly have no idea! But I would never discount Plato.

The truth? It gets very complicated...Plato gave one account of Socrates' trial that differed immensly from Xenophon, another Greek historian. Xenophon portray66ed Socrates as a bumbling fool that was not the equal of the Sophists he faced down, Plato in "The Apology" made Socrates a here, a Matryre. Who was right? and what does it say about Plato and history?

Which is only to point out that any source by itself is only so good. I am glad we have Egan, I am glad we had London, who was again a contradiction! A Socialist animal lover, a bitter racist....

All well and good, but I am the only one who posted ,primary, verifiable sources on the two threads,that flamed and are now dying.

If the two who disagreed with me, which is obviously their fundamental right to do,had anything to counter what I posted,why didn't they post it?
I asked them to do so several times but they,as I predicted they would ,did not do so .

All I got back by way of argument was a shopping list of personal insults and obscenities.

You cannot debate with such people, one is a half wit and the other has a Messiah complex

[Anomalocaris]

That last line made me chuckle.