Right Wing Discussion Thread XIX

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

By the way, to slyly prove my point of earlier:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=482183

[United Muscovite Nations]

And yeah, I've been saying the defection from social cooperation thing for years. Every radical movement of the last 120 years can be traced back to social losers getting fed up with being the social losers and group-defecting.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also lol at liberals thinking stopping polygamy is bad when communist governments for 100 years were stopping it because they realize it would destroy society.

[Salus Maior]

Wikipedia is not an academic source, but even so it’s not supporting you.

What the article says is that over the reign of several emperors, paganism fell out of favor and was being phased out in favor of a new, rising Christian cultural norm. Nothing here suggests that the banning of pagan practice and destruction/rededication of temples was all that significant in any sort of decline or fall. Unless you’re just superstitious enough to believe that removing the altar of victory from the senate meant that the empire would fall.

Nothing you’ve said is convincing, or is very well based.

Wikipedia's about as academic a source as it gets without outright subscribing to a university's online journal.

I highly recommend actually reading the article. Christianity became the dominant religion in the empire because it was imposed upon the people through force of arms. Turning Christianity from a small and mostly irrelevant sect that amounted to little more than 10% of the empire's total population during the days of Constantine to the dominant Mediterranean faith was something that was accomplished through the radical transformation of Roman society through iron and blood.

Temples were vandalized, traditional rites and ceremonies banned, institutions destroyed and dissidents slaughtered. Such radical changes to a society in a relatively short period of time do not come without consequences.

Wikipedia can be edited by literally anyone, you don't need any academic experience to contribute to it. Which is why no university accepts it as a valid source. And if it's not good enough for my professor, it's not good enough for me.

Of course, regardless I have given the article a read, and I still don't think it supports you. Especially towards the end, where the final evaluation suggests that it would be biased and unfair to lay the blame on Christians, when Pagans had also conducted a harsh persecution not long before the cultural shift (which is probably why Christians were so harsh on Pagans in the first place, as reprisals). I also doubt that Christians were so small a group as you infer, because if the majority of the population truly were on the side of Paganism, the population would have likely been able to prevent their temples from being sacked via mob action, or would have committed to equally harsh reprisals.
And if the mere act of civil violence and persecution is a sign of decline, why wouldn’t this also apply to the pagan persecution of the Christians? Perhaps St.Augustine was right, and pagan indulgence was the true reason for Rome’s decline and fall.

There is also the obvious fact that the more thoroughly Christian half of Rome was the one to preserve the empire for the next thousand years.

[Italios]

Also lol at liberals thinking stopping polygamy is bad when communist governments for 100 years were stopping it because they realize it would destroy society.

imagine thinking polygamy is empowering, lol couldn't be me

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

If people think its empowering to sleep with a woman who is simultaneously sleeping with other men, that's ok, but you should do it elsewhere, like in prison.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also lol at liberals thinking stopping polygamy is bad when communist governments for 100 years were stopping it because they realize it would destroy society.

imagine thinking polygamy is empowering, lol couldn't be me

Yes, I don't know how someone could want to be in a polygamous relationship. Either a man or a woman. A polygynous relationship reduces the social power value of the women in the relationship and maximizes that of the man, and a polyandrous relationship does the opposite.

[Taihei Tengoku]

imagine thinking polygamy is empowering, lol couldn't be me

Yes, I don't know how someone could want to be in a polygamous relationship. Either a man or a woman. A polygynous relationship reduces the social power value of the women in the relationship and maximizes that of the man, and a polyandrous relationship does the opposite.

Ottoman Emperor is a nice place to be

[Italios]

imagine thinking polygamy is empowering, lol couldn't be me

Yes, I don't know how someone could want to be in a polygamous relationship. Either a man or a woman. A polygynous relationship reduces the social power value of the women in the relationship and maximizes that of the man, and a polyandrous relationship does the opposite.

hot take: people in polyamorous relationships have some kind of underlying mental disorder that causes them to crave instability and lower marital satisfaction, especially in the western world where one-on-one relationships are the complete and utter norm and there's no reason not to have them.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also, from a categorical perspective, if polygamy were universally applied (that is, if it were the social norm), then it would leave more people dissatisfied than monogamy as a norm.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, I don't know how someone could want to be in a polygamous relationship. Either a man or a woman. A polygynous relationship reduces the social power value of the women in the relationship and maximizes that of the man, and a polyandrous relationship does the opposite.

hot take: people in polyamorous relationships have some kind of underlying mental disorder that causes them to crave instability and lower marital satisfaction, especially in the western world where one-on-one relationships are the complete and utter norm and there's no reason not to have them.

Based communist.

[Novus America]

Also, from a categorical perspective, if polygamy were universally applied (that is, if it were the social norm), then it would leave more people dissatisfied than monogamy as a norm.

