Are you historically literate?

Societal problems, economics, etc.

What is the last book that you read that is over 50 years old? I mostly read old books. Here are a few I read recently:

various Aristophanes plays
Memoirs of Gluckel of Hameln
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
The Holy Sabbath - Pink
Autobiography of Charles G. Finney
A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts With Introductions
Praise of Folly
Mein Kampf
Solomon Maimon: An Autobiography
Discourses on Livy - Machiavelli
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture

fschmidt wrote:Are you historically literate?
No. I think they had other problems than nowadays.

mkdrive2 wrote:No. I think they had other problems than nowadays.

Ecclesiastes said there is nothing new under the sun (regarding human behavior) and he was right. Consider some examples:

-----------------------------------------------
The ladies of the court at this time were nearly all of abandoned morals. They ran no risk in being faithless to their husbands, as the sin brought no penalty: even if caught in the act, they were unpunished, for all they had to do was to go to the Empress, claim the charge was not proven, and start a countersuit against their husbands. The latter, defeated without a trial, had to pay a fine of twice the dower, and were usually whipped and sent to prison; and the next time they saw their adulterous wives again, the ladies would be daintily entertaining their lovers more openly than ever. Indeed, many of the latter gained promotion and pay for their amorous services. After one such experience, most men who suffered these outrages from their wives preferred thereafter to be complaisant instead of being whipped, and gave them every liberty rather than seem to be spying on their affairs.
-----------------------------------------------
"The Secret History" by Procopius about the Byzantine Empire in mid-500s.

-----------------------------------------------
If you are not to love the woman betrothed and united to you in due form, what reason have you for marrying? Why waste the supper, and the wedding cakes to be given to the well-filled guests when the company is slipping away----to say nothing of the first night's gift of a salver rich with glittering gold inscribed with Dacian or Germanic victories? If you are honestly uxorious, and devoted to one woman, then bow your head and submit your neck to the yoke. Never will you find a woman who spares the man who loves her; for though she be herself aflame, she delights to torment and plunder him. So the better the man, the more desirable he be as a husband, the less good will he get out of his wife. No present will you ever make if your wife forbids; nothing will you ever sell if she objects; nothing will you buy without her consent. She will arrange your friendships for you; she will turn your now-aged friend from the door which saw the beginnings of his beard. Panders and trainers can make their wills as they please, as also can the gentlemen of the arena; but you will have to write down among your heirs more than one rival of your own.

"Crucify that slave!" says the wife. "But what crime worthy of death has he committed? " asks the husband; "where are the witnesses? who informed against him? Give him a hearing at least; no delay can be too long when a man's life is at stake!" "What, you numskull? You call a slave a man, do you? He has done no wrong, you say? Be it so; but this is my will and my command: let my will be the voucher for the deed." Thus does she lord it over her husband. But before long she vacates her kingdom; she flits from one home to another, wearing out her bridal veil; then back she flies again and returns to her own imprints in the bed that she has abandoned, leaving behind her the newly decorated door, the festal hangings on the walls, and the garlands still green over the threshold. Thus does the tale of her husbands grow; there will be eight of them in the course of five autumns----a fact worthy of commemoration on her tomb!
-----------------------------------------------
Juvenal about Rome in the 100s

-----------------------
with thirst enough to drink off the vessel containing full three gallons which is laid at her feet, and from which she tosses off a couple of pints before her dinner to create a raging appetite; then she brings it all up again and souses the floor with the washings of her inside. The stream runs over the marble pavement; the gilt basin reeks of Falernian, for she drinks and vomits like a big snake that has tumbled into a vat. The sickened husband closes his eyes and so keeps down his bile.
-----------------------
more Juvenal

-----------------------------------------------
Youths oppress My people,
and women rule over them.
My people, your leaders mislead you;
they confuse the direction of your paths.
-----------------------------------------------
Isaiah 3:12

-----------------------------------------------
The Lord also says:

Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,
walking with heads held high
and seductive eyes,
going along with prancing steps,
jingling their ankle bracelets,
the Lord will put scabs on the heads
of the daughters of Zion,
and the Lord will shave their foreheads bare.
-----------------------------------------------
Isaiah 3:16-17

Those are just a few example. Feminism was a plague that affected most decaying cultures.

