>"Sexual decadence led to the fall of Rome"
Augustine seemed to think sexual decadence induces decline. But I don't know how decadent Christian Rome was.
>"decadence in general didnt lead to the fall of rome"
"[Empire of choice] failed due to multiculturalism"
>no legitimate answers as to why an empire fell
>"all great things end with time"
>>597484
>"Capitalism was invented in ...."
>"Ancient Egypte was mono-racial for nearly 3000 years"
>"The American revolution was anything besides tax evasion"
>>597484
In general people that say "sexual decadance destroys x" relay on circular logic.
>"Well we are more sexually open today than ever before and we still continue to make advances in all fields."
>"Well it caused Rome to fall!"
>"How do you know that."
>"Because we are about to fall and our state is similar to Rome!"
>"How are we similar to Rome!"
>"We have sexual decedance"
Historical sexual views are a product of the time, the reason people are more open sexually is because birth control is so much easier while in the past it was less reliable.
Trying to argue that sexuality exists in some magical realm outside of culture and practicality is nutty.
>>597530
The argument isn't that sexual decadence destroys X, its that sexual decadence weakens X contributing to its eventual destruction, and it is completely accurate, for purely material reasons.
It weakens the birth rate and by extension the economy and military.
>>597530
strawman: the post
>>597484
Just remove "sexua"l and it's correct
What is decadence anyways?
>>597542
that would totally work in those days but im not sure how true it is as a statement currently, warfare doesn't exactly depends on sheer manpower anymore and a large population can be a burden rather than an advantage.
>>597552
hedonist culture
>>597558
I like the sound of that!
>>597553
either way decadence leads to downfall in every major empire. Whether its sex or video games or whatever
>>597501
Gothic immigrants were a significant factor in Rome's decline
>>597553
In the modern world, the danger is more due to cultural transmission, and population demographics.
In short, people tend to pass traditions onto their descendants via a kind of osmosis, with varying degrees of success. So the main factors that determine what cultures will dominate the future, is how readily they are transmitted, and how many people they can potentially transmit to.
For example, Europe has both low birth rates, and a cultural tradition at the moment that not only does not invest its next generation with European principles and ideas, it actively resists any efforts at such transmission. Making it very likely that other societies, such as Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, which are more 'traditional' [insofar as, they actively spread their traditions] and have higher birth rates due to less 'decadent' sexuality on average will come to dominate the next century.
Europeans of the future will view their control of the world as fading due to decadence, and will be right.
>>597553
>warfare doesn't exactly depends on sheer manpower anymore
Says who?
you?
are you extrapolating the recent low manpower -high-tech brushfire wars on to what the next major war will be?
Most Generals before the First World War made the same mistake by looking at the few colonial wars and assumed that the next major war would be fast and with few casualties.
Fighting guerrillas in Afghanistan and Iraqs shambles of an army doesnt show shit against what a war with Russia would look like.
>>597484
The essence of Nazism and Communism is totalitarianism. Totalitarianism regimes are characterized with secret polices like the Stasi and the KGB, who used an amount of surveillance never seen before.
>>597588
The essence of a democracy and rule of the majority is the subjugation of minorities for the majority. Democratic regimes are characterised with spy agencies like the NSA, who use an amount of surveillance never seen before.
>>597542
>It weakens the birth rate
Yeah this type of thing is just a non-sequator.
If you honestly beleive people are not out having children because they would rather have casual sex you clearly don't know anything about the world. Think about how much it costs to raise a kid in the western world. I'm not talking making them barely scrape by, I'm talking about getting them into a nice school and ensuring they have a decent child-hood. It's gotten to the point where it can take 2 working adults just to raise 1 kid well.
And than you wonder why birth rates are declining? The only ones who can afford to have 5 children are the one's who have their kids on welfair, and these will not grow up to be good kids but more uneducated lower classes.
But hey, fuck economics. Let's blame abortion clinics. This isn't the fucking dark ages anymore where kids actually produce a net-profit since they stay at home and work on the farm, while consuming only the bare essentials to live.
>the """""dark"""""" ages
>rennaisance led to large changes for the average person
>vikings were a people
>native americans were horrible savages that practiced human sacrifice and were totally uncivilized
>native americans were noble savages that had life figured out and lived so much better than we do
>>597612
>the world isn't black and white
colour me surprised
>>597484
"the dark ages never happened"
>>597558
Sounds amazing.
>>597519
>"The American revolution was anything besides tax evasion"
This.
>>597612
I've never seen anyone claim 3, 4 or 5
You're wrong on 1.
>>597612
>native americans were horrible savages that practiced human sacrifice and were totally uncivilized
nah that was just the Aztecs
>>597484
>The M4 Sherman was a piece of shit tank that at best was only good for its mechanical reliability. It was badly outclassed by every German tank it went up against.
What's really annoying about this one is that you can show statistical analysis of Shermans vs Pz 4's, 5's, and 6's, and people will STILL claim that it was crap, despite winning a hell of a lot more than losing and often inflicting far more losses than it sustained, forcing the Germans to use their tanks as ultra expensive ATGs, sniping from cover and hoping that they don't get flanked and killed; which is not how you're supposed to use armor.
>>597644
kek
>>597678
Where do you live? Around here people claim to know that stuff about natives all the time
>>597569
Yea but the Roman empire was multi-cultural for all of its existence.
>>597751
It was sort of a prerequisite for being an empire those days.
Better examples would include the ancient Persians and the Mongols.
Romans did better as a melting pot of cultures, though.
>>597637
Ah yes The
>Dark ages are a meme
meme
>>597484
>The US didn't have to nuke Japan
>WW1 was all trench warfare
>William Wallace anything
Thanks Braveheart
>The Founding Fathers supported slavery
>The Dark Ages were a thing around the globe
>The Maya were peace-loving scientists that just looked at the stars and stuff
>Ancient Egyptians were black
>The Spartans fought for freedom
Thanks 300
>Native Americans were at one with nature and never fought
>Christopher Columbus was anything but a stupid motherfucker
>>598704
Good choices mate I think I'd agree with every single one
What are your favorite historical misconceptions about the Jews and the Holocaust?
>>598704
While they didn't support it necessarily they certainly made no real attempt at altering slavery and it's economic impact in any meaningful way
The Egypt thing is annoying as a Northeast African, it seems as though westerners of all colors continually see 1. West Africans as the default black African and 2. Anything that deviates from West Africans are the results of admixture with "arabs"/Semites 3. somehow egypt has absolutely no real connection to the rest of Africa and 4.the paintings/statues of Egyptians should be perceived literally as what they and everyone else looked like.