This would also apply from a utilitarian perspective. Or really most practical perspectives.

[Italios]

hot take: people in polyamorous relationships have some kind of underlying mental disorder that causes them to crave instability and lower marital satisfaction, especially in the western world where one-on-one relationships are the complete and utter norm and there's no reason not to have them.

Based communist.

ty comrade

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also, from a categorical perspective, if polygamy were universally applied (that is, if it were the social norm), then it would leave more people dissatisfied than monogamy as a norm.

This would also apply from a utilitarian perspective. Or really most practical perspectives.

Yes. Which is why the liberal argument of "it doesn't affect you" is so absurd. Individual actions take place in a social context. Or , to use the meme, we live in a society, not in a thought experiment.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Wikipedia's about as academic a source as it gets without outright subscribing to a university's online journal.

I highly recommend actually reading the article. Christianity became the dominant religion in the empire because it was imposed upon the people through force of arms. Turning Christianity from a small and mostly irrelevant sect that amounted to little more than 10% of the empire's total population during the days of Constantine to the dominant Mediterranean faith was something that was accomplished through the radical transformation of Roman society through iron and blood.

Temples were vandalized, traditional rites and ceremonies banned, institutions destroyed and dissidents slaughtered. Such radical changes to a society in a relatively short period of time do not come without consequences.

Wikipedia can be edited by literally anyone, you don't need any academic experience to contribute to it. Which is why no university accepts it as a valid source. And if it's not good enough for my professor, it's not good enough for me.

Of course, regardless I have given the article a read, and I still don't think it supports you. Especially towards the end, where the final evaluation suggests that it would be biased and unfair to lay the blame on Christians, when Pagans had also conducted a harsh persecution not long before the cultural shift (which is probably why Christians were so harsh on Pagans in the first place, as reprisals). I also doubt that Christians were so small a group as you infer, because if the majority of the population truly were on the side of Paganism, the population would have likely been able to prevent their temples from being sacked via mob action, or would have committed to equally harsh reprisals.
And if the mere act of civil violence and persecution is a sign of decline, why wouldn’t this also apply to the pagan persecution of the Christians? Perhaps St.Augustine was right, and pagan indulgence was the true reason for Rome’s decline and fall.

There is also the obvious fact that the more thoroughly Christian half of Rome was the one to preserve the empire for the next thousand years.

To edit a Wikipedia article you need to create an account, one which can greatly varies in editing privileges. When articles are edited, footnotes need to be provided along with the accompanying references. These edits are generally checked, and either kept or discarded based on their validity.

The fact that most university professors don't accept Wikipedia articles is more a condemnation of the academic stagnancy of most universities than anything else.

As for the 'Evaluation and Legacy' section of the article, it discusses why Christian persecution of pagans was so violent, not whether or not it was destabilizing for the empire (which it takes as a given). Yes, pagans treated Christians rather poorly when they were the dominant group; that doesn't change the fact that the observe also occurred and had a negative effect on the empire. Christianity became the dominant religion because it gained the favour of emperors who sought to use the Church to solidify and legitimize their own reigns, not because it had substantial support amongst the common man.

As for that Dark Age Greek abomination being referred to as "Roman", I shudder to think what kind of heresy compels you to assert such claims.

[Nakena]

Yes, I don't know how someone could want to be in a polygamous relationship. Either a man or a woman. A polygynous relationship reduces the social power value of the women in the relationship and maximizes that of the man, and a polyandrous relationship does the opposite.

Ottoman Emperor is a nice place to be

Based and turk pilled.

Only the elite should be allowed to indulge in polygamy, of course all under careful and systematic medical supervision in regards to offspring.

The plebs of course not.

[Rentandy]

This would also apply from a utilitarian perspective. Or really most practical perspectives.

Yes. Which is why the liberal argument of "it doesn't affect you" is so absurd. Individual actions take place in a social context. Or , to use the meme, we live in a society, not in a thought experiment.

[Farnhamia]

On another note the rate of non-Muslim suicide bombers will go up if polygamy because a more than fringe. Obviously this isn’t a good thing, but it’s time more than communists, and Muslims blow themselves up after all trucks of peace are only so effective.

"Trucks of peace" ... cute. *** Warned for trolling. ***

[Salus Maior]

To edit a Wikipedia article you need to create an account, one which can greatly varies in editing privileges. When articles are edited, footnotes need to be provided along with the accompanying references. These edits are generally checked, and either kept or discarded based on their validity.

The fact that most university professors don't accept Wikipedia articles is more a condemnation of the academic stagnancy of most universities than anything else.