African Intelligence wrote:What did Ecclesiastes say about mental illness and Aspergers? Cause that's your problem, bro.

Please don't insult African intelligence. I have met intelligent Africans. For the sake of Africa's reputation, you should change your user name to "African Stupidity".

fschmidt wrote:Ecclesiastes said there is nothing new under the sun (regarding human behavior) and he was right.
Evidence?

most men who suffered these outrages from their wives preferred thereafter to be complaisant instead of being whipped, and gave them every liberty
That is the most sane response, yes.

If you are not to love the woman betrothed and united to you in due form, what reason have you for marrying?
Yes, marriage is a religious concept that is not really necessary IMO.

No present will you ever make if your wife forbids; nothing will you ever sell if she objects; nothing will you buy without her consent. She will arrange your friendships for you; she will turn your now-aged friend from the door which saw the beginnings of his beard.
We have psychotherapy for women with mental illnesses.

"Crucify that slave!" says the wife. "But what crime worthy of death has he committed? " asks the husband; "where are the witnesses? who informed against him? Give him a hearing at least; no delay can be too long when a man's life is at stake!" "What, you numskull? You call a slave a man, do you? He has done no wrong, you say? Be it so; but this is my will and my command: let my will be the voucher for the deed."
See above.

with thirst enough to drink off the vessel containing full three gallons which is laid at her feet, and from which she tosses off a couple of pints before her dinner to create a raging appetite; then she brings it all up again and souses the floor with the washings of her inside. The stream runs over the marble pavement; the gilt basin reeks of Falernian, for she drinks and vomits like a big snake that has tumbled into a vat.
Eating disorders can also be treated nowadays.

and women rule over them.
My people, your leaders mislead you;
It does not say here how exactly women are misleading the people.

Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,
walking with heads held high
and seductive eyes,
going along with prancing steps,
jingling their ankle bracelets,
They did not do anything criminal in this quote.

the Lord will put scabs on the heads
of the daughters of Zion,
and the Lord will shave their foreheads bare.
The "Lord" was a misogynist. :lol:

Feminism was a plague
You could argue that men's rights also did a lot of damage, i.e. the witch hunt.

African Intelligence wrote:What did Ecclesiastes say about mental illness and Aspergers?
There is nobody with a mental illness. It is all a conspiracy against people who do not follow the rules.
Image

Cause that's your problem, bro.
The one who says that other people have a problem is the one with the problem. :lol:

African Intelligence wrote:Thanks to my intelligence I can read you like an open (historical) book.
All people are experts in dealing with the people they are involved with.

African Intelligence wrote:Fucking hell.
?

Stylite wrote:I love the book called "The Philokalia", I recommend it.
What did you like about that book? How did it help you?

Stylite wrote:I love the book called "The Philokalia", I recommend it.

Thanks, this looks like good shabbat reading. Eastern Orthodox is my favorite current form of Christianity.

mkdrive2 wrote:Yes, marriage is a religious concept that is not really necessary IMO.

No civilized culture existed without marriage. But declining cultures pass laws to ruin marriage.

It does not say here how exactly women are misleading the people.

Yes, the Bible is into the big picture, not the details.

Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,
walking with heads held high
and seductive eyes,
going along with prancing steps,
jingling their ankle bracelets,
They did not do anything criminal in this quote.

The Bible is about morality, not law.

The "Lord" was a misogynist. :lol:

Hating evil women isn't misogyny, of course.

You could argue that men's rights also did a lot of damage, i.e. the witch hunt.

Yes, feminism, MGTOW, MRAs, etc. are all symptoms of the syndrome of societal decay.

fschmidt wrote:No civilized culture existed without marriage.
Why do you think that is the case?

But declining cultures pass laws to ruin marriage.
I don't think it is a good idea to have laws punishing infringement on moral values. Moral values are a personal matter, not the matter of the government.

Yes, the Bible is into the big picture, not the details.
There was no "big picture" in that quote. There was only a claim without evidence.

The Bible is about morality, not law.
[...]
Hating evil women isn't misogyny, of course.
If they are not breaking the law, why do you think they are evil and therefore deserving of punishment? Punishing women without a legimite cause (that is infringement of the law) is misogyny.

