highduke
Amicus
Instigator / Scholar
60%
Posts: 3,687
|
Post by highduke on Oct 31, 2008 9:32:18 GMT -5
Ja pukao?
Od argumenta da objektivne vrednosti ne postoje?
Glupost.
Cast je po navedenoj definiciji objektivna ljudska vrednost po kojoj se moze oceniti vrednost pojedinaca i celokupnog drustva.
Sve sam mu objasnio samo sto sam cekao iz taktickih razloga da bi otkrio da li je ovaj Kejn Srbin ili nije, medjutim on je to cekanje vesto iskoristio protiv mene i time pokazao kako je takticki lukaviji.
Ali lukavost nije objektivan kriterijum snage argumenata i sama cinjenica da, sudeci po komentarima, Kejna hvale iskljucivo poturceni diskutanti ne ide u njegovu korist jer turcenje za privelegije nije cestito, a tako ste nastali pa vam zato ide u korist da lukavost izjednacite sa snagom argumenata i da date netacne procene o toku diskusije.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Oct 31, 2008 14:14:14 GMT -5
I found it easier a bit more comprehensible to read your post from the last paragraph to the first. Simply because you throw up this word 'honor' and you reference it through the entire post as 'objective truth' but then in the last paragraph you state what your subjective opinion of honor is and actually bother to define it. Next time, explain what you mean by a word first and then use it in context of that meaning as you continue writing.
So I'll use this ...
Whatever it may mean, I use Honor to mean the evaluation of a person's trustworthiness and social status based on that individual's espousals and actions. Honor is deemed exactly what determines a person's character: whether or not the person reflects honesty, respect, integrity, or fairness.
... as a definition of what you mean by honor throughout the rest of the post.
Now what does objective truth have to do with honor? Here is an objective truth : The Earth has an elliptical orbit around the Sun. Here is another : Objects on the earth fall at a rate of 9.8m / second / second ( Earth's gravitational field). Is there anything honorable about the Earth's orbit around the sun or the earth's gravitational field? No, not really. Objective truth isn't really defined by any kind of virtue as it is something that simply is and has no relation to what ought to be. (See is/ought dichotomy) I will grant you that looking at virtues objectively ( not the same thing as calling objective truth any kind of virtue) is constructive and important when dealing with interpersonal relationships and human psychology. Objective truth is something that is true independent of our subjectivity.
Common sense...? well...yeah. Anyways.
You stated a personal preference. To you, honor ( the evaluation of a person's trustworthiness and social status based on that individual's espousals and actions. Honor is deemed exactly what determines a person's character: whether or not the person reflects honesty, respect, integrity, or fairness.) is preferable for establishment of mental and physical health. Then you concluded this is a reason you have a preference for ethnic identity. Since ethnic identity is a group concept , and you've defined honor as something pertaining to the individual , I don't see how you conclude ethnic belonging and membership from a premises of honor. Perhaps you can help me understand this. This appears to be a non sequitur to me.
One thing to consider is the contradiction at core of social mythology. Cultural falsehoods are always presented as objective and absolute truth. For instance, Americans are typically proud of their country, and the values they inherited from the Enlightenment philosophies of the Founding Fathers. Its rather odd when you think about it. The typical American just happened to be born in America ( or to parents from America), - it is a mere accident, not something earned. The typical American takes pride in his cultural heritage, which he did not invent, and which was taught to him by others, who also did not invent it. Believing that you are virtuous ( i.e. honorable) because you were born in a particular country ( or your immediate family comes from a particular background) is like believing you are a great businessman because you inherited a lot of wealth, or that you're a good person because you happen to be tall.
Somebody like this blindly praises his own culture and history because he is taught (or given some 'moral' commandment) to praise it, not because of any rational understandings of its actual merits and deficiencies, and more importantly, its relationship to reality.
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. X is old or traditional 2. Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.
This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.
It should not be assumed that new things must be better than old things any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things. The age of something does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition, assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example, if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of*group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.