>>598721
That it never happened
Sexual decadence didn't cause the fall of Rome. Lack of birth control caused it. Romans reveled in sexual vice so hard they caused the extinction of the plant silphium used for contraception. Once sex again came with consequences the whole society started to fall apart.
>pommels were mainly used to counterbalance swords even though swords are totally wieldy regardless of pommel and it would decrease the power of a choo
>Lead pipes led to the fall of Rome
I'm sorry, I couldn't make a pun.
>X caused the decline and fall of the Roman Empire
Here's the full list.
>>598975
Why am I not surprised "Jewish influence" is the only hyperlink that has been clicked on
>>598983
Because you're deeply antisemitic
>>598983
I wanted to see why they crated separate page about it.
Sexual decadence, or most kinds of hedonism do make people weaker. This is not a misconception.
>>598975
This reminds me.
Anyone knows any good books detailing the fall of Rome?
>>597573
>have higher birth rates due to less 'decadent' sexuality on average will come to dominate the next century.
How does this work? Because they don't accept gays?
>>598704
>The Dark Ages were a thing around the globe
Said noone ever
>>597751
Rome was multicultural, but not everyone was a Roman citizen. They didn't have the same rights as Romans did.
yeah^well
![chap75[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2vmMQfH.jpg "chap75[1].jpg")
>>597612
>the """""dark"""""" ages
Oh cmon people in medieval europe didn't even know how elephants looked like.
The Romans knew more of the world then any country in medieval europe 1000 years after them, they even established some relations with china.
The Dark ages WERE DARK!
people only lived to 35 in the past also they were stupid and did not clean themselves and lived in mud and only drank alcohol
ww1 everyone spent 24/7/365 in the trench and under constant barrages except when they climbed out of the trench to walk shoulder to shoulder into machineguns
late antiquity to early middle ages was a drop in everything and everyone suddenly became retarded and literally nothing happened and nothing got invented or built or thought of or painted or written also probably because of those dastardly christians
>>599528
what cute elephantinodogs
![marco-polo-carried-in-elephant-car-of-kublai-khan-during-his-visit-AEXM53[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qApKOq0.jpg "marco-polo-carried-in-elephant-car-of-kublai-khan-during-his-visit-AEXM53[2].jpg")
>>599547
more elphantinodogs.
>>599550
haha look at those dorks
i would get one and ride it all day long
>>598954
kek, we were actually taught this as the legitimate reason in elementary.
>>599539
>only drank alcohol
But that's true. It was hard to get drinking water, so everyone drank wine or beer (depending on the region) because it was free from bacteria and shit. It was a lot weaker than today, but it was alcoholic still.
[important historical event] happened because of reasons that are completely relevant to our current political problems
>>599580
And the last 250 years were their worst.
>>599580
>Roman Empire had citizenship.
Including the barbarious germanics.
Refugees Welcome! Ancient style.
>>599486
It's more of an assumption than something people say
>>599595
Shitposting! /pol/ style.
>>597569
Bad management of gothic immigrants*
>>599582
i actually read an author who was criticizing Plato by saying his ideas were fascist.
>>597573
> Europe is actively resisting any efforts at transmitting its values
The problem with blanket statements like that is that they are invariably tied up to what you choose to define as European values, and I'm sorry if this sounds like projecting, but I imagine it's something you do because it suits you politically.
Many people would argue that secularism, tolerance and open-mindedness are European values, and those are certainly being transmitted heavily from generation to generation.
>>599619
Was it Bertrand Russel?
But really, a lot of people say that.
>>599595
This
>>599623
Once you realize that someone's entire argument revolves around some vague word like 'decadence' and the word is defined merely as stuff they dislike, than you realize that their entire argument is literally
>my feels
In general philosophical discussions require something a little more concrete and systematic.
>>599574
it is not true
drinking water was not hard to find, springs, wells, rivers were not unknown to people in the past
water was the most common drink of days gone by just as it is now
people were not retarded, they knew not to drink polluted or dirty water (perhaps dirty by our standards, but not undrinkable)
we even have materials mentioning finding good water sources dating all the way back to antiquity
>>599649
hippocrates, frontinus, vetruvius are some of real long time ago folks that wrote about water, recognizing good water, drinking water, boiling water to remove impurities etc.
(not to mention that it would take strong alcohol to kill bacteria, wine and beer in the distant past would not cut it, nor would their making commonly include processes that might)
>>598975
>hypothermia
those damn roman winters
>>599603
What are you talking about? The Empire was letting Germans and other barbarians settle in Roman land to help re-populate towns and cities, mainly along the border. It was a massive intake of immigrants to stop the severe loss of manpower and drop in economic stagnation.
>>599580 The 4th Century was hardly a Golden Age, the Empire was under so many threats inside and out, that they had to set up the Tetrarchy to calm things down. It was luck that helped Constantine secure the Eastern Empire.
>>598975
>excessive culture
>excessive civilization
>prosperity
wew
>>597484
>Napoleon started the Napoleonic Wars
>>599567
It was mentioned in my toxicology textbook, so maybe there's some truth to it.
>>598704
I'll fix the rest of your stupidity
>The US didn't have to nuke Japan
What is the Soviet Union
>WW1 was all trench warfare
No one forgets the aircraft
>The Founding Fathers supported slavery
Most of them were slaveowners
>The Dark Ages were a thing around the globe
Nobody believes this
>The Maya were peace-loving scientists that just looked at the stars and stuff
No one believes this either
>Ancient Egyptians were black
We wuz kings meme
>Native Americans were at one with nature and never fought
Nobody believes this
>Christopher Columbus was anything but a stupid motherfucker
A crook who knew how to get money and an asshole, but not stupid.
>>599043
Elaborate
How does it make People weaker, what are are you using as a reference i.e who are you comparing the decadent people to, how do you measeur decadence?
>>597484
>Feminism caused the fall of Rome.
>>597484
>Jesus's birth was some kind of miracle instead of just a normal Assbaby coming out. of his mom's rear.
>>599875
>i have no idea what spirituality is
>>597558
Yeah, fuck culture, I'ma have me some drugs and pussy mayne
>>599720
Towns and cities along the border in Gaul had been damaged, yes. But areas inland, Britain, Italy, North Africa, Spain etc. all had a cultural and economic flourishing that wasn't seen for centuries afterwards.
The Germans were not exactly to repopulate the towns anyway, they lived in their own communities of laeti and were primarily for military purposes. The loss of manpower didn't happen until the very end of the century with Theodosius' destructive civil wars and those of Honorius' reign.
>Empire was under so many threats inside and out, that they had to set up the Tetrarchy to calm things down.
That was in response to the Crisis of the Third Century, the 4th century was a time of strong emperors, the successors of prototype strongmen like Aurelian and Diocletian.
>it was luck that helped Constantine secure the Eastern Empire.