Yes, feminism, MGTOW, MRAs, etc. are all symptoms of the syndrome of societal decay.
And bigotry isn't?

mkdrive2 wrote:
fschmidt wrote:No civilized culture existed without marriage.
Why do you think that is the case?

When men compete for women, men can't cooperate and society falls apart.

But declining cultures pass laws to ruin marriage.
I don't think it is a good idea to have laws punishing infringement on moral values. Moral values are a personal matter, not the matter of the government.

Civilized cultures treat marriage as a private contract. This is what traditional Islam and Judaism did. Declining cultures regulate marriage out of existence.

Yes, the Bible is into the big picture, not the details.
There was no "big picture" in that quote. There was only a claim without evidence.

The part of Isaiah discussed here was simply Isaiah's impression of the women at the time. I am not sure what evidence you expect from people giving personal impressions.

Hating evil women isn't misogyny, of course.
If they are not breaking the law, why do you think they are evil and therefore deserving of punishment? Punishing women without a legimite cause (that is infringement of the law) is misogyny.

One can certainly be evil without breaking the law, just look at the top CEOs. The punishment of God is not based on law. To be clear, I view God as simply that force of nature that supports morality and destroys immoral cultures, much like gravity is the force of nature that pulls objects of mass together. Immorality is "punished" in the sense that immoral cultures decline, suffer, and fail.

Yes, feminism, MGTOW, MRAs, etc. are all symptoms of the syndrome of societal decay.
And bigotry isn't?

What exactly do you mean by "bigotry"?

fschmidt wrote:When men compete for women, men can't cooperate and society falls apart.
Why can men not cooperate when they have to compete for women?

Declining cultures regulate marriage out of existence.
The above seems to be your argument?

There was no "big picture" in that quote. There was only a claim without evidence.

The part of Isaiah discussed here was simply Isaiah's impression of the women at the time. I am not sure what evidence you expect from people giving personal impressions.
One cannot blindly trust a random person's "personal impression", and then use that as an argument to prove something.

If they are not breaking the law, why do you think they are evil and therefore deserving of punishment? Punishing women without a legimite cause (that is infringement of the law) is misogyny.

One can certainly be evil without breaking the law, just look at the top CEOs.
What is evil about the top CEOs?

The punishment of God is not based on law.
Yes, a "law" made by a fictional character created by people.

To be clear, I view God as simply that force of nature that supports morality and destroys immoral cultures,
One does not need to create a fictional character that "supports" something to see whether something is true or not.

much like gravity is the force of nature that pulls objects of mass together.
Those two things are not comparable. What is in this quote is undeniably proven by science, with evidence that nobody can doubt even if they wanted to. The above might be true, but is only a speculation if there is no evidence to support it.

Immorality is "punished" in the sense that immoral cultures decline, suffer, and fail.
That is an opinion, not fact until it is proven with evidence.

And bigotry isn't?

What exactly do you mean by "bigotry"?
Wikipedia wrote:Bigotry is the state of [...] someone who, as a result of their prejudices [...] views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's [...] religion [...] or other characteristics.

mkdrive2 wrote:Why can men not cooperate when they have to compete for women?

Let me compare economic competition to sexual competition. In an capitalist economy where theft is illegal, the best strategy is to cooperate and form a business. In an anarchist economy where laws aren't enforced, there is a mix of theft strategy and business. This produces low trust. Sexual competition is the worst because there is virtually no benefit to cooperation. The most success is achieved by ruthlessly pursuing women at other men's expense. This is why all promiscuous societies become low trust and corrupt and fall apart.

Declining cultures regulate marriage out of existence.
The above seems to be your argument?

No, this is just one small point that most people don't realize. In modern society, the government doesn't support morality, it actually works to destroy morality.

One cannot blindly trust a random person's "personal impression", and then use that as an argument to prove something.

Actually, first person impressions are the absolute best source we have for history. In aggregate (across people), this is a very reliable source. And this is the approach the Bible takes. The absolute worst source of information for history is second hand interpretation by historians. This is the source commonly used by modern people, which is why they have such a distorted view of history.

What is evil about the top CEOs?