The 'reasoning' here is non sequitur as well. You started off by stating why you appeal to tradition. Then you said its is 'objectively better' to surround yourself with loyal, reliable and honorable people. Yet, you haven't clinched the case. This implies a claim that only traditionally minded people tend to exhibit traits of loyalty , reliability , and honor. This is a testable hypothesis and surely you can come up with some kind of objective study verifying this. ( I doubt it). Also, you defined virtues such as honor as pertaining to the individual and I don't know why you consider that which is 'honorable' now in terms of aggregates. Sounds a bit contradictory and separated from your original premise. Make up your mind because you're implying two contradictory criteria for honor. Is honor measured by the group or by the individuals comprising X group?
'Dysgenic.' Please do not tell me you actually espouse eugenics. Do you know what you are talking about here or are you just rambling? Family? OK, how do you derive a sense of 'morality' from family then? It is objectively true that your family consists of all of those biologically related to you, of course that would be the entire human race, the only difference between some individuals ( what you perceive as your immediate family) and others ( everyone else) is biological proximity. Again, see what I wrote earlier and why this sort of 'honor' isn't earned and cannot be possibly considered a virtue. Not that I'm a fan of 'multiculturalism' ( personally I view it as a particularly wicked tool of governments) but can you demonstrate how it actually inhibits a sense of 'culture?' If anything it promotes 'balkanization' of various places. Multiculturalism is promoting all cultures 'equally' and results in communities splitting up in 'tribes' and creating their only little clusters of 'homogeneous' cultural areas. If anything , it serves to exacerbate the influence of the cultures that claim moral absolutes. Individualism =/= anti-social or autarky. Individualism is actually the most rational basis for social cooperation because it necessitates society dealing with each other on a voluntary , as opposed to coercive, basis. Incidentally , it is quite the opposite of multiculturalism , culture , modern liberalism , conservatism , and just about any kind of -ism that connotes 'collective virtue.'
OK, but by your own admission and definition of honor, 'stopping at the Serb culture' has nothing to do with honor. How is it honorable to want to attach yourself to a 'group' that judges honor and morality on 'groupthink' rather than an individual's actions? You're presenting a false dilemma here by claiming 'no choice.' Because you're about to contradict this in the next part :
You used a definition of honor pertaining to the individual based on his actions and goals yet you seem to think honor is derived from the group. So which is it? Is the honor of an individual determined by which group based on tradition he's apart of and born into ? Or is the honor of the 'group' determined by the individuals which comprise it? In which case , how does the group hold moral properties? How can you assign 'rights' and virtue to a concept rather than something that actually exist in material reality ( like discreet individuals) since 'groups' do not?
Its a slippery slope constructing a superstructure of concepts on top of a axiomatic foundation that pertains to a concept and not something that actually exists in reality.
PS: Priests and any religious leader sells invisible 'goods' They claim something as absolute truth with actually presenting any tangible evidence to back it up. They are scheming , granted power privileges , dishonorable people.
Btw , I didn't try any 'gotcha' tactic with you. In fact , I would say its quite the opposite. You wanted to purposefully draw me into something with your Serbian post just to initiate some personal attacks against me. Thats dishonest and really thins my patience for debating someone with those intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Oct 31, 2008 14:20:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Oct 31, 2008 15:45:01 GMT -5
TL;DR
Can you two sum up your positions/opinions, please?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Oct 31, 2008 15:53:10 GMT -5
If you are really interested I suggest taking the time to read through our posts.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Oct 31, 2008 15:55:22 GMT -5
I don't have the time nor patience.
|
|
highduke
Amicus
Instigator / Scholar
60%
Posts: 3,687
|
Post by highduke on Oct 31, 2008 18:13:57 GMT -5
Kane,
In practice, your line of reasoning attempts to justify discarding a culture, betraying your kinsmen & cooperating with the enemy accross centuries to oppress & marginalize those who did not sell out for the sake of money & power priviledges granted by the enemy. That is dishonorable group-behavior & it's exactly how many Serbs became Bosniaks, Macedonians, Montenegrins & assimilated into Croats & Albanians.
Thats why all your philosophizing has no credibility, because in practice, you are promoting selling out your culture for money & power & marginalizing & destabilizing the group that ovecame base temptations. Thats objectively immoral. Its just common sense. Your philosophising is just smoke & mirrors to disguise the real destructive motivations behind it all.
Lastly, you never lived in a traditional, mono-ethnic culture (I've lived there and in Modern Liberal Democracies) so you dont have credibility to say anything first-hand about it and considering that you're promoting breaches of trust & loyalty within existing ethnic groups, your second hand conjectures lack objective considerations of positive character-traits like trust & loyalty and the discussion loses its practical value.
