teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 am
Well, I suppose most historians believe without evidence that the Massacre of Vukovar happened, just like I used to believe that until I actually thought about it.
A creationist would claim the same thing about evolutionary biologists. What makes you think you even know enough to claim they believe it without evidence?
If historians accept it, it should be assumed to be correct. If you'd like to become a historian and overturn our conventional wisdom on the subject you're welcome to it, but it's not a topic that interests me.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 amSince then, it appears to me there is less evidence of the Massacre of Vukovar than of God and of Santa Claus: for God and Santa Claus, there are at least countless stories of gifts magically appearing under a tree and of miraculous healing.
One violates harder science (physics, biology) and the other doesn't.
There's no reason to believe a commonly accepted massacre didn't happen, and massacres are relatively common events historically speaking.
We talked about this in the Flat Earth thread. Go read that again. A very ordinary claim doesn't require extraordinary evidence. And it would take a phenomenal act of conspiracy to fabricate a massacre.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 amI mean, sure, countless people claim to believe that the Massacre of Vukovar happened (the same is true for God, although not for Santa), but how is that supposed to affect what I believe?
One violates harder science (physics, biology) and the other doesn't.
If many people believed there was a rich man named Bob who rode through town in a limo giving out presents every year, I'd believe it.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 amWhy should I believe that human beings can be that evil for no apparent reason?
You need to study a lot more history, and a lot more psychology.
There are reasons even if they're opaque to you. I'm not going to teach you these things.
The bottom line is that you don't want to believe it, but there's no reason not to beyond your personal dogma (anarchism, or whatever is compelling you to believe certain implausible things about human nature).
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 amAnd accepting that the Massacre of Vukovar happened just opens countless new questions: Why it is that I don't see any damaged houses, even in Vukovar (I've been there a few times), when allegedly the entire city and much around it was destroyed less than 30 years ago?
Right back to your flat-earth ways I see. You don't understand it, therefore it doesn't make any sense.
https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/vukovar_in_r ... 39e90.html
This is what "destroyed" looks like for masonry buildings. Typically, that the wood roofs have been burnt.
Roofs need to be repaired every 20 years or so anyway (depending on climate and materians). It's not weird for buildings to have been completely restored 30 years later when the walls and foundations were largely unaffected.
But you know what? That's more explanation than you even deserve. Again with you it's this whole assuming you should know or understand something you obviously have no grasp of at all.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 amWhy should it matter what the consensus among historians is? History is certainly less of a science than linguistics is, and you are saying the consensus of linguists shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Teo, don't make me lock this thread and ban you again for bringing this stuff up with a straw man. I have been EXPLICIT in that I accept consensus in soft science fields. It's just less of a big deal to go against consensus in something like linguistics as in physics, that doesn't mean it's take it or leave it based on your personal whim.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 amBesides, if you think it would be irresponsible for Google to show non-mainstream positions in search results
Not what I think, stop strawmanning.
The issue is positions that do harm. Alt-med and nazi stuff, mainly, possibly other grand conspiracies (flat earth, 9-11, etc) which promote a conspiratorial worldview.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 amBut I came up with the idea that airplanes didn't exist all by myself, I hadn't heard it from anyone or read it somewhere.
Are you proud of that?
An extension of flat-earth beliefs. Thus the problem with conspiracies.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 amSo, do you think it's a good thing if Nazis are afraid to talk about their beliefs?
If it results in them not talking about their beliefs.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 amIf it's relying on unproven methods, even with good intentions, that's still a reason not to trust it, right?
It's a black box, we don't know what methods they are relying on; they may be proven methods that are simply obscured.
Google has a lot of money, and hires some of the best programmers that money can buy. They are motivated to make a secure browser because a breach would be bad for business. I don't think it's unreasonable to trust that people more educated on these issues than we are have made the right decisions given the kind of incentive we're dealing with. This isn't 'god works in mysterious ways' it's an issue of transparent corporate motivation.