They buy politicians who pass laws for their benefit at the people's expense. In a corrupt society, the top businessmen are inevitably corrupt and ruthless.

Yes, a "law" made by a fictional character created by people.

One does not need to create a fictional character that "supports" something to see whether something is true or not.

It is very helpful for people of average intelligence to have the forces of nature personified, and this is what the Bible does.

Those two things are not comparable. What is in this quote is undeniably proven by science, with evidence that nobody can doubt even if they wanted to. The above might be true, but is only a speculation if there is no evidence to support it.

Two things not being the same doesn't mean they aren't comparable. A closer example would be evolution which cannot be experimentally proven but which makes perfect sense. The force of morality (God) is about on the level of evolution in terms of believability, and far above string theory.

Immorality is "punished" in the sense that immoral cultures decline, suffer, and fail.
That is an opinion, not fact until it is proven with evidence.

No statement about history can be proven in a scientific sense since we cannot conduct controlled experiments about history. The best that one can do is to read old books (the point of this thread) and see patterns. I think the pattern I described here is obvious to anyone who has read a lot of old books. Modern people are unusually ignorant of history. Modern culture ridicules old books as archaic precisely because a knowledge of history would show modern culture to be evil and doomed.

Wikipedia wrote:Bigotry is the state of [...] someone who, as a result of their prejudices [...] views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's [...] religion [...] or other characteristics.

Based on this definition, everyone is a bigot, but some may be dishonest about it. For example, most Jews would view Nazis with "fear, distrust or hatred". So that makes them bigots, right?
Last edited by fschmidt on Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
PostThis post by mkdrive2 was deleted by Guest on Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:44 pm.

Holy shit. You raised the quality of your arguments by 1000%. Were you messing with me until now?

fschmidt wrote:
mkdrive2 wrote:Why can men not cooperate when they have to compete for women?

In an capitalist economy where theft is illegal,
While things don't have a will of their own, women can very well choose who they are with. What would be comparable with "theft" is if a man rapes another man's woman, and I think that should be punished, yes.

the best strategy is to cooperate and form a business.
I didn't quite understand it first, but you are talking about religious groups?

In an anarchist economy where laws aren't enforced,
That is not what I was suggesting. I think things like violence and rape should be punished, because there can be physical damages.

This produces law trust.
"law trust"?

Sexual competition is the worst because there is virtually no benefit to cooperation.
If I was right that you meant religious groups with cooperation, then I still think they are not necessary.

The most success is achieved by ruthlessly pursuing women at other men's expense.
Not necessary at other men's expense, because women are still the ones deciding which men they prefer, that is if the laws I mentioned above are enforced.

This is why all promiscuous societies become low trust and corrupt and fall apart.
There is still no evidence for this.

Declining cultures regulate marriage out of existence.
The above seems to be your argument?

No, this is just one small point that most people don't realize.
Like I wrote above: Still not convinced.

In modern society, the government doesn't support morality, it actually works to destroy morality.
Marriage is still possible, and rape is still punishable. It does not seem like the government is forcing people to cast off their morals.

One cannot blindly trust a random person's "personal impression", and then use that as an argument to prove something.

Actually, first person impressions are the absolute best source we have for history.
Yes, for possible facts, but not opinions (or in other words "personal impressions").

In aggregate (across people),
Does "in aggregate" mean many people's opinions of that time?

this is a very reliable source.
I disagree. Opinions are opinions, no matter how many people believe in it. If there is no evidence than opinions of the whole world would still be useless.

And this is the approach the Bible takes.
What "approach"?

The absolute worst source of information for history is second hand interpretation by historians.
What are those historians saying?

This is the source commonly used by modern people,
Evidence?

which is why they have such a distorted view of history.
You are believing the opinions of people in the past. I think your view is just as subjective as that of other people.

What is evil about the top CEOs?

They buy politicians who pass laws for their benefit at the people's expense.
That is punishable by law. Not all CEOs do this. Some might do it as a kind of thrill game, even though they don't need the money.

In a corrupt society, the top businessmen are inevitably corrupt and ruthless.
That might be true. Western society isn't that corrupt, though IMO.

One does not need to create a fictional character that "supports" something to see whether something is true or not.