S ovim skotom sam zavrsio. A sa vama katolickim, muslimanskim i pravoslavnim izrodima nisam i nikad necu. Ako ovaj tudjin hoce da pravda izdaju sopstvenog roda na osnovu teoretskih zavrzlama, ko mu jebe mater bolesnu. Ali ja to vama ne dozvoljavam. Nema Hrvata ni Bosnjaka ni Crnogoraca u najranijim srednjevekovnim zapisima. Nastali su KASNIJE od Srba izdajnika, motivisani PARAMA i POVLASTICAMA da stotine vekova deluju protiv svoga roda. To nije lepo ni posteno i mora da se kazni.
|
|
|
Post by givemebeer on Oct 31, 2008 18:44:56 GMT -5
Kane,S ovim skotom sam zavrsio. A sa vama katolickim, muslimanskim i pravoslavnim izrodima nisam i nikad necu. Ako ovaj tudjin hoce da pravda izdaju sopstvenog roda na osnovu teoretskih zavrzlama, ko mu jebe mater bolesnu. Ali ja to vama ne dozvoljavam. Nema Hrvata ni Bosnjaka ni Crnogoraca u najranijim srednjevekovnim zapisima. Nastali su KASNIJE od Srba izdajnika, motivisani PARAMA i POVLASTICAMA da stotine vekova deluju protiv svoga roda. To nije lepo ni posteno i mora da se kazni. kao broj jedan, ti si lud... kao broj dva, hrvatska drzavnost je starija od srpske, tako neznam kako su hrvati mogli da nastanu od srba.. kao trece kako ces nas "kazniti" ali zabavan so covjek, bogami, koliko sati na dan pises svoje historiske clanke ;D
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Nov 1, 2008 7:30:56 GMT -5
Kane,In practice, your line of reasoning attempts to justify discarding a culture, betraying your kinsmen & cooperating with the enemy accross centuries to oppress & marginalize those who did not sell out for the sake of money & power priviledges granted by the enemy. That is dishonorable group-behavior & it's exactly how many Serbs became Bosniaks, Macedonians, Montenegrins & assimilated into Croats & Albanians. Thats why all your philosophizing has no credibility, because in practice, you are promoting selling out your culture for money & power & marginalizing & destabilizing the group that ovecame base temptations. Thats objectively immoral. Its just common sense. Your philosophising is just smoke & mirrors to disguise the real destructive motivations behind it all. Lastly, you never lived in a traditional, mono-ethnic culture (I've lived there and in Modern Liberal Democracies) so you dont have credibility to say anything first-hand about it and considering that you're promoting breaches of trust & loyalty within existing ethnic groups, your second hand conjectures lack objective considerations of positive character-traits like trust & loyalty and the discussion loses its practical value. S ovim skotom sam zavrsio. A sa vama katolickim, muslimanskim i pravoslavnim izrodima nisam i nikad necu. Ako ovaj tudjin hoce da pravda izdaju sopstvenog roda na osnovu teoretskih zavrzlama, ko mu jebe mater bolesnu. Ali ja to vama ne dozvoljavam. Nema Hrvata ni Bosnjaka ni Crnogoraca u najranijim srednjevekovnim zapisima. Nastali su KASNIJE od Srba izdajnika, motivisani PARAMA i POVLASTICAMA da stotine vekova deluju protiv svoga roda. To nije lepo ni posteno i mora da se kazni. Shame, none of these arguments address mine. I'm disappointed. Again, you start with the hasty generalizations ( a common fallacy I notice you make on a near consistent level). This looks like a concession by you and perhaps its for the best. I grow weary of wasting my time with an ignoramus that dedicates any intellectual potential he might have on deluded interpretations of truth , honor , integrity , courage, and social cooperation. Personally, I don't think you can stand the heat and you might be a lightweight in the area of argumentation, especially when you have baseless claims. You haven't refuted anything, not one thing. Perhaps it will sit with you and force you to think at least slightly more rationally about your baseless claims. Probably won't as I see you are strongly nestled in your keep of delusions. What a waste...
|
|
highduke
Amicus
Instigator / Scholar
60%
Posts: 3,687
|
Post by highduke on Nov 1, 2008 17:29:09 GMT -5
Kane,
The fact that you have no Real Life experience with what the subjects disqualifies you and discredits your theoretical verbal diarrhea. You have no Culture, so your theorietical conjectures about Culture have no credibility. You have no experience living in Traditional Society, so your theorietical conjectures have no credibility.