The reign of every emperor was based purely on luck, whether or not they were assassinated, the timing of barbarian raids, the volatility of the frontiers due to the potential for usurpers to appear on the Rhine or in Britain, all of these meant surviving more than a year was luck of the draw. Nothing about Constantine was particularly lucky, he was just lucky to succeed Diocletian who had given his successors breathing space from outside threats so Romans could fight each other instead.
>>599623
Not the other guy but values derive from culture but are not all that is culture.Values can't really persist without their underlying cultural substrate.
>>597542
>It weakens the birth rate and by extension the economy and military.
Exactly. See, for example, the militarily crippled USA and the economic midgets that are the Scandies.
>>599968
Bad examples. America is extremely sexually conservative by Western standards. And Scandies are economic lightweights in absolute terms (though not relative to population). Also inertia is a thing.
>>600007
>America is extremely sexually conservative by Western standards.
No it's not. Divorce rates comparable (higher in some parts of Europe, lower in others, fairly uniform ~55% across the US). Premarital sex rates comparable, no figures ready to hand for same-sex activity, no reason to suppose any major difference absence evidence of same, not about to take your word for it.
I will admit one difference: The minority of people willing to SAY they give a shit about "sexual morality" as defined by eg Christianity, is much larger in the US. But the actual practices among that cohort are not much less prevalent; teens subjected to abstinence-only sex ed at the behest of such people have higher, not lower, rates of teen pregnancy, suggesting at best an equal tendency to sexual activity. American prudery is largely about lip-service as part of a politicised pseudo-tribal identification process; it has little to do with actual behaviour.
>And Scandies are economic lightweights in absolute terms (though not relative to population).
So they're not economic lightweights, then. Good chat.
>Also inertia is a thing.
>the model just so happens to be trivially, laughably inaccurate just at the present time, b-but give it time!
>>599809
>but not stupid.
He found America by a horrible miscalculation
>18th century warfare was just men lining up and shooting eachother politely
Why do normies continue to say this meme
>>598975
>communism
>>599623
>secularism, tolerance and open-mindedness are European values, and those are certainly being transmitted heavily from generation to generation.
Yeah all those pakis and nigs in the UK are super tolerant and open!
>>600209
>He found America by a horrible miscalculation
>Implying he could know about the continent in the middle of the fucking way
>Implying investing in a innovative idea about the Earth (it is round, so we can turn around it) while portuguese fags were still afraid of falling in the edge of the world if they sailled too far away
>>600666
*is a sign of being dumb
>>600666
>innovative idea about the Earth
>>600693
>le "earth was considered round way back then" meme
great argument, m8. Now explain to me why everyone found the idea crazy ?
>>600711
Nobody found the idea crazy. Remember how Galileo got into all sorts of trouble for departing from Aristotelian thought? Aristotle, like all the Greeks, stated that the Earth was round; and educated people in the early renaissance all knew that.
Columbus thought the earth was considerably smaller than it was, so much so that you could get to China or India by sailing west before you ran out of provisions. He fiercely resisted the thought that he didn't land in India.
>>600711
>Now explain to me why everyone found the idea crazy
Because they thought, correctly, that the earth was significantly larger than Columbus believed. Your fifth-grade teacher was indeed correct that people laughed at Columbus. That they were right to do so is the key element that's been missing. Google Eratosthenes, btw.
>>600666
>>Implying investing in a innovative idea about the Earth (it is round, so we can turn around it) while portuguese fags were still afraid of falling in the edge of the world if they sailled too far away
Ertosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth in 200 BC. People knew the earth was round.
>>600721
>Implying they couldnt make a big ass expedition to carry on this shit
>Implying they wouldnt risk everything considering how profitful the whole India thing was
>>600729
The only reason Columbus got permission to go at all was that he asked for such a small amount of funding and ships.
Yeah, India is hugely profitable, but this is a crackpot guy spouting a theory that's tinfoil to his contemporaries, and if you're sitting in Ferdinand or Isabella's shoes, you're thinking that this has about a 95% chance of ending in disaster.
The more you spend, the more money you've probably just thrown down the drain. And that's even before you get into the engineering limits of the day as to how big you can make your ships,and consequently how much in the way of stores you can carry: Fresh water was the biggest limit, it's hard to carry long distances. And you often got sickness because you didn't have refridgeration, so it was hard to keep your vegetables good for long distances. You had limits as to how far you can go, even if your ship is infinitely big and has an infinite cargo capacity.
>>600729
>if i just start posting non-sequiturs he'll eventually get bored and i won't have to admit being wrong
And you're right, I eventually will get bored.
>>600721
Mate, according to historical accounts, after the return of Da Gama to Portugal, the King Dom Manuel himself helped in the calculation of the fortune of spices and the profit was not fucking 100 or 200% but 8000%. Now you tell me Spainiards wouldnt risk any motherfucker they find in a travel around the globe to get their hands in the monies.
>>598975
>Paralyzation
Romans had polio?
>>600749
Mate, what does any of this have to do with how retarded Columbus was, or whether or not the educated classes of the time knew the Earth was round?
Is it nothing? Does it have NOTHING to do with those things? Really? Nothing?
Then why the fuck are you mentioning it?
>>600772
The thing is : Even if spaniards knew the Earth was a long globe to turn around they would risk every fucking thing because of le monies
>>600782
Many people didnt belive Columbus because they REALLY thought you could fall from the "edges of planet"
>>600793
[citation needed]
>>600793
The king Phillip only gave some tips for Columbus expedition because he was batshit crazy and because of the whole Isabella shit. But if it wasnt for that, nobody would believe the right idea of Columbus
>>600796
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery
>from the 15th century
>At the time, Europeans did not know what lay beyond Cape Non (Cape Chaunar) on the African coast, and whether it was possible to return once it was crossed.[37] Nautical myths warned of oceanic monsters or an edge of the world, but Prince Henry's navigation challenged such beliefs: starting in 1421, systematic sailing overcame it, reaching the difficult Cape Bojador that in 1434 one of Prince Henry's captains, Gil Eanes, finally passed.
>>600313
>/pol/ resorts to ad hominen when it is forced to define it's terms
>automatically assumes if someone disagree's with his vaguely defined terms they must be a liberal scumbag
Fuck off. It's things like this that make conservatives get the reputation of being morons.
>>600825
[not in citation given]
>>600839
You were complaining about the part where i said about people still believing of edges and shit
>>600858
Just because there was the Rennaicensse and all the "back to the greeks" shit, it doesnt mean they automatically unlocked all greek knowledge and probably Erastotenes works werent very well know, so people would still believe about the flat earth and shit...