It is very helpful for people of average intelligence
:)

to have the forces of nature personified,
How do you know they are not intelligent enough to learn things in other ways when they are taught early in the childhood?

and this is what the Bible does.
The Bible tells stories. That is a good method to teach small kids, but adults can learn more straightforwardly.

Those two things are not comparable. What is in this quote is undeniably proven by science, with evidence that nobody can doubt even if they wanted to. The above might be true, but is only a speculation if there is no evidence to support it.

Two things not being the same doesn't mean they aren't comparable.
Yes, you are right.

A closer example would be evolution which cannot be experimentally proven but which makes perfect sense.
Is there no evidence to support the evolution theory?

The force of morality (God)
"force of morality"?

is about on the level of evolution in terms of believability,
See question above about evidence to support the evolution theory?

and far above string theory.
"string theory"?

Immorality is "punished" in the sense that immoral cultures decline, suffer, and fail.
That is an opinion, not fact until it is proven with evidence.

No statement about history can be proven in a scientific sense
Actually, it somewhat can. Facts can be extracted from opinions.

since we cannot conduct controlled experiments about history.
"controlled experiments"?

The best that one can do is to read old books (the point of this thread) and see patterns.
I think we can learn from history that democracy is the best kind of government. Also, free speech rights, no censorship. We don't need to read historical books to learn that.

I think the pattern I described here is obvious to anyone who has read a lot of old books.
"patterns"?

Modern people are unusually ignorant of history.
Might be true, but we do learn the important things, i.e. democracy being the best government, etc.

Modern culture ridicules old books as archaic
Source?

precisely because a knowledge of history would show modern culture to be evil and doomed.
No evidence still. As long as no atom bombs fly I don't think modern culture is going to be doomed anytime soon.

Wikipedia wrote:Bigotry is the state of [...] someone who, as a result of their prejudices [...] views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's [...] religion [...] or other characteristics.

Based on this definition, everyone is a bigot,
?

but some may be dishonest about it.
Evidence that this is the case?

For example, most Jews would view Nazis with "fear, distrust or hatred".
That is because Nazis view Jews with hatred, and would like to smash their skulls. Protecting themselves from getting too close to violent people is not bigotry IMO.

So that makes them bigots
?

mkdrive2 wrote:Holy shit. You raised the quality of your arguments by 1000%. Were you messing with me until now?

Thank you. I have been posting for over 10 years and so far a grand total of one person understood what I am tying to say, so I don't exactly put a lot of effort into my posts anymore. My key points are all on my websites. Posting is sort of like fishing, hoping for the occasional nibble.

fschmidt wrote:While things don't have a will of their own, women can very well choose who they are with. What would be comparable with "theft" is if a man rapes another man's woman, and I think that should be punished, yes.

Cattle also have a will of their own. That women have a will of their own doesn't really matter. What matters is that women are a scarce resource that can either be rationed (monogamy) or competed for (promiscuity). The latter case is like theft in the sense that men get extra women at other men's expense, not by trading something other men want for the women.

the best strategy is to cooperate and form a business.
I didn't quite understand it first, but you are talking about religious groups?

This quote was only referring to competition under capitalism.

In an anarchist economy where laws aren't enforced,
That is not what I was suggesting. I think things like violence and rape should be punished, because there can be physical damages.

Anarchism also allows for non-violent crimes like fraud. Seduction of chaste women is a similar non-violent crime.

This produces law trust.
"law trust"?

Sorry, "low trust".

The most success is achieved by ruthlessly pursuing women at other men's expense.
Not necessary at other men's expense, because women are still the ones deciding which men they prefer, that is if the laws I mentioned above are enforced.

It makes no difference whether women decide (or it may even be worse). It is at other men's expense because a man takes a woman who would have chosen another man if not him.

This is why all promiscuous societies become low trust and corrupt and fall apart.
There is still no evidence for this.

You can find hard evidence in the book "Sex and Culture" by anthropologist Unwin.

Declining cultures regulate marriage out of existence.
Like I wrote above: Still not convinced.

This should be obvious at least for modern society where marriage law is designed to encourage women to seek divorce. For historical cultures, you need to study their laws.

Marriage is still possible, and rape is still punishable. It does not seem like the government is forcing people to cast off their morals.

