I'm afraid I don't hold antipositivist sociology professors in high regard.
Advertisement
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:03 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:04 pm
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:47 pm
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:47 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:55 pm
by Cekoviu » Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:37 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:40 pm
Cekoviu wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Sociology has a lot more to do with philosophy than it does with science imo. Trying to make "social sciences" was a mistake.
The methodology of science can absolutely be used with human constructs, and I don't think it's entirely fair to paint all of sociology as subjective (at least any more than biology or astronomy).
by Democratic Communist Federation » Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:01 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Sociology has a lot more to do with philosophy than it does with science imo. Trying to make "social sciences" was a mistake.
[color=#ff0000]Member,[/color] [url=https://www.nationstates.net/nation=democratic_communist_federation/detail=factbook/id=870177][color=#ff0000][u]Antifa Dialectical metaRealism[/u][/color][/url]
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:26 am
by Dumb Ideologies » Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:39 am
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:53 am
by Duvniask » Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:41 am
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Duvniask wrote:Self-defense is still violence, however. You will end up harming/injuring the person you are defending against. That is just the nature of the act.
Self-defense is fundamentally different from other forms of violence, as you are not initiating force, but instead responding to it.
by Western Vale Confederacy » Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:39 am
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Got to laugh when family bring up politics but eventually end up resorting to endlessly repeating the words "loony left" in lieu of an argument.
Still, got my own back when dad randomly claimed Rome fell due to lead poisoning and I did the whole "well actually it fell due to people refusing to pay taxes and due to mass migration without integration, ring any bells for what's happening under liberal individualism?"
All good fun.
by Valrifell » Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:11 am
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote:Got to laugh when family bring up politics but eventually end up resorting to endlessly repeating the words "loony left" in lieu of an argument.
Still, got my own back when dad randomly claimed Rome fell due to lead poisoning and I did the whole "well actually it fell due to people refusing to pay taxes and due to mass migration without integration, ring any bells for what's happening under liberal individualism?"
All good fun.
Whenever somebody omits the "uncontrolled mass migrations" being one of the pivotal reasons that Rome collapsed, I do the big laugh.
Obviously it was more than just that, but pretending that millions of barbarians that you initially brought in as mercenaries flooding over unprotected borders didn’t cause instability is effing dumb.
by Conserative Morality » Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:31 am
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Got to laugh when family bring up politics but eventually end up resorting to endlessly repeating the words "loony left" in lieu of an argument.
Still, got my own back when dad randomly claimed Rome fell due to lead poisoning and I did the whole "well actually it fell due to people refusing to pay taxes and due to mass migration without integration, ring any bells for what's happening under liberal individualism?"
All good fun.
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:Whenever somebody omits the "uncontrolled mass migrations" being one of the pivotal reasons that Rome collapsed, I do the big laugh.
Obviously it was more than just that, but pretending that millions of barbarians that you initially brought in as mercenaries flooding over unprotected borders didn’t cause instability is effing dumb.
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:39 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote:Got to laugh when family bring up politics but eventually end up resorting to endlessly repeating the words "loony left" in lieu of an argument.
Still, got my own back when dad randomly claimed Rome fell due to lead poisoning and I did the whole "well actually it fell due to people refusing to pay taxes and due to mass migration without integration, ring any bells for what's happening under liberal individualism?"
All good fun.
"Mass migration without integration"
Is that what we're calling armed invasions now? Good fun.Western Vale Confederacy wrote:Whenever somebody omits the "uncontrolled mass migrations" being one of the pivotal reasons that Rome collapsed, I do the big laugh.
Obviously it was more than just that, but pretending that millions of barbarians that you initially brought in as mercenaries flooding over unprotected borders didn’t cause instability is effing dumb.
I don't even know where to begin. 'Unprotected borders' maybe.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:57 am
by Yusseria » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:06 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:"Mass migration without integration"
Is that what we're calling armed invasions now? Good fun.
I don't even know where to begin. 'Unprotected borders' maybe.
You're ignoring why those borders were unprotected.
The migrants had more loyalty to their tribe than rome but were nonetheless employed in a vital institution, and when they stopped being paid, they immediately turned on society.
Like if the government shutdown immediately resulted in all the US cops deciding to burn down buildings, rape and murder, secede from the US and declare a new totalitarian state with the locals being enslaved to their new feudal lord because, hey, you employed a bunch of tribalist foreigners with no loyalty to the country or its people and the second money ran out, that was it.