>>598975
>Tiredness of life
they'd had enough, they just gave up
>>599818
>How does it make People weaker, what are are you using as a reference i.e who are you comparing the decadent people to, how do you measeur decadence?
In the same way a drug addiction makes people weak.
You compare the decadent people with those that came before them. This is even a common theme, all over the world.
>>598975
>Inertia
>>600881
I assume it means some kind of unstoppable force meets immovable object kind of thing
>>597484
I realize this is only something that retarded neo-nazis and /pol/ say, but the whole meme of
>The Holocaust only happened because of Allied strategic bombing
Annoys the hell out of me. It's so off from history, it's not even wrong. Wrong would be an improvement.
>>600856
I actually talked to someone that knew about this when the study was at.
According to him at that time period the hot trend in politics was to talk about over-population, basically it was that generations "global warming scare". Anyone that got on the band wagon got a lot of positive media attention.
According to him the experiement was designed to give the outcome of failure, sort of like how we have a lot of faulty experiments that are rigged to say extreme things about global warming/gays.
The fault in the experiment is that the mice are not given the option to move out of their city. There for you cannot draw any conclusions about how population affects humans because humans DO move when they feel unhappy with the surroundings.
>>600858
>You were complaining about the part where i said about people still believing of edges and shit
Yes. You've shown me a Wikipedia article that mentions "nautical myths", which doesn't even attempt to support the notion that the educated classes of the time weren't aware that the earth is round.
Historians 500 years from now won't point to conspiracy theories about the moon landing and use them to argue that everyone considered the moon landings to have been staged.
>>600895
I've never even heard of this before, what kind of reasoning would bring someone to that conclusion?
>>600871
No but what do 'strength' and 'weakness' consist of, here.
>>600904
/pol/tard reasoning.
But it's usually expressed along the lines of
>Well, Germany wasn't the only place to have concentration camps, look at the U.S, they interned Japanese people, and they didn't die in droves.
>Clearly, the only reason that you had high death rates in the camps was because unlike the U.S., Germany had its infrastructure destroyed by Allied bombing, which made it hard to get food and medicine to the camps!
>>600871
You arn't answering the guys question. You still have not explained what decadence means.
It's the Euthyphro all over again. He's asking for a non-vague definition of the word and the way that you measure it and you can't do that. Saying "it's like a drug addiction" is a shitty analogy, it doesn't tell us anything other than you think it's something negative.
>>599623
>Many people would argue that secularism, tolerance and open-mindedness are European values, and those are certainly being transmitted heavily from generation to generation.
Those were NEVER European values, not for thousands of years. Europe was NEVER egalitarian or tolerant. Those values only started to take root in the 17th century. They're modernist values, not European values.
>>600928
>'european' as a proper adjective refers solely to states of affairs predating the 17th century
>because i said so
>>597582
Says who?
you?
>>600909
my god, that's absurd
>>600928
So wait a minute you are saying that the values a society has had for 400 years are not "it's values?" Your post basically says that democracy and freedom are not European values. Also you inserted egalitarian into the equation when it was never the other cannon's position.
>>600976
I didn't ask what you meant by sexual decadence, I asked what you meant by 'strength' and 'weakness'.
>>600699
Wait who's that supposed to be? I was going to say Augustine but he was dead by 452.
>>600993
Someone that is less capable of controlling himself is weaker.
>>600976
So let's put your argument together.
1. "degeneracy" destroys society
2. Degeneracy is defined as sexual promiscuity
3. It does this by lowering birth rates which in turn weakens a military
First of all I've already mentioned that low birth rates are the result of the increasingly high expenses needed to raise a children, having 5-8 children is a strategy that dooms them to poverty while having 1-2 children allows you to actually send them to a decent college and buy them nice things. This counters point 3.
Second you should really read Foucault's history of sexuality. The idea that 'sexual promsciuity' was a very bad thing emerged in the late Roman period and was than borrowed by Christians, who normalized the idea. So before this period society was far more liberal sexually and was able to create great empires like the Persian and Greeks. The campaign against sexuality ironically happened during the decline of the society. So while there may be arguments for a sexually conservative society saying that it was 'always this way' is not such an argument. This counters point 1.
As for your defination itself, I think that trying to pin all social problems on sexuality is a really shallow understanding of the world.
As for your personal question. I don't believe being sexually promiscuous has any inherit negatives, it's something more complex than a simple yes or no. I think it can be done properly in one's early years. An individual that never really explores sexuality is confident in this regard and it can lead to psychological problems. And frankly such people are very easy to manipulate sexually.
>>601013
So if a person wants to have lots of sex and chooses to do so they are not in control (inb4 a person's desires are somehow a seperate item from their identity)
But if a person followers a social normality about how to conduct their body than they are in control.
This really doesn't make sense as far as definitions go. A person in control would be one that freely chooses how they want to approach sexuality, while a person who is not in control would be reliant on others to tell him or her how it works.
>>601014
I never said degeneracy destroys society or lowers birth rates.
I said promiscuous people are weaker because they can't control themselves. If you practice temperance, you become more temperate. This is obvious.
Society in most of Greece was not liberal in regards to sex.
>As for your personal question. I don't believe being sexually promiscuous has any inherit negatives, it's something more complex than a simple yes or no. I think it can be done properly in one's early years. An individual that never really explores sexuality is confident in this regard and it can lead to psychological problems. And frankly such people are very easy to manipulate sexually.
You don't think being a slave to sexual pleasure makes you a worse person?
Would you marry a promiscuous woman?
>>601022
Don't you think that "Someone that is less capable of controlling himself is weaker."?
>>601029
>So if a person wants to have lots of sex and chooses to do so they are not in control (inb4 a person's desires are somehow a seperate item from their identity)
Someone that indulges in pleasure gets "addicted" to it. And usually, the more pleasure something gives, the more it is addicting.
Eventually, those desires end up "commanding" the person. Isn't this common? How many people say they do what they do for sex?
>But if a person followers a social normality about how to conduct their body than they are in control.
You don't decide to practice temperance because "society" tells you to do so. You do so because you recognize that temperance is important and you want to be your own master.
Take our society. Do you think someone practicing temperance is following social normality?
>>601051
>Don't you think that "Someone that is less capable of controlling himself is weaker."?
What are the situations in which they cannot control themselves, though? Specifically consider soldiers raping and plundering after a successful siege.
>>601051
>You don't think being a slave to sexual pleasure makes you a worse person?
Sexual desires are a part of one's self. You are essentially asking if I want to be a slave to myself....
>Would you marry a promiscuous woman?
I imagine there would be some people being fine marrying such a woman and people that would not. Either way both the woman and the guy marrying them would be said to lack self-control if they made their decision based on spooks rather than what they genuinely want for them-self.
