Ok, not football at all, but it matters, eventually.

[WTF11]

Humankind has r4ped and pillaged the planet since we climbed diwn from the trees, walked upright and developed a brain the was superior to all other animals that shared earth with us. We have done so for no other reason than that it was what we, humans, wanted and which we, having developed what we saw as "civilisation", saw as ours by right, bestowed upon us by the creator and to be exploited as we saw fit.

What monumental hubris. What breathtaking arrogance. To put humans, capable of "sins" that those we regard as "inferior" are incapable of, above and beyond all the other forms of life to be found on this one, small, fragile blue world. How dare we?

We are NOT the rulers of this or any other world, only it's custodians. When we are gone, what will we leave behind? A hollowed out husk, bereft of all that once grew and thrived, all the resources that we greedily consumed to satisfy our miniscule sense of time and space and the need to have everything, now?

Or,

Fill in the blanks space, if you can.

[spaldy]

? what if?s?! during times of war offer endless permutations. Unfortunate that many universities don?t offer that as ways of studying history or military tactics. You have to know what happened to do a lot of what if scenarios.

It?s also really stunning to think of what the terrible toll of war does to the pace of scientific and technological advancement. A century of development occurs in a decade.

I can?t even imagine what a conscientious objector goes through mentally in a time of war. Many corpsman were objectors and absolutely critical to the army.

I have found in discussions with the young folks at work that they studied no history or civics in college. Sad and alarming as these are key disciplines in studying human behavior.

[WTF11]

? what if?s?! during times of war offer endless permutations. Unfortunate that many universities don?t offer that as ways of studying history or military tactics. You have to know what happened to do a lot of what if scenarios.

It?s also really stunning to think of what the terrible toll of war does to the pace of scientific and technological advancement. A century of development occurs in a decade.

I can?t even imagine what a conscientious objector goes through mentally in a time of war. Many corpsman were objectors and absolutely critical to the army.

I have found in discussions with the young folks at work that they studied no history or civics in college. Sad and alarming as these are key disciplines in studying human behavior.

Agreed on all counts, particularly the last paragraph.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

An apt Latvian saying - to have one eye on the past is to be blind in one eye, to ignore the past is to be blind in both eyes.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

I to add to the mix - many successful people or businesses failed many times before learning the lessons from that to be successful. Modern society seems to struggle to recognise that.

Similarly, taking risks and being first is often a key metric too.

Politics is often about stupid points scoring and highlighting failures to damn opponents with no recognition that this might impart knowledge and skills to learn from the success and turn it into failure.

[Monaco_Totty]

? what if?s?! during times of war offer endless permutations. Unfortunate that many universities don?t offer that as ways of studying history or military tactics. You have to know what happened to do a lot of what if scenarios.

It?s also really stunning to think of what the terrible toll of war does to the pace of scientific and technological advancement. A century of development occurs in a decade.

I can?t even imagine what a conscientious objector goes through mentally in a time of war. Many corpsman were objectors and absolutely critical to the army.

I have found in discussions with the young folks at work that they studied no history or civics in college. Sad and alarming as these are key disciplines in studying human behavior.

Should a theory be dismissed ?

The issue of dismissing a theory is a more complex issue than just making a judgment about one specific statement. One aspect of the theory, for example one assumption, could lack support, but that would not necessarily make the theory as a whole uninteresting if it provides explanations on other aspects.

What I will say further is that noting certain aspects through my eyes & ears living in the UK balanced with residing in France & able to visit most of Europe freely, then one does have a greater depth of understanding, particularly seeing, hearing, reading & visiting battle sites of historic events going back to even medieval days.

I often ask myself can one living in a country that was under foreign occupation & one who has actually not even share a common theory ?
Identifying & mitigating bias in historical analysis as objectivity in selecting methodologies that are tailored to historical data sets, some would argue to.

Is historical theory a subject that is open to debate & challenge ?