Theorietical conjectures are a substitute for a lack of real life 1st hand experience. No need to refute someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not going to waste time on a misguided non-Serb with no Real Life experience.
Pa moja ima web stranica ima 20 000 citalaca godisnje od kojih 1/3 tog broja sacinjavaju oni koji su mi stranicu namestili kao home page. Drugo, na tom sajtu se nalaze skenovi originalnih zapisa bosanskih vladara i skenovi najranijih srednjevekovnih tekstova prevedeni na engleski, u savremenim izdanjima stampane u Z. Evropi. I tamo nema pomena o Hrvatima u Bosni i Dalmaciji pre kraja srednjeg veka.
Pogledaj linkove dole.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Nov 1, 2008 19:05:04 GMT -5
Kane,The fact that you have no Real Life experience with what the subjects disqualifies you and discredits your theoretical verbal diarrhea. You have no Culture, so your theorietical conjectures about Culture have no credibility. You have no experience living in Traditional Society, so your theorietical conjectures have no credibility. Theorietical conjectures are a substitute for a lack of real life 1st hand experience. No need to refute someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not going to waste time on a misguided non-Serb with no Real Life experience. Pa moja ima web stranica ima 20 000 citalaca godisnje od kojih 1/3 tog broja sacinjavaju oni koji su mi stranicu namestili kao home page. Drugo, na tom sajtu se nalaze skenovi originalnih zapisa bosanskih vladara i skenovi najranijih srednjevekovnih tekstova prevedeni na engleski, u savremenim izdanjima stampane u Z. Evropi. I tamo nema pomena o Hrvatima u Bosni i Dalmaciji pre kraja srednjeg veka. Pogledaj linkove dole. Are you sure you want to stick by this argument as an excuse to cop out and self-justification for not being able to logically refute any of my arguments? You make the hasty generalization that I have no experience in families, religion , and nation - all conducted by the common medium of culture. How does one like yourself reach this conclusion , again , without any evidence? But even if I did have ' no experience' how does that disqualify the content of the argument? In any rational discourse the subject of interest is not centered around the person , but rather, around the context and substance of the argument itself. What you seem to suggest is that all arguments against Nazism are invalid if the people presenting the arguments were not Nazis themselves or had direct experience with Nazis. Arguments against slavery are invalid if the presenters of the argument were not slaves. One may not make an argument against religious doctrine if they are not or were not religious themselves. Its a poor and fallacious argument on your part. Should I really expect more from you? I beginning to think not really. Junior debaters and internet scholars such as yourself probably wouldn't know the first thing about proper argumentation. I'm starting to think you truly belong in a small village in Serbia where you might be regarded as an intellectual by some fellow villagers. I am fairly confident you would be laughed out of any real debate anywhere else. You're a joke.
|
|
|
Post by malsor4life on Nov 1, 2008 20:13:07 GMT -5
Anyone know where i can get the Cliff Notes to this thread ?
|
|
highduke
Amicus
Instigator / Scholar
60%
Posts: 3,687
|
Post by highduke on Nov 1, 2008 21:15:17 GMT -5
You won't need them because it's all going to be summed up nicely on this page of this thread in the next few exchanges. Read on...
Kane,
Between 2 individuals, one of whom has Extensive Real-life Experience and the other who has none, the JOKE is that other guy if he gets argumentative like YOU.
That is objective reality you would have grasped if you weren't stuck in your 2nsd hand abstract theoretical conjecturing aimed to make a NAIVE self-serving person seem smart to other naive, self-serving people.
Kao vi izrodi koji ste navijali za ovog ljigavog tudjina jer vam odgovara da vm neki stranac govori kako nema' morala i objektivnih ljudskih vrednosti jer ste nastali od Srpskih izroda koji su to verovali. Zato danas postoje Bosnjaci, Crnogorci, Makedonci i zato danas ima toliko puno Hrvata i Albanaca. Dokazali ste samo koliko ste i vi ljigavi, navijajuci za ovog blesavog zapadnog skota.