My personal answer is no I wouldn't marry a promiscuous woman I'm going to marry a man. I am equally fine with a promiscuous and conservative man, although I seem to have ended up with the latter.
>>600826
Cuckservatives like you are what's wrong with conservatism.
>>600978
>not understand Nietzsche
>>600934
>not understanding Plato
>>601091
>What are the situations in which they cannot control themselves, though?
Everyday life.
You pretend to not be who you are in order to have sex, for example.
Or you spend money in a way that will make you more likely to have sex.
If your desire controls your actions, you are not your master. The desire is your master.
>Specifically consider soldiers raping and plundering after a successful siege.
They became rapists and robbers. Is this a good thing? Would you like yourself if you became a rapist and a robber? You were so weak that you became a beast. You are not a human anymore.
>>601073
>Someone that indulges in pleasure gets "addicted" to it. And usually, the more pleasure something gives, the more it is addicting
Slippery slope.
>How many people say they do what they do for sex?
Anyone that isn't a cuck. If you want monogomy do that, if you want an orgy do that.
>You don't decide to practice temperance because "society" tells you to do so. You do so because you recognize that temperance is important and you want to be your own master.
Take our society. Do you think someone practicing temperance is following social normality?
There are multiple societies and multiple social norms. So yes in some circles practicing temperance is just confirming to what is expected of you. If YOU PERSONALLY believe temperance is fine than good for you. However if you want to set up temperance as a universal law that is above the individual ego, than you are just setting up a different social norm an saying people should follow it.
>>601096
>Sexual desires are a part of one's self. You are essentially asking if I want to be a slave to myself....
You have your rationality and you have your urges. When your rationality controls your actions, you are the boss. When your urges control your actions, they are the boss. Not you.
>I imagine there would be some people being fine marrying such a woman and people that would not. Either way both the woman and the guy marrying them would be said to lack self-control if they made their decision based on spooks rather than what they genuinely want for them-self.
A guy marrying a promiscuous woman is idiotic if he doesn't want to get cheated and divorced. Which, by the way, he shouldn't desire.
>>601103
Kid. I read and Nietzsche. And Nietzsche DOESN'T like "European" values exactly because they are egalitarian. He likes Greek values, and the values of certain higher men.
>>601108
>thinks slippery slope is a fallacy
>>601114
And those are the European values of antiquity, as opposed to modernism, your "European values".
>>601108
>Slippery slope.
You don't think that it is the case?
That a person that indulges in a lot of sexual pleasure will have a harder time not indulging in it than someone that doesn't?
>Anyone that isn't a cuck. If you want monogomy do that, if you want an orgy do that.
Could you explain this better?
>There are multiple societies and multiple social norms. So yes in some circles practicing temperance is just confirming to what is expected of you. If YOU PERSONALLY believe temperance is fine than good for you. However if you want to set up temperance as a universal law that is above the individual ego, than you are just setting up a different social norm an saying people should follow it.
In our modern society, people make fun of those that practice temperance. And they are stupid to do so.
Being your own master is a good thing.
>>601106
>not being capable of argument beyond vague greentexting
>>601107
>If your desire controls your actions, you are not your master. The desire is your master.
This type of garbage is always circular logic.
Do you desire to control yourself? Well than you are being controlled by your desires. Do you desire temperance? Than you are being controlled by your desires
BTW this is ultimately what the anti-egoism of Hinduism and Buddhism, the only way to be truely free of desire is the complete destruction of the ego, but it must be done in a completly detached way because desiring freedom is itself another trap. Anti-egoist crap where you try to say 'desire is evil' ultimately ends up an emotionally dead zombie.
>>597484
> a single thing led to the fall of the roman empire which happened immediately.
>>601113
>You have your rationality and you have your urges. When your rationality controls your actions, you are the boss. When your urges control your actions, they are the boss. Not you.
Please stop with this dualist crap. Urges are ALWAYS a part of you. Take a fucking class in psychology, the subconscious part of your brain is ticking 24/7 and you can't just turn it off.
Ultimately your position is hypocrisy your too are being controlled by will to make your society survive, by a will to community, by a will to temperance. You didn't sit down with a calculator and reach your conclusions with math, they were guided by instinctual desires about group survival.
And kid. Your 'urges' and 'rationality' come from the exact same source, the physical brain. So the "you" that is in charge is equally all parts of the brain.
The only way your argument makes sense is with dualism where the basis for identity is not the physical brain but some disconnected ghost. As long as the basis for identity is a physical brain than every part of that brain will be your identity.
>>601107
>If your desire controls your actions, you are not your master. The desire is your master.
>if you do not master your desires, your desires will master you
Hearty chuckle had at this complimentary-calendar level pseudo-profundity. Pic related.
>Would you like yourself if you became a rapist and a robber? You were so weak that you became a beast. You are not a human anymore.
The question is more about whether or not YOU would like yourself if you dodged awkward questions in a discussion. The question has been asked of you: Consider the actions of soldiers in ancient times after a successful siege. These are disciplined soldiers who are part of a military unit. Can you account for their behaviour in terms of your crude metric for assessing strength and weakness? I'm proposing that you can't. Ball's in your court, mewling about DERE RAPISS DOE won't do you any good; it doesn't answer the question and I'm not inclined to ignore that fact.
>>601127
>>Anyone that isn't a cuck. If you want monogomy do that, if you want an orgy do that.
>Could you explain this better?
Let's say someone does something sexually that does not come entirly from their own ego. It could be a conservative Christian refusing to have per-material sex because of social pressure or an insecure whore being promiscuous to get approval.
In this case the indivual is not in control, they are spooked.
On the other hand if you for no reason other than that you want to: either engage in complete monogamy or in daily orgies than you are in control.
A great many people fall into the second category so these people get exactly what they want from their sex life.
>>601132
The desire to be in control is the only good one. This is something in your power and if you succeed it leads to eudaimonia.
>>601156
You don't think you can control your urges?
>>601157
Yes, it does. They were weak, couldn't control themselves and now will have to live knowing they are shit.
By weak, I don't mean physically weak. 90's Mark Kerr was physically strong, but weak. He himself would say that.
>>601176
I wrote:
>How many people say they do what they do for sex?
you wrote
>Anyone that isn't a cuck. If you want monogomy do that, if you want an orgy do that.
I meant that if you choose your actions based on your desire for sex, sex is your master. You are working for sex.
>>601185
>They were weak, couldn't control themselves and now will have to live knowing they are shit.
But they didn't consider themselves shit. They considered it their natural right and just reward for hard work well executed. Hard work whose execution required great discipline, or 'strength' as you call it.
I don't think you're going to be able to square that circle, chief.
>>601185
>You don't think you can control your urges?