The debate about the role of theory in history has been a part of the academic discipline since its inception & some say that the discipline of history has become too dominated by empiricist approaches & that the role of theory has been neglected.

[WTF11]

Should a theory be dismissed ?

The issue of dismissing a theory is a more complex issue than just making a judgment about one specific statement. One aspect of the theory, for example one assumption, could lack support, but that would not necessarily make the theory as a whole uninteresting if it provides explanations on other aspects.

What I will say further is that noting certain aspects through my eyes & ears living in the UK balanced with residing in France & able to visit most of Europe freely, then one does have a greater depth of understanding, particularly seeing, hearing, reading & visiting battle sites of historic events going back to even medieval days.

I often ask myself can one living in a country that was under foreign occupation & one who has actually not even share a common theory ?
Identifying & mitigating bias in historical analysis as objectivity in selecting methodologies that are tailored to historical data sets, some would argue to.

Is historical theory a subject that is open to debate & challenge ?

The debate about the role of theory in history has been a part of the academic discipline since its inception & some say that the discipline of history has become too dominated by empiricist approaches & that the role of theory has been neglected.

As I said, the suggestion that there were alternative realities had different paths been taken/decisions made in the run up to the outbreak of and during WWII isn't a theory, which suggests and outcome given certain conditions, a statement of an opinion or an explanation of an idea that is believed to be true, but might be wrong, it's postulation about what may have happened had events been differently dictated.

Obviously Hitler could have decided not to invade the USSR, re-inforce Rommel (more than he actually did), or it might have been that the House of Commons rejected Churchills exhortation to resist and abandon any thought of appeasement. None of that happened and the rest, as they say, is HISTORY, not theory.

[Monaco_Totty]

An apt Latvian saying - to have one eye on the past is to be blind in one eye, to ignore the past is to be blind in both eyes.

True H ☺
My pharmacist said similar when i walked away from taking advised prescription drugs which back then suppressed my brain to a frazzle.

In readings of History & mitigating for explanation then methodology includes vast ways to collect the info to decipher & further analyse it's data, so you have to dig deep & then dig deeper still often with your boots on the ground before trying to explain your rationale behind the methodology you wish to project to those who want to listen.

Or as they'll say next door to Latvia -
"Arkli pazinsi is dantu, mogu - iskalbuz" !

(You will know a horse by its teeth & a man by his talk).

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

True H ☺
My pharmacist said similar when i walked away from taking advised prescription drugs which back then suppressed my brain to a frazzle.

In readings of History & mitigating for explanation then methodology includes vast ways to collect the info to decipher & further analyse it's data, so you have to dig deep & then dig deeper still often with your boots on the ground before trying to explain your rationale behind the methodology you wish to project to those who want to listen.

Or as they'll say next door to Latvia -
"Arkli pazinsi is dantu, mogu - iskalbuz" !

(You will know a horse by its teeth & a man by his talk).

How many languages do you speak MT - think it?s four but have a feeling maybe a couple more?

[Monaco_Totty]

How many languages do you speak MT - think it?s four but have a feeling maybe a couple more?

Four ?
Close, but actually English (Sarf Landun), fluent
French, passable Lithuanian & a decent flow of Irish Gaelic which Gran taught me as she's from Ireland originally before marriage & then moved to Derry/Londonderry.
My sis & younger bro' the same but as they're French born, school's also got them speaking fluent Italian too. My older brother via work speaks quite a passable few via his work in the Euro media.

It's Mum who is the fluent lingo Queen at around ten fluent languages in 'da house' !
An unbelievable experience sat in her car driving while she instantly switches fluently from one lingo to another with clients in such quick succession via the hands free & as for her range of swear words, jeez, particularly in her English Yorkshire accent 😂

Like everything, the more you use it the easier it becomes but sometimes the brain does freeze for me on here trying to remember my lesser used Englsh words now & again, for sure via recall.
But any child of mine will be taught the lingo that I was, defo from the off.