If you can't admit that that between 2 individuals, one of whom has Extensive Real-life Experience and the other who has none, the JOKE is that other guy if he gets argumentative, then you are out of touch with reality maing you unqualiified to talk about the higher things in life.
Admit it in your next post otherwise it proves that you're too out of touch with reality to make a Common Sense observation.
There goes your internet ego!
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Nov 2, 2008 1:23:54 GMT -5
I think highduke actualy thinks hes of the same "blood" and "identity" as the original srb tribe from whatever f**kin caucasian or carpathian mountain they came
laughable
those peple are dead and long gone. as all people from that age. you litteraly have 0 in common with them from religion to blood.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Nov 2, 2008 3:28:59 GMT -5
You won't need them because it's all going to be summed up nicely on this page of this thread in the next few exchanges. Read on... Kane,Between 2 individuals, one of whom has Extensive Real-life Experience and the other who has none, the JOKE is that other guy if he gets argumentative like YOU. That is objective reality you would have grasped if you weren't stuck in your 2nsd hand abstract theoretical conjecturing aimed to make a NAIVE self-serving person seem smart to other naive, self-serving people. Kao vi izrodi koji ste navijali za ovog ljigavog tudjina jer vam odgovara da vm neki stranac govori kako nema' morala i objektivnih ljudskih vrednosti jer ste nastali od Srpskih izroda koji su to verovali. Zato danas postoje Bosnjaci, Crnogorci, Makedonci i zato danas ima toliko puno Hrvata i Albanaca. Dokazali ste samo koliko ste i vi ljigavi, navijajuci za ovog blesavog zapadnog skota. If you can't admit that that between 2 individuals, one of whom has Extensive Real-life Experience and the other who has none, the JOKE is that other guy if he gets argumentative, then you are out of touch with reality maing you unqualiified to talk about the higher things in life.
Admit it in your next post otherwise it proves that you're too out of touch with reality to make a Common Sense observation.
There goes your internet ego!There you go with your hasty generalizations , at least for the billionth time. Makes me think , how does one intentionally commit so many logical fallacies in one discussion after another? I am thinking it has to do with some kind of mental disorder and disconnect from reality. I am not an expert in that field so all I can say is therapy may not be an unwise move for you. Simple question , do you have evidence to back up your claim that I ( I assume you are referring to me) do not have any 'extensive real-life experience?' I am unsure what you even mean by this nebulous comment. Sounds like more rambling madness to me. I understand that you can only 'debate' on an inferior level where you feel far more comfortable debating about the person rather than the subject or idea. This shows either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance and I am unsure which you fall into more. Nothing wrong with presenting an argument , particularly if its an argument response to one already put out. I know you feel uncomfortable with rational doubt , skepticism , and anything that compels you to challenge conformity. Conformity to irrational moral absolutes were probably a driving factor in your life since childhood. Who knows? This usually tends to be the case. I think this is also why you project so much on the internet. You may never wake from these delusions but at least there were people which pointed them out to you. Perhaps that small vilage in Serbia is the ideal place for you.
|
|
highduke
Amicus
Instigator / Scholar
60%
Posts: 3,687
|
Post by highduke on Nov 2, 2008 16:25:48 GMT -5
Kapetan Amicus * member is offline
Ne bude li Bosne tada nece biti NI NAS!
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,361 Karma: -1 [ Exalt | Smite ]
I think highduke actualy thinks hes of the same "blood" and "identity" as the original srb tribe from whatever f**kin caucasian or carpathian mountain they came
laughable
those peple are dead and long gone. as all people from that age. you litteraly have 0 in common with them from religion to blood.
To nije istina. Svaki deseti pravoslavni Srbin potice od Sorba (koji danas jos uvek zive u Nemackoj) a svaki deseti Srbin od halstaskih Ilira. To mogu da dokazem uz pomoc nekoiko genetskih studija. Ako hoces, otvori novu temu jer necu da menjam tok ove teme.
Ali sta je sustina ovog i svakog argumenta koji pokusava da opravda procese po kojim su nastali Bosnjaci, Makedonci, Crnogorci i toliki broj Hrvata i Albanaca?