You are missing the point. The point is your urges are an aspect of you. They are not a seperate item, they ARE you. If that one part of your brain that is helping you read this text is 'you' than so is that part of your brain that gives you an urge to eat food, have sex, or protect your clan.
>The desire to be in control is the only good one
Again you are fighting with yourself. For fuck sakes you actually think that all the desires nature has given you are 'bad' or 'evil'. This is what Nietzsche calls "life-denying". And again a person's emotions and rationality are two sides of the same coin they are not separate items. "You" are the complete psychological and biological state of your brain.
>>601190
>But they didn't consider themselves shit. They considered it their natural right and just reward for hard work well executed. Hard work whose execution required great discipline, or 'strength' as you call it.
That's a good point. I concede.
>>601202
Some people control their urges better than others. Do you think they are equal?
> Nietzsche
Died miserable. He is not a guide for a good life.
>>600897
That is a really fucking stupid point.
We are talking about overpopulation on a global scale, meaning that everywhere is overpopulated. Atleast everywhere where you can sustain a life without going full caveman.
The expirement was just there to show what happens in an environment which is densely populated, how you interpret it is up to you. Dismissing this experiment because "hurr mice do not book a flight to another country" is nit picking at best though.
A genetical trait or more complex constellation that is responsible for the control of reproduction in a population can not be dismissed that easily imo.
Hell, this is /his/ here, everyone knows that people are constantly stepping on each others toes throughout history and it ends in a mutuall extermination, it is not hard to believe that somewhere along the road something clicks in peoples heads and they chose a less bloody alternative.
>>597484
This post works because it looks like he's holding a dido in his right hand
>>601189
>I meant that if you choose your actions based on your desire for sex, sex is your master. You are working for sex.
And if you choose your actions based on your desire to NOT be controlled, than you are not your mastery either eh?
Look pal I'll explain 3 modes of understanding.
1. Hard Dualism. The physical body and physical brain is not "you", any urges that come from them is you being controlled by outside forces. In this case the "you" is an immaterial soul which has no desires for sex.
2. Eastern shit. There is a "you" and it is completely transcendent, it's not material, it's not a soul either. All desires are 'another thing' which is trying to control you, desire is itself a lack of control. But the desire to be free is itself a desire. So you must destroy your ego and "act without thinking" and "be like water". Any desire for anything including the desire to have no desire breaks this.
3. Egoism. The "you" is your body and it is your mind. Thus any desire is "your desire". The thing that tries to control you is other people and social forces (spooks). Thus one when one follows their ego they are following themself, when one followers other they are a slave. All desires that come from you, are your own desires.
So whether or not something "controls you" is based on what you define as "you". There are other definations of "you" but I won't get into that.
Philosophy is super complicated like this.
>>601214
>We are talking about overpopulation on a global scale, meaning that everywhere is overpopulated
Nope. There are plenty of places that not populated. You can find places in the USA where you need to take a car just to get to your neighbor. The reason they are unpopulated is because the only life style there is to self-sustain with farming. You don't get an income so you can't afford all the cool gadgets.
People are CHOOSING to live in crowded cities because they are willing to accept some of the bad parts of it in-exchange for the wonders of modern civilization. And there are many people that choose to leave. A lot of people like to retire to these middle of nowhere places.
The rats in the experiment had no choice. It's like being trapped in New York and told you are cannot leave and go to the country. Bad anaology.
>>601238
>And if you choose your actions based on your desire to NOT be controlled, than you are not your mastery either eh?
If you choose your actions so that you can eventually be able to control yourself, you are in your way to improvement. Isn't that good?
Do you think making a decision rationally and making a decision based on your primitive urges are the same thing? That a self controlled person and a crack addict are as good as each other?
>>601214
Actually the mice study is not about overpopulation in itself iirc. What led to social entropy and eventual collapse was that social roles were pretty much all taken so eventually a whole lot of the population is socially pointless (whence those mice who became "beautiful ones")
Mice society is a bit simpler than human society and I suppose it has less variety of necessary roles, but it is not really that much simpler anyway
>>597484
>"Germanic tribes didnt feel related to each other"
Even though they fought themselves all the time in times war danger from the outside they formed coalitions.
>>601285
also thats why single warchiefs could unite several tribes who felt totally unrelated with each other.Yeah sure.........
>>597542
>It weakens the birth rate and by extension the economy and military.
How would sexual decadence weaken the birth rate in ancient Rome? It's not like condoms or abortion were safe or widespread (though they existed)
Also, Sexual decadence hasn't weakened the birth rate in the modern day either. Prosperity and education have, as well as women in the work place. Even Muslims in the west have only one or two kids.
>>601251
Sexual desires are an innate part of the mind. You are seriously comparing that to crack.
>Do you think making a decision rationally and making a decision based on your primitive urges are the same thing?
I've already explained this, you are already bond up in your primitive ape urges to protect the tribe with your idea. Basic psychology tells us that your subconscious mind is working 24/7. And we also learn the subconscious and the conscious are just two halves of the same whole.
I already tried to explain to how your ideas only make sense if we accept hard dualism or eastern shit here. "What controls you" is bound up in the question "what is you"
>>601238
If this concept is over your head (and I'm guessing it is) you should probably stop posting and do some reading. You are argueing in circles without addressing anything, for someone that claims to be logical you sure fucking appeal a lot of emotions "Don't you feel it would better to do x" "How do you feel about y". Why don't you try actually addressing the point I made here? >>601238
>>601355
Who cares if they both came from the brain?
Your rational mind and your primitive ape urges are not the same thing.
>>599582
Heres a better image 4 u
>>601418
The thing is you can't "escape" your "primitive ape urges". Let's take you. You think of people believe a certain thing than it will make society better. Well that's just your primitive ape urges telling you to protect the clan.
There is no "rational" reason to bother caring if the human species prospers or decays. Caring about the survival of the species is strictly an emotional affair.
Group survival IS just "primitive ape brain urges"
<le dark ages meme ayy lmao 2bh familia
In all seriousness, what are some good books on the 'dark ages'?
>>599951
>all had a cultural and economic flourishing that wasn't seen for centuries afterwards.
A few roads and trading to a central place isn't flourishing economics.
>>601469
>human nature
>The most older job of all time is prostitute and not historian
>The Middle-Age was all dark without any technological advancement
>The Renaissance
>Prehistory era is full "OONGA BOOGA"
>Europeans did a genocide to the native people from the New World
>>600062
underrated post
>>600737
I smells me a spicy new meme.
>>597569
>laughing_Greeks.jpg
>>601469
Being more rational is a prize by itself, regardless of the consequences for society. What differentiate humans from other animals is rationality.
>>599582
>Human nature changes
>>599809
Your optimism is admirable.
