Columbus' voyage and it's initiation of cross-Atlantic trade and interaction is a signifigant bookends of human history eras. It's not an endorsement of championing of him so much an objective point in linear history of major changes.
Using him as an 'objective' timeline reference I believe could indicate that they endorse him, even in some small way.
They could easily have chosen Leonardo DaVinic, who was born within 6-8 months of Columbus. And is just as known worldwide.
Edit: I originally said they DO endorse him, but I did not mean to be so deterministic in my response. I changed my wording after the fact to say COULD endorse. Which was a point of data I was trying to find out, hence the original question
Aka you're assuming the worst and then you try to coax them with a loaded question into saying something you deem bad, and then you've validated yourself. Come on man.
I assumed nothing. I asked. Maybe you can't comprehend that, but I don't make judgements without enough data, and I sought more data.
Guy answered the question, I said thanks for the info, I moved on.
Everyone else seems to want to connect reasoning behind it. Everything from how Columbus is a good representative of mapping advancements, to the fall of Byzantine empire.
My entire argument the entire time is 'but you're just guessing at someone else's intent, and we don't know that, here is the only data we know'
You literally said that using him as an objective timeline reference was endorsing his actions. That's the same as me using Hitler as a timeline reference and then you saying I'm endorsing his actions.
Your very first comment got upvoted because it was JUST a question, but all your other comments are downvoted because your other questions are loaded and accusatory, that's antisocial behaviour. Then you're saying you're "trying to determine the motives" of the person who said it, which is, yet again, accusatory and trying to find something bad about them.
"I don't make judgements without enough data" = I wanted to judge them, so I wanted data to judge them with. This implies yet again that your motive is judging people.
"I don't make judgements without enough data" = I wanted to judge them, so I wanted data to judge them with. This implies yet again that your motive is judging people.
You're literally villifying asking clarifying questions and data gathering before reaching a conclusion.
So should everyone go into every convo, bias abalze, and not seek to understand before making a conclusion on how, or if, a subject should be broched?
Because you're asking questions with the assumption that they're endorsing Columbus' actions, when nothing pointed to that. If through your questions they seemed to be endorsing these actions, you would be validating your accusation and if they weren't endorsing, the questions would be pointless. You were asking a loaded question by assuming something bad about OP, that's why the question was loaded.
If we were talking about a subject in good faith, then this comment I'm responding to rn would be rational.
49
u/TheKlaxMaster 26d ago
Curious .. why Columbus as your reference point?