Sustina je da se nasim pra-Srpskim, pra-Iirskim i pra-Vincanskim precima dogodio isti proces koji je doveo do toga da eventualno postanu Vincani, Iliri pa danas i Srbi, pa onda vi od Srba. Ustvari nisu isti procesi ali su slicni. Ali ajde, recimo da je proces identican...
Taj proces u praksi ipak znaci izdaja sopstvenog roda i predaka i vecno saradjivanje sa novim gospodarom u zamenu za pare i privelegije da bi se ostali deo naroda demoralizovao i pokorio asimilaciji, i taj proces je uvek krvav i mucan!
Zdrav Razum nam govori da to nije dobro jer sama cinjenica da su se slicne stvari dogadjale nasim pra-Srpskim precima NE MORA da znaci da i mi koji zivimo danas moramo da ponovo dozivljavamo njihovu tragicnu i krvavu, mucnu istoriju.
Ima li medju vama jednog postenog da prizna Zdrav Razum?
|
|
Demonel
Amicus
I am Jack's regained insanity.
Posts: 833
|
Post by Demonel on Nov 2, 2008 19:36:28 GMT -5
Pa zdrav razum i highdyke neidu nikako zajedno. Sam si sad reko da je uredu bit izdajnik dok izdajom postajes Srbin, a svaki drugi vid izdaje bilo da se radi o stvarnoj izdaji ili imaginarnoj koju samo highdyke vidi nije uredu stavise to je idealni razlog za svaki vid demonizacije "izdajica".
Okani se ti baljezganja. Cuj svaki deseti pravoslavni Srbin potice od Sorba (koji danas jos uvek zive u Nemackoj) a svaki deseti Srbin od halstaskih Ilira. Nigdje veze.
|
|
|
Post by Sh1 Shonić on Nov 2, 2008 20:00:25 GMT -5
Cuj svaki deseti pravoslavni Srbin potice od Sorba (koji danas jos uvek zive u Nemackoj) a svaki deseti Srbin od halstaskih Ilira. . То се на српском каже (а верујем и на бошњачком исто) - Лужичких Срба.
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Nov 2, 2008 21:29:07 GMT -5
VIVA LA RAZA HIGHDUKE BLOOD IN BLOOD OUT ESSE
|
|
Demonel
Amicus
I am Jack's regained insanity.
Posts: 833
|
Post by Demonel on Nov 3, 2008 7:46:28 GMT -5
Mislis na bosanskom? Ako je tako upravu si.
Stvar je u tome da je hughdyke toliko ogranicen da nemoze da shvati osnovne i vrlo jednostavne stvari. Relacija izmedu Srba i Luzickih Srba nemoze biti jednosmjerna, samo dvosmjerna u smislu da i jedni i drugi imaju neke zajednicke karakteristike koje se mogu prvenstveno vezati za njihov zajednicki slavenski identitet sto se svodi na lingvistiku. Lingvistikom se moze na osnovu dostupnih podataka moze dokazati samo njihova srodnost i nista vise. Druge moguce zajednicke karakteristike su vezane za vjeru, obicaje i kulturu. Broj tih zajednickih karakteristika je gotovo zanemarljiv jer Srbi i Luzicki Srbi imaju razlicite vjere, razlicitu nosnju i razlicite obicaje. Ostaje samo jos genetska povezanost. Na osnovu genetike nemoze se donjeti zakljucak da Srbi poticu od Luzickih Srba zbog vise razloga. Prvi i najvazniji razlog je sto Sorbi nemaju niti jedan genetski marker koji je specificno njihov (isto vazi i za halstadske Ilire). Ako bismo donjeli zakljucak o poticanju Srba od Luzickih Srba (sto nema nikakvu naucnu osnovanost) na osnovu procenata prisutnih genetskih markera u tom slucaju istom logikom bismo mogli zakljuciti da Srbi poticu od Madara (Madari imaju procentualne odnose genetskih markera u svojoj populaciji koji su puno blizi procentima u Srpskoj populaciji od porcenata kog Luzickih Srba) ili od Grka (sto je puno logicniji zakljucak iako ni on nema naucnu osnovu vec predstavlja tipicno highdukovsko nagadanje). Kada se Iliri spominju kao preci balkanskih naroda nemisli se na halstadske Ilire vec na plemena cije su teritorije Rimljani nazivali Ilirikum.
|
|