>>602307
>'human nature' is an actual thing
>>602332
>Humans are magical things that act %100 randomly with no consistent patterns or uniform mechanics which facilitate their behaviors
>>601469
The rational reason is that pain is a very real and unfavorable thing which it is worthwhile to prevent or mitigate.
Extending that to other is also logical, as their is strength in numbers.
>>602336
>human behaviour is constant and unchanging over time; evolution is a fool's lie and material circumstances do not impact the platonic form that is HUMAN NATURE
>>600263
>"why did they wear those gaudy uniforms, everybody could see them"
>"why did they stand so close?"
>"those hats seem really stupid"
I fucking feel you
>>602349
2000 years is an insignificant time in evolutionary terms, given human generation duration. Human nature shapes the reaction and adaption to material circumstances, not visa versa.
>>597488
>Augustine
Augustine was a prick ass player who got mad when his game wasn't so fly no mo.
>>602342
>The rational reason is that pain is a very real and unfavorable thing
This isn't rational. It's the most basic form of feelings possible. You avoid pain because it feels bad. There is no rational reason to prefer pleasure over pain, that's an emotional reason. All you are fucking doing is showing how humans need to be at least partially emotionally guided in order to function.
>Extending that to other is also logical, as their is strength in numbers
Enjoying the pleasures of life does not prevent society from gathering in large numbers, in fact pleasure is how people bond. They get together have a good time and become friends or lovers. And again caring about group survival is literally one of the most base instinctual desires, that's your reptilian brain thinking.
>>602360
>2000 years is an insignificant time in evolutionary terms
So "human nature" does change, then. Good chat.
>>602376
Not over a duration which is meaningful for most historical discussion.
Arguably, by the time the biological contributors to behavior have consistently altered, specialization has occurred.
>>602390
~speciation
>>602390
>Arguably, by the time the biological contributors to behavior have consistently altered, specialization has occurred.
The standard for speciation is that the two clades can't interbreed, so this is almost certainly false.
>>602367
Rationality can only arise from a drive, which will inevitably be "emotional" in nature in all known life.
This does not diminish that decisions can be rational.
>>602406
The general process of speciation incorporates the production of subspecies in the shorter term by disruptive selection.
Besides, you miss the point. Basic biological drives for human nature are sufficiently conserved that human nature only ceases to be so when the bearer ceases to be "human."
>>597484
Not exactly something I'm sick of hearing, but something I'm sick of people not grasping the importance of.
Before you had modern medicine, death in childbirth, or more properly from infections caused by childbirth, was horrifically common. It varied somewhat depending on where you were and what the local social norms involving cleanliness were, but for a lot of places and times, we're talking 1 in 5. And that's per pregnancy, not per woman. Given that most women would bring multiple babies to term, the odds of a preindustrial woman dying from childbirth and complications is virtually certain.
It's amazing how few people think about this. Especially feminists, which you think they would be interested in if they want to get their theories about how the "Patriarchy" got started.
>>599491
After Caracalla, which was way, way before the Goths became a thing, everyone was a citizen anon. It was more of a problem for the people who got citizenship than the Empire, because Caracalla just had no monies and needed to expand the tax base. Rome was a broke, deteriorating shithole well before the Gothic era.
>It was okay to take over North America because "the indigenous people didn't practice agriculture"
>>600928
You're even admitting that European values are hard to define and constantly changing. What are we even debating?
>>598975
One can expand on this:
>Rome /fell/
I mean, it did fall in the sense that it was taken over and some things were lost. But it wasn't like the lights were turned off and the building abandoned.
Fucking Chlodovechus and other rulers adopted pretty much all the institutions, and sometimes even the personnel, that defined Roman living and rule.
Normies tend to think the whole thing just disappeared.
>"I stand for traditional values"
>"traditional"
>actually just a distorted reinterpretation of a mix of late and early modernist values, all repackaged in the mid 20th century
>>600953
It's not that absurd, I'm not sold on it but it's not as cut and dry as it seems. Look into it.
>>597484
THIS ONE PISSES ME OFF THE FUCKING MOST
>Swords were heavy
I'VE HAD SO MANY PEOPLE TRY TO TELL ME THAT SWORDS WERE ALL AT *LEAST* 10 POUNDS
I HAD ONE JACKASS IMPLY THAT YOUR AVERAGE BROADSWORD WAS 40 POUNDS
SOME FUCKWAD TRIED TO TELL ME THAT A CLAYMORE WEIGHED 60 FUCKING POUNDS
THIS FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT MEME PISSES ME OFF SO MUCH REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Are people really arguing that self control and being rational aren't a good thing?
>>603412
well that depends
Do I think people should work for what they get, avoid disease and generally apply themselves? Sure
Do I therefore believe that drugs, alcohol and arbitrary definitions like "sexual immorality" should be frowned upon? God no.
Being able to afford the decadent shit in life like drugs and alcohol is the reason I go to work in the morning, beyond that, it's nobody's business.
>>603428
No offense, but I kind of feel sad for you, if that's what makes you live. Do you have depression?
>>603460
I didn't say it's why I live, I said it's why I go to work and make money.
Besides, no depression with self-medication
>>600263
because of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBFpw-459VU
is this video realistic btw?
>>603471
Well that was fucking gay.
>>597484
Never heard any one say that
>>603471
>britbongs are gay
absolutely realistic
>>603468
You take anti-depressants and the reason you work is so that you can afford alcohol and drugs.
Isn't that pretty bad?
>>603471
Not at all.
>>598975
>Degeneration
God fucking damn it Triple H
>>597484
It did not cause it, but, it played a part.
Overall, too much indulgence in various pleasure giving activities causes laziness, indifference, hedonism. As you can see with today's society only caring about "MUH ASS MUH SEX MUH WEEED YO"
>>604638
It was all Shawn Michaels fault.
>>597569
i thought people with anti-immigration views have pro-european views. wouldnt european goths entering the roman empire be a good thing?
>>604654
>As you can see with today's society only caring about "MUH ASS MUH SEX MUH WEEED YO"
And tomorrow you'll post about SJWs and the pernicious influence of Cultural Marxism, without blinking.
>>598975
>Christianity
That's the same as saying "Truth killed the Roman Empire."
If it did, then it deserved to die.
>>604985
Your just assuming that because it is what you see in the news today. Most societies throughout history (european, african, native american, asian) have disliked immigrants.
>>598954
i dont think its was lead pipes alone but what are you saying? lead pipes dont cause poisoning?
>>602443
>The general process of speciation incorporates the production of subspecies in the shorter term by disruptive selection.
But then you hamstring your own point about speciation. Pick a spot and stick with it.
>Basic biological drives for human nature are sufficiently conserved that human nature only ceases to be so when the bearer ceases to be "human."