The borders were unprotected because the foreigners employed to guard them deserted to raid the country that took them in.
Friendly reminder more British Muslims joined ISIS than the UK army.
The lesson of Rome is:
Don't hire foreigners or people from a foreign culture to perform jobs vital to safety and security of a nation in such numbers that they could feasibly derail the project if they decided to.
As well as:
Pay your fucking taxes.
The problem with blocking foreign cultures from vital positions is that it doesn't gel with equality nor the goals of integration. So what we need is, oh I don't know, a small amount of them entering at any one time so as to give us space to assimilate them and get them to adapt to local customs and ideas?
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:13 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:"Mass migration without integration"
Is that what we're calling armed invasions now? Good fun.
I don't even know where to begin. 'Unprotected borders' maybe.
You're ignoring why those borders were unprotected.
The migrants had more loyalty to their tribe than rome but were nonetheless employed in a vital institution, and when they stopped being paid, they immediately turned on society.
Like if the government shutdown immediately resulted in all the US cops deciding to burn down buildings, rape and murder, secede from the US and declare a new totalitarian state with the locals being enslaved to their new feudal lord because, hey, you employed a bunch of tribalist foreigners with no loyalty to the country or its people and the second money ran out, that was it.
The borders were unprotected because the foreigners employed to guard them deserted to raid the country that took them in.
Friendly reminder more British Muslims joined ISIS than the UK army.
The lesson of Rome is:
Don't hire foreigners or people from a foreign culture to perform jobs vital to safety and security of a nation in such numbers that they could feasibly derail the project if they decided to.
As well as:
Pay your fucking taxes.
The problem with blocking foreign cultures from vital positions is that it doesn't gel with equality nor the goals of integration. So what we need is, oh I don't know, a small amount of them entering at any one time so as to give us space to assimilate them and get them to adapt to local customs and ideas?
by Conserative Morality » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:32 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:The reason the borders were unprotected was a power struggle between the two Magister Militi, by all accounts, Stilicho was very loyal to the Empire, and the only reason the Foederati revolted was because the Italian Comitatenses revolted, killed Stilicho, and then lynched their families.
by Valrifell » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:34 am
Conserative Morality wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:The reason the borders were unprotected was a power struggle between the two Magister Militi, by all accounts, Stilicho was very loyal to the Empire, and the only reason the Foederati revolted was because the Italian Comitatenses revolted, killed Stilicho, and then lynched their families.
There is also, of course, the issue that the borders were often quite strongly protected, to the detriment of the economic viability of the Empire, and that the refusal of the Roman elite to accept outsiders such as Stilicho as time wore on stripped them of one of Rome's former strengths - the ability to turn their enemies and subjects to their side.
by Torrocca » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:36 am
Valrifell wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:There is also, of course, the issue that the borders were often quite strongly protected, to the detriment of the economic viability of the Empire, and that the refusal of the Roman elite to accept outsiders such as Stilicho as time wore on stripped them of one of Rome's former strengths - the ability to turn their enemies and subjects to their side.
No, CM, see, Rome collapsed because of mass immigration in spite of the fact the Empire had been successfully assimilating migrating and conquered people for the better half of 500 years.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:37 am
Conserative Morality wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:The reason the borders were unprotected was a power struggle between the two Magister Militi, by all accounts, Stilicho was very loyal to the Empire, and the only reason the Foederati revolted was because the Italian Comitatenses revolted, killed Stilicho, and then lynched their families.
There is also, of course, the issue that the borders were often quite strongly protected, to the detriment of the economic viability of the Empire, and that the refusal of the Roman elite to accept outsiders such as Stilicho as time wore on stripped them of one of Rome's former strengths - the ability to turn their enemies and subjects to their side.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:37 am
Conserative Morality wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:The reason the borders were unprotected was a power struggle between the two Magister Militi, by all accounts, Stilicho was very loyal to the Empire, and the only reason the Foederati revolted was because the Italian Comitatenses revolted, killed Stilicho, and then lynched their families.
There is also, of course, the issue that the borders were often quite strongly protected, to the detriment of the economic viability of the Empire, and that the refusal of the Roman elite to accept outsiders such as Stilicho as time wore on stripped them of one of Rome's former strengths - the ability to turn their enemies and subjects to their side.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dimetrodon Empire, Eahland, Outer Solar System, Rusozak
Advertisement