Traditional marriage is strongly discouraged because marriage contracts are ignored and the government enforces anti-marriage laws like divorce laws. Rape is only immoral when unjustified. Most modern women actually deserve to be raped because of their provocative dress and behavior, so I also consider this law a negative.

Actually, first person impressions are the absolute best source we have for history.
Yes, for possible facts, but not opinions (or in other words "personal impressions").

It is very hard to distinguish fact from opinion. For example, is women "going along with prancing steps, jingling their ankle bracelets," fact or opinion?

Does "in aggregate" mean many people's opinions of that time?

Yes.

And this is the approach the Bible takes.
What "approach"?

Aggregating first person accounts.

The absolute worst source of information for history is second hand interpretation by historians.
What are those historians saying?

I don't read them, but based on what other people who do say about history, it is slanted to the view of modern culture. No one seems to understand the arguments for unpopular views and people have very little awareness of social conditions in history since this probably isn't covered in history books.

which is why they have such a distorted view of history.
You are believing the opinions of people in the past. I think your view is just as subjective as that of other people.

No, I read first person accounts which are often contradictory and reach my own conclusions. As an example, I homeschool my kids and to teach them American history, I have them read original arguments of both sides of major historical issues and then debate these issues from both sides. The Bible is rather unique in that it contains contradictory viewpoints. Modernists consider this a flaw, but actually it shows the open-mindedness of those who compiled the Bible, being willing to include different contradictory viewpoints.

They (CEOs) buy politicians who pass laws for their benefit at the people's expense.
That is punishable by law. Not all CEOs do this. Some might do it as a kind of thrill game, even though they don't need the money.

Here in America, it certainly isn't punishable by law. All top CEOs do it. And they are like sharks, always wanting more money, so it doesn't matter what they need.

In a corrupt society, the top businessmen are inevitably corrupt and ruthless.
That might be true. Western society isn't that corrupt, though IMO.

I am an active investor and have business experience, raising venture funding and sitting on a board of directors. Society is very corrupt, but countries like America are better at hiding it than countries like Mexico are. It will take time for the corruption to bankrupt society, but it will inevitably happen.

to have the forces of nature personified,
How do you know they are not intelligent enough to learn things in other ways when they are taught early in the childhood?

The average person doesn't even understand basic math. They just have faith in science in the same way that a Christian has faith in Christ. Some religions aimed a little high, like Confucianism which is really aimed at the elite. Such religions have never worked for the masses.

The Bible tells stories. That is a good method to teach small kids, but adults can learn more straightforwardly.

I disagree. Historical evidence leads me to believe that stories are the most effective method of teaching.

A closer example would be evolution which cannot be experimentally proven but which makes perfect sense.
Is there no evidence to support the evolution theory?

There is plenty of evidence, just no proof. Same as with God.

The force of morality (God)
"force of morality"?

This is just an abstract concept. We use the concept of "force" to describe cause of regular occurrences. So we see that objects of mass regularly attract each other in some consistent pattern, and our brains are designed to ascribe consistent patterns to some cause, and we call the cause "gravity". Moses did much the same thing for societal decay which he saw in Egypt and knew of from other cultures, and he called this cause "Yehovah" which is God's name.

No statement about history can be proven in a scientific sense
Actually, it somewhat can. Facts can be extracted from opinions.

since we cannot conduct controlled experiments about history.
"controlled experiments"?

You may be interested in reading Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. When I said "no statement", I meant "no general statement". Isolated facts aren't very interesting. General statements about history are interesting but unprovable. That doesn't make them worthless, it just means that those who discuss history should accumulate enough knowledge to judge the plausibility of general statements for themselves.

I think we can learn from history that democracy is the best kind of government. Also, free speech rights, no censorship. We don't need to read historical books to learn that.

That depends on what "best" means. What we learn from history is that the most productive cultures were democracies but they were short-lived and democracy often caused their downfall as Thucydides indicates in his "History of the Peloponnesian War". The Torah warns against democracy and in fact all democratic religions fail. Only religions with a strong priesthood (oligarchy/meritocracy) survive long. So I personally don't consider democracy to be the best kind of government. If I had to choose a system of government, I would do a hybrid where I would only allow the top 1% of Go players to vote.

