>Geyser or some shit in a lake explodes
>Releases a shitload of CO2
>1,700 people suffocate
>doesn't even get it's own fucking wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#1986_disaster
Because novody cares about impoverished blacks?
wikipedia is atrocious for like 90% of human history
>>530463
If it bothers you that much, write one up. That's literally the point of wikipedia.
>Thousands of people dying from a natural disaster in the third-world deserves its own wikipedia article
Kek
Are the gods representations of platonic forms?
>>530121
Isn't everything in existence the representation of some form according to Plato?
>>530121
Nah.
They're real.
>>530142
I don't understand. Are you saying you believe in the gods but not the forms or the forms but not the gods?
Was there any chance of the Gallic Empire and/or Palmyrene Empire surviving? Also would their survival ensure the collapse of Rome or would it still be able to recover from the Crisis of the Third Century?
>>530106
neither of them existed though.. Palmyran empire on your map was lands controlled by Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid. Gauls were never a united empire .. is this meant to be hypothetical?
>>530272
What kind of fucking pleb knows what Ptolemaic Egypt is yet has never heard of the Crisis of the Third Century?
>>530282
A fucking BARBARIAN, that's who!
What went right?
Unbelievable luck in natural resources
>>530087
American support and western technology
Kicking in ottoman shit.
Western "friends" British then american
Are things like good, evil, morals and ethics ultimately subjective and thus pointless?
If so, why bother having any phil/his/ophical threads anymore?
Why follow any morals?
If not, how can you prove it?
Why would we care?
>inb4 tip*
They are contingent, not subjective, though they ultimately refer to subjective desires about the way the world ought to be.
Even if they were subjective you could still discuss them.
>>530027
> subjective
Yes
> pointless
Doesn't follow
>If so, why bother having any phil/his/ophical threads anymore?
Other people having different ideas is part of subjectivity
>Why follow any morals?
Even if you don't believe in them, people who do will wallop you
There's no such thing as evil. Nobody wants to be evil, we just do the best we can. But since we have conflicting opinions, it turns out its easier to disqualify the opposing party as evil.
Lets talk about Chomsky and his work in Linguistics, specifically his views on recursion and Everett's claims about Piraha lacking it. Is this true? Or are Chomsky's claims about Everett being a charlatan more true?
yeah
Regardless of what people say and regardless of my views Chomsky is a genius of our time
>>530011
lel thanks for your opinion
/his/ memes you hear people spout who don't know any better.
>War
>Death
>Famine
>and...
>Pestilence
>Not Conquest
How did this start?
> Hey /his/ I've a question about cultural marxism
> Let me tell you about the jews
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
>>529960
>You needed 5 shermans to take on one panzer, and most of them would die trying!
are there any decent films dealing with germanic tribes, from 3rd century BCE to 5th century CE or so
>>529907
your mom
>>529907
Not that I'm aware of.
>>529907
>all those tribes
>just randomly slap on Odoacer, Syagrius and Nepos
Religion is an anthropological constant throughout human history. In addition, the occult, spirituality, and other forms of divination have been present in almost every human society.
If the idea of God were to have an evolutionary basis, why isn't their a consistent global monoculture of religion that would have developed independently in various parts of the world? Why are the religions of more "archaic" societies based on animism and many deities while more organized ones tend to be monotheistic? What explains the trend from simple to complex and changing religious practices?
Atheists please keep the fedora out of this; this is an anthropological discussion, not an existence, non-existence of otherworldy things ones.
>>529897
This is the most pretentious thing I have read all day. Please kill yourself.
wtf did I just read
i just noticed that as time passes the most powerful entity in history moves to the west
Interesting observation but any kind of pan-Asian union is impossible. East asians nations detest each other and India/Pakistan/Bangladesh will never unite/work together (mostly Pak and India).
>>529868
This makes no sense
If he was nationalistic and liberal
Why did he created an empire with Catalans, Dutch Germans and Italians?
Germans from Lorraine don't apply since they are French wannabes
Also it's wrong to find Napoleon good looking in his young pictures?
>>529614
France's survival depended on the spread on Enlightenment ideas. France's chances of pulling off the Revolutionary Wars again would not be so good. As such, France needed to expand to gain more fighters and resources.
>>529614
>Also it's wrong to find Napoleon good looking in his young pictures?
You'd be wrong if you didn't.
>>529614
Feel free to tear me to shreds if this is wrong, but I remember him saying he would give Poland a national Identity and tried to do the same by unifying Germany
What is the strangest thing used as official/unofficial currency in history?
Early Chinese states apparently used knives as a form of currency.
>>529565
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_money
A bunch of places used cowry shells
>>529565
Some places in Africa used bottlecaps. I think some of them continue the practice today.
Are low birth rates a kiss of death to a civilisation? I don't recall any examples of them being successfully reversed.
>>529528
Only when they allow themselves to be overrun by civilizations with higher birth rates (and the cycle continues)
>>529528
Remember France after the Franco-Prussian war
After WW2 their birth rates went up
Also which civilizations died because low birthrates?
>>529721
In 60 years Japan won't exist
I'm going to drop a truth bomb on you, /his/:
The measure of any given society's civilization and success is how well they respect homosexuals and other sexual minorities. It's true.
Just think about any of the admirable civilizations in history: The ancient greeks who gave birth to Western philosophy and democracy? Accepting of gays. The mighty Roman Republic? Accepting of gays. The culture of the fearsome samurais? Accepting of gays.
During the dark ages, when homosexuals were oppressed, society regressed. When homophobic religious influence was finally driven back by the age of enlightenment, Western societies started to eclipse all others. And today, the most successful nations in the history of mankind are those which are at the same time the most accepting of gays in the history of mankind, allowing them to marry.
At critical junctures in history, it's often gay people who helped further the progress of their nation: Who transformed Prussia into an European great power? Gay old Frederick II. Who was instrumental to the American victory in the war of independence? Gay old Steuben. Who was instrumental to British victory over Nazi Germany? Gay old Turing.
People who are opposed to gay rights effectively, even if unwittingly, are participating in destroying the success of their nation, as demonstrated by history.
>>529497
Dont know if this is bait or you're just retarded but no, just no.
>>529497
Omg, anon, you're so cute. So, any objective evidence to back up your claims, or just loose "hurr, this place accepted gays so that's why they were smart!"?
All those great civilizations would see homosexual marriage as a farce, so I hope that isn't the gay right you're arguing for.
Its easy to say something is wrong or right, logical or illogical, when you're the one who determines the criteria of judgement. And besides, being biased to neutrality still means you're biased. Science is overrated..
it is a fine idol for "atheists" who desperately seek some form of an absolute to fill the void made by rejecting God
modern science fetishists are basically priests of the machine
You are retarded
sage
>>529241
There are these two guys sitting
together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says:
"Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing, and it was fifty below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh, God, if there is a God, I'm lost in this blizzard, and I'm gonna die if you don't help me.'"
And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. "Well then you must believe now," he says, "After all, here you are, alive."
The atheist just rolls his eyes. "No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp." - david foster wallace.