As for the 'Evaluation and Legacy' section of the article, it discusses why Christian persecution of pagans was so violent, not whether or not it was destabilizing for the empire (which it takes as a given). Yes, pagans treated Christians rather poorly when they were the dominant group; that doesn't change the fact that the observe also occurred and had a negative effect on the empire. Christianity became the dominant religion because it gained the favour of emperors who sought to use the Church to solidify and legitimize their own reigns, not because it had substantial support amongst the common man.

As for that Dark Age Greek abomination being referred to as "Roman", I shudder to think what kind of heresy compels you to assert such claims.

If what you're saying is true, then it should not be all that difficult to find a real academic source. Which I'm still waiting for.

Said the lazy student.

Then produce something solid which asserts the extent that the adoption of Christianity caused Roman decline, if it caused anything significant at all. And not just from your personal interpretation. If you actually know what you're talking about and have researched this, you ought to have read plenty on the subject and have sources readily at hand.

Memes aren't helping you any, especially not bad memes. And no one educated in history gives any credence to the concept of the "Dark Ages".

[Farnhamia]

Yes. Which is why the liberal argument of "it doesn't affect you" is so absurd. Individual actions take place in a social context. Or , to use the meme, we live in a society, not in a thought experiment.

"Lolbertarian" is trolling. Don't use it.

[Ayytaly]

Also lol at liberals thinking stopping polygamy is bad when communist governments for 100 years were stopping it because they realize it would destroy society.

Strange how Capitalism and Liberalism have more in common than the proverbial "commie left-wing lunacy" Conservatives propsgate ad nauseum.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

To edit a Wikipedia article you need to create an account, one which can greatly varies in editing privileges. When articles are edited, footnotes need to be provided along with the accompanying references. These edits are generally checked, and either kept or discarded based on their validity.

The fact that most university professors don't accept Wikipedia articles is more a condemnation of the academic stagnancy of most universities than anything else.

As for the 'Evaluation and Legacy' section of the article, it discusses why Christian persecution of pagans was so violent, not whether or not it was destabilizing for the empire (which it takes as a given). Yes, pagans treated Christians rather poorly when they were the dominant group; that doesn't change the fact that the observe also occurred and had a negative effect on the empire. Christianity became the dominant religion because it gained the favour of emperors who sought to use the Church to solidify and legitimize their own reigns, not because it had substantial support amongst the common man.

As for that Dark Age Greek abomination being referred to as "Roman", I shudder to think what kind of heresy compels you to assert such claims.

If what you're saying is true, then it should not be all that difficult to find a real academic source. Which I'm still waiting for.

Said the lazy student.

Then produce something solid which asserts the extent that the adoption of Christianity caused Roman decline, if it caused anything significant at all. And not just from your personal interpretation. If you actually know what you're talking about and have researched this, you ought to have read plenty on the subject and have sources readily at hand.

Memes aren't helping you any, especially not bad memes. And no one educated in history gives any credence to the concept of the "Dark Ages".

Well, if you're truly so concerned, here's a six-volume book on the matter:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-h/25717-h.htm

Have fun.

As for laziness, I have two undergrads and a major in history. Bite me.

[Rentandy]

If what you're saying is true, then it should not be all that difficult to find a real academic source. Which I'm still waiting for.

Said the lazy student.

Then produce something solid which asserts the extent that the adoption of Christianity caused Roman decline, if it caused anything significant at all. And not just from your personal interpretation. If you actually know what you're talking about and have researched this, you ought to have read plenty on the subject and have sources readily at hand.

Memes aren't helping you any, especially not bad memes. And no one educated in history gives any credence to the concept of the "Dark Ages".

Well, if you're truly so concerned, here's a six-volume book on the matter:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-h/25717-h.htm

Have fun.

As for laziness, I have two undergrads and a major in history. Bite me.

Ah, a fellow history major. It's always nice to meet someone else who makes poor life choices.

[Salus Maior]

If what you're saying is true, then it should not be all that difficult to find a real academic source. Which I'm still waiting for.

Said the lazy student.

Then produce something solid which asserts the extent that the adoption of Christianity caused Roman decline, if it caused anything significant at all. And not just from your personal interpretation. If you actually know what you're talking about and have researched this, you ought to have read plenty on the subject and have sources readily at hand.

Memes aren't helping you any, especially not bad memes. And no one educated in history gives any credence to the concept of the "Dark Ages".

Well, if you're truly so concerned, here's a six-volume book on the matter:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-h/25717-h.htm

Have fun.

As for laziness, I have two undergrads and a major in history. Bite me.

Gibbon, really? Not only is that incredibly out of date, but he’s rightfully criticized by the historical community for a number of issues with his conclusions.

I’m also a history major, bud. That doesn’t excuse your lack of professionalism.

[The East Marches II]

Careful lads, the Eye of Mordor is upon us.