I think the pattern I described here is obvious to anyone who has read a lot of old books.
"patterns"?

General statement that hold true against historical evidence. Basically inductive reasoning.

Modern culture ridicules old books as archaic
Source?

Reality.

As long as no atom bombs fly I don't think modern culture is going to be doomed anytime soon.

Not soon, but watch Idiocracy which looks doomed enough.

Wikipedia wrote:Bigotry is the state of [...] someone who, as a result of their prejudices [...] views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's [...] religion [...] or other characteristics.


That is because Nazis view Jews with hatred, and would like to smash their skulls. Protecting themselves from getting too close to violent people is not bigotry IMO.

It is based on the definition you quoted. I think the real definition of bigotry is an insult aimed at those who hate people that you don't hate. So if I hate group X and you don't, then you call me a bigot, but if you also hate group X then you don't call me a bigot.

fschmidt wrote:Cattle also have a will of their own.
Yes, but while cattle's rights are not necessarily protected, women's rights very much are?

That women have a will of their own doesn't really matter.
Actually, it does. *lol* And it should be protected by laws.

What matters is that women are a scarce resource that can either be rationed (monogamy) or competed for (promiscuity).
Promiscuity is the better option for women, and I think they should have the right to do so.

The latter case is like theft in the sense that men get extra women at other men's expense,
No, I disagree. A successful business is not thieving on less successful businesses, either.

not by trading something other men want for the women.
Again, a successful business does not need to share its profits to less successful businesses.

Anarchism also allows for non-violent crimes like fraud.
How does fraud do damage?

Seduction of chaste women is a similar non-violent crime.
I don't agree that chaste women should have more rights than promiscuous women.

Not necessary at other men's expense, because women are still the ones deciding which men they prefer, that is if the laws I mentioned above are enforced.

It makes no difference whether women decide
What do you mean it "makes no difference"?

(or it may even be worse).
Disagree.

It is at other men's expense because a man takes a woman who would have chosen another man if not him.
Yes, that is the point. Free will for women.

at least for modern society where marriage law is designed to encourage women to seek divorce.
How do the laws of modern society encourage women to seek divorce?

For historical cultures, you need to study their laws.
Yes, you are right.

Traditional marriage is strongly discouraged because marriage contracts are ignored
Like I wrote above, I think moral values are not the problems of the government, but a personal matter. If marriage contracts are broken, then it just means the person does not value those morals enough, which is OK.

and the government enforces anti-marriage laws like divorce laws.
"enforces"?

Rape is only immoral when unjustified.
Disagree.

Most modern women actually deserve to be raped because of their provocative dress and behavior,
No, they don't. They have a right to dress however they want.

so I also consider this law a negative.
Freedom to choose the morals they consider beneficial should stay a right.

Yes, for possible facts, but not opinions (or in other words "personal impressions").

It is very hard to distinguish fact from opinion. For example, is women "going along with prancing steps, jingling their ankle bracelets," fact or opinion?
There is nothing wrong with this, whether it is fact or opinion. So, it doesn't really matter.

What are those historians saying?

I don't read them,
I think you should read them yourself, and not blindly trust what other people say.

but based on what other people who do say about history, it is slanted to the view of modern culture.
Why is that bad?

No one seems to understand the arguments for unpopular views
True.

and people have very little awareness of social conditions in history
Might be true.

You are believing the opinions of people in the past. I think your view is just as subjective as that of other people.

No, I read first person accounts which are often contradictory and reach my own conclusions.
How does one reach a conclusion when one does not know which account to trust.

Modernists consider this a flaw, but actually it shows the open-mindedness of those who compiled the Bible, being willing to include different contradictory viewpoints.
Do you mean opinions when you say "viewpoints"?

They (CEOs) buy politicians who pass laws for their benefit at the people's expense.
That is punishable by law. Not all CEOs do this. Some might do it as a kind of thrill game, even though they don't need the money.

Here in America, it certainly isn't punishable by law.
Yes, it is, and it is called bribery.

All top CEOs do it.
That's an overgeneralization.

And they are like sharks, always wanting more money, so it doesn't matter what they need.
Evidence?

That might be true. Western society isn't that corrupt, though IMO.