Gotcha, so you flee to a naive reductionism in a last-ditch bid to preserve the existence-in-reality of "human nature". "Human nature" is thus "Whatever humans do, once they stop they're not human anymore".
"Basic biological drives" are: drink; eat; procreate. Everything else, on this weirdo reductionist account, is an abstraction of one of those three. And yeah I agree, if that's how we define "human nature" then human nature is unlikely to change any time soon. It seems odd, though, to define "human nature" such that it could equally describe "dolphin nature" or "camel nature" or "digger wasp nature". And it seems futile on a quixotic scale to refer to that in an effort to account for eg the fall of Rome. May as well bring up the second law of thermodynamics.
>>605032
It is a bill maher reference i believe. They were joking about the detroit water scandal
>>605034
>Hamstring
We're talking physiology, not anatomy.
>"Whatever humans do, once they stop they're not human anymore".
Most neurochemical interactions from which human behavior, and indeed general animal behavior, arise are exceedingly consistent given their high conservation. Meaningful change will not occur and reach fixation in such time as a species remains itself.
Basically, in a time too short for synpatric speciation to occur, the underpinnings of behavior will not alter sufficiently to consider nature to be changing. To time scale is too far separated.
>Everything else, on this weirdo reductionist account, is an abstraction of one of those three.
Everything else arises via complex patterns of association with those basic drives.
>It seems odd, though, to define "human nature" such that it could equally describe "dolphin nature" or "camel nature" or "digger wasp nature".
I do not see how. You very well could make general assessments of their behavioral patterns as they arise from consistent biological foundations, and label them to be their "natures." Ethology more or less does, even if not using that term.
So, do you believe there to be no fundamental, underlying foundation for human action? We act with nothing to facilitate it? Human mechanics are chemical, consistent, and definable.
Also, Rome is not my discussion.
>>605177
>We're talking physiology, not anatomy.
Ah no no no. You sez:
>>602390
>Arguably, by the time the biological contributors to behavior have consistently altered, specialization has occurred.
Then I sez:
>>602406
>The standard for speciation is that the two clades can't interbreed, so this is almost certainly false.
Then you sez:
>>602443
>The general process of speciation incorporates the production of subspecies in the shorter term by disruptive selection.
So you thus concede that "speciation" isn't necessarily the massive epoch-spanning process your original point depended on its being.
>So, do you believe there to be no fundamental, underlying foundation for human action?
Oh, there is, yeah - the laws of physics. You can take your psychological motivations (mere abstractions of biochemical impulses [which are mere abstractions of organic compound formation {which is a mere abstraction of the exquisite interplay of mass and energy through the matrix of the physical laws}]) and tell whatever bedtime stories you like with them.
I even have a bonus in that the laws of physics really, truly, no-foolin' don't change, unlike your squishy neurochemical spasms.
>>597552
Literally, and at it's most base it means falling.
It is so often connected to extravagance that it has come to mean that.
What is called sexual decadence would have been originally call moral decadence, meaning their sexual practices were a fall from the established social morals of the time. So too was simple extravagance when compared to the roman ideal of a stoic solder society.
>>605224
>sez, sez, sez
Still no discussion of anything distinctly anatomical.
>So you thus concede that "speciation" isn't necessarily the massive epoch-spanning process your original point depended on its being.
No, even its more rapid forms take a massive amount of time thanks to genetic conservation, my key point. I was clarifying that speciation as a general process needn't compromise interbreeding to be in action, however irrelevant that is anyway. That behavioral foundations may persist even across species given their consistency is more in line with my argument.
>Oh, there is, yeah - the laws of physics. You can take your psychological motivations (mere abstractions of biochemical impulses [which are mere abstractions of organic compound formation {which is a mere abstraction of the exquisite interplay of mass and energy through the matrix of the physical laws}]) and tell whatever bedtime stories you like with them.
This is in line with my position, I don't care to carry the reduction to the level of physical laws, though, since they are not uniquely binding to humans and do not alone describe human behavior, unlike an ethological assessment of our neurochemistry.
At the end of the day though, the chemical underpinnings of human behavior are sufficiently conserved so as to not change meaningfully and consistently within a duration relevant to historical discussion of this sort.
>>597484
decadence led to the fall of rome, when you aren't lean and mean you will find that others will turn up and fuck you. It's the eternal cycle of creation and destruction. The focus on sex is retarded, decadence simply means that you have too much shit and get lazy basically
>>597484
>Women were ever oppressed.
inb4 some feminists cries 'muh soggy knees!'
>>605291
>That behavioral foundations may persist even across species given their consistency is more in line with my argument.
Every time you shift, you contradict something else that you already said. Your position on this is bizarrely inconsistent and I suspect you're just confabulating as you go.
>I don't care to carry the reduction to the level of physical laws, though, since they are not uniquely binding to humans
Neither are any biological drives you care to name.
>>605469
Just because you can't read, or don't understand, don't accuse me of inconsistency.
>Neither are any biological drives you care to name.
You named specific ones. And no, they are not unique, their consistency is my point. As is the consistency of the more complex neruochemical underpinnings which allow more complex behaviors to arise from the drive they provide.
>>605525
>Just because you can't read, or don't understand, don't accuse me of inconsistency.
Wouldn't dream of it. It's the way you keep being inconsistent, nothing related to illiteracy.
>And no, they are not unique
And therefore not fit for purpose as signifying 'humanity'. It's like saying that the core feature of being a human is having a skeleton. People point out that all mammals have skeletons and you're just like, Well, yeah, so what though, humans have skeletons bro, can't deny it.
Show me a nation that lasted over 1000 years after legalizing homosexuality. Exactly.
God would never allow such nation to exist for that long.
>>605587
Bringam.
>>605587
Think I read somewhere that Poland never actually criminalised it, still going strong.
>>605587
Show me any nation that has lasted for 1000 years.
>>605624
Not him, but the Republic of Venice.
>>605627
huh, didn't really think it was around for that long. Guess i never really thought about it.
>>605577
>Wouldn't dream of it. It's the way you keep being inconsistent, nothing related to illiteracy.
Then explain where I have been inconsistent, such that I may clarify.
>And therefore not fit
The basic drives alone are not, thus it incorporates all of the equally conserved neurochemical pathways which allow behavior to arise. Stop cutting out parts of my argument, the foundation is the basic biological needs, but that is not the end of the complexity of neurochemistry, lest the Id be all there is to anything.
These circumstances don't even have to be unique to us, they must simply be descriptive of us. Aspects of nature can be shared, it isn't about categorization, it is about description and predictive capacity. "Human nature" isn't an assessment of everything that is uniquely human, it what a human is inherently, and thus an assessment of their mechanics.