I am an active investor and have business experience, raising venture funding and sitting on a board of directors.
Are you saying you are bribing politicians, too? You said all CEOs do it.

Society is very corrupt, but countries like America are better at hiding it than countries like Mexico are.
Evidence?

It will take time for the corruption to bankrupt society, but it will inevitably happen.
Again, evidence?

How do you know they are not intelligent enough to learn things in other ways when they are taught early in the childhood?

The average person doesn't even understand basic math.
Evidence?

They just have faith in science in the same way that a Christian has faith in Christ.
They have faith in people's opinions with educational degrees, who do understand the science.

Some religions aimed a little high, like Confucianism which is really aimed at the elite.
Where exactly did they aim too high in your opinion?

Such religions have never worked for the masses.
Evidence?

Is there no evidence to support the evolution theory?
There is plenty of evidence, just no proof. Same as with God.
What evidence is there for the existence of God?

"force of morality"?

[...]Moses did much the same thing for societal decay which he saw in Egypt and knew of from other cultures,
What "societal decay" are you talking about?

When I said "no statement", I meant "no general statement".
General statements are opinions, not facts. Opinions aren't interesting, facts are interesting.

Isolated facts aren't very interesting.
Yes, they are. At least more than opinions, or "general statements".

General statements about history are interesting but unprovable.
If they are unprovable, they are not interesting. Or interesting as a starting point to find evidence for the theories. But not interesting themselves.

I think we can learn from history that democracy is the best kind of government. Also, free speech rights, no censorship. We don't need to read historical books to learn that.

What we learn from history is that the most productive cultures were democracies
And the cultures where the people have the most rights.

but they were short-lived and democracy often caused their downfall
Again, you did not give any evidence.

The Torah warns against democracy and in fact all democratic religions fail. Only religions with a strong priesthood (oligarchy/meritocracy) survive long. So I personally don't consider democracy to be the best kind of government.
OK, I disagree with you, because I don't think religions are absolutely necessary.

If I had to choose a system of government, I would do a hybrid where I would only allow the top 1% of Go players to vote.
*lol*?

So if I hate group X and you don't, then you call me a bigot, but if you also hate group X then you don't call me a bigot.
1) I don't call anyone a bigot.
2) Hatred is always bigotry, no matter who does it.

Stylite wrote:I love the book called "The Philokalia", I recommend it.

Which version to you recommend? I looked for a kindle version at Amazon and it seems most are just brief excerpts with a lot of modern commentary. I have almost no interest in modern commentary since modern men are generally idiots. I just want the old text.

I've read a fair amount of 18th-19th century german philosophy, and I'm also currently reading an biography of Adolf Hitler's life and political career published in 1952.

Apparently 'Mein Kampf' is rather dull and monotonous. I wouldn't really consider it an important historical book(apart from the section about Hitler's propaganda methods, since he was such a good propagandist. Other than that, it's really just full of the same stuff Hitler droned on about in his speeches).
Last edited by inlookswetrust on Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

inlookswetrust wrote:Apparently...

Apparently? You mean you haven't bothered to look and decide for yourself? Typical of a member of modern culture.

fschmidt wrote:
inlookswetrust wrote:Apparently...

Apparently? You mean you haven't bothered to look and decide for yourself? Typical of a member of modern culture.


Don't judge so quickly. In the course of reading a biography of Hitler, Mein Kampf was quoted at length so I have seen what kind of book it is. Hitler's political beliefs were quite unoriginal.

inlookswetrust wrote:Don't judge so quickly. In the course of reading a biography of Hitler, Mein Kampf was quoted at length so I have seen what kind of book it is.

I used question marks, so I didn't judge. But quotes in a biography are not enough. Please try reading the Ford translation here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004LDLI0S/

There are certainly poorly written parts of it, but much of it is reasonably well written and reading Hitler's own thoughts will give you much more insight into who he was than any biography will. Always go to the source. But if you start reading it and think it is poorly written, report that back here, I would like to know.

Wow this is a deep thread. Glad I stumbled upon it. Members on here would do well to venture outside the confines of SA from time to time.
Image

PostThis post by puanewb was deleted by puanewb on Sun Apr 19, 2015 4:58 pm.
Reason: Puanewb
Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests