The word pace is a Latin word, not an English word with a Latin root. For this reason, it’s usually written in italics when it occurs in an English sentence. It’s a form of pax, which is Latin for “peace”. Pace means “if so-and-so will permit” or “with deference to”, literally “with peace”.

None of this says that "pace" implies agreement.

Here's another one:

"used before a person’s name to express polite disagreement with what they have said"

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/pace2

o, these morally equal creatures were apparently nonetheless unworthy of equal property rights, equal voting rights, ability to get an education, etc. — Arkady

I think if (1) women did not go to war, (2) war could break out at any moment, you too would make sure your society doesn't allow women in politics. It was just a pragmatic issue and had nothing to do with equality.

Yes, just as I thought: more social conservative magic-talk. If one desires sex with one's partner primarily to gratify oneself, then one is "using" another person, regardless of whether it takes place in a loving relationship, or is part of a one-night stand. — Arkady

Yes I agree. One shouldn't desire sex with one's partner primarily to gratify themselves, but rather to gratify their partner :) .

Valid argument? Perhaps: you'll have to lay it out with clearly-defined premises and show that the conclusion follows in order for it to be literally "valid." In any event, I can likewise construct a valid argument:

(P1) Sex, anytime, for any reason, is morally acceptable.
(P2) Mary and Bob had extra-marital sex.
(C) Mary and Bob's actions were not immoral.

See? Perfectly valid. — Arkady

Yeah, you missed the point, I can see...

None of this says that "pace" implies agreement. — Arkady

In-so-far as it means "with deference to" I use it to express intellectual gratitude for the idea, not necessarily agreement.

Right, because no one was killed in these campaigns of conquest. — Arkady

Killing was not the intention of conquest, it's merely a side effect.

mass killing — Arkady

Mass killing for no reason is different than conquest. It's sad you cannot see that. I see nothing wrong with conquest. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, etc. were impressive people. Certainly more impressive than Bill "BangYourWife" Clinton ;)

You continually point out how lacking my historical knowledge is, but you don't realize that even if you were historically correct about views on sexual morality, it does nothing to prove your claims. — Arkady

It does go to show that you can't assume the moral standpoint and bang your feet like a child. I refuse to engage with you in any more detailed dialogue because you are a sophist. A priori you want to disprove me, you're not interested in the truth. So I don't bother much except to show you how silly you are.

I think if (1) women did not go to war, (2) war could break out at any moment, you too would make sure your society doesn't allow women in politics. It was just a pragmatic issue and had nothing to do with equality. — Agustino

Oh, I see! So, denying women the right to participate in politics was for their protection! (Of course, I talked about their right to vote and not necessarily hold political office, but no matter: I'm sure that denying them the right to vote was for their protection, as well. And I'm sure that denying them an education was so that they didn't worry their purty little heads with all that fancy book learnin'?).

Yes I agree. One shouldn't desire sex with one's partner primarily to gratify themselves, but rather to gratify their partner :) . — Agustino

Good luck with that.

Yeah, you missed the point, I can see... — Agustino

Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain? (You do realize the difference between a valid and sound argument? No doubt you do, but I ask only because you've shown no such familiarity here.)

Killing was not the intention of conquest, it's merely a side effect. — Agustino

Yes, if only those pesky barbarians had just laid down their arms and surrendered at the first sight of Caesar's legions, much spilt blood could have been avoided. Oh, well. It's really their fault, I suppose. (One might make the argument that conquest in and of itself is grossly immoral, but I suspect you'll invoke some special pleading for that, too.)

In-so-far as it means "with deference to" I use it to express intellectual gratitude for the idea, not necessarily agreement. — Agustino

Then you are using it at odds with its accepted definition. But whatever floats your boat.

Mass killing for no reason is different than conquest. It's sad you cannot see that. I see nothing wrong with conquest. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, etc. were impressive people. Certainly more impressive than Bill "BangYourWife" Clinton ;) — Agustino

Wow. You are just trolling at this point, right? I hope for your sake that you are. Otherwise, you are truly a moral lunatic.

EDIT: I now recall your comment in another thread that you said something to the effect of Hillary Clinton being the most immoral person you know of. So, given your above statement about Bill Clinton, I see that, in addition to demonizing sex, you also hold the requisite social conservative's irrational hatred of, and obsession with, the Clintons (funny that Bill Clinton gave the Republicans what they want with regard to a balanced federal budget, welfare reform, and a tough-on-crime bill, and yet they hate him anyway. Perhaps Sanders has the right idea: just skew left wing and say fuck the Republican agenda: they're just going to hate him, no matter what, if he's elected President).

It does go to show that you can't assume the moral standpoint and bang your feet like a child. I refuse to engage with you in any more detailed dialogue because you are a sophist. A priori you want to disprove me, you're not interested in the truth. So I don't bother much except to show you how silly you are. — Agustino

I see. So, you present no arguments, only warmed-over Kant and bullshit social conservative bromides, and then accuse me of sophistry. And I want to "disprove you a priori." I'm also uninterested in the "truth" which you assert you've presented, but for which you've presented no argument. I stand duly chastened.

A Chinese friend of mine told me that mistakes like "it's" and "its", and with all of the "there/their/they're"s are things native speakers are far more likely to do, because they learned to speak before write, and learn both in a fundamentally different way than a native of another language learning English.

I even replace words with other words that just rhyme all of the time... not that I don't actually know the difference, but just speaking-wise, they're too similar.

Kudos to PayPall for cancelling it's operations center plans in NC.
— Bitter Crank
I know this is way off-topic, but for the love of god, people: "its" is for the possessive. "It's" is a contraction of "it is." I give non-native English speakers a bit of a pass on this, but you're from the American Midwest, where English is the lingua franca (sort of). >:o — Arkady

Actually I do know the difference between "it's" and "its". I aim for perfection but sometimes I miss. It's my fingers' fault -- they have a somewhat independent existence on the keyboard, separate from a brain that is apparently associated with me. Note that I correctly made the plural "fingers" own their fault by placing the necessary apostrophe after the "s" and not before, which would have fingered only one digit as the guilty party.

If you read the entire corpus of my work, (please don't) you would find more egregious errors than possessive errors. You would, no doubt, notice that my use of the semicolon is inconsistent with the level of competence expected by the National Council of English Majors, of which I am a member. I also seem to have a compulsion to use dashes and parentheses more often than is advisable. I am also ambivalent as to whether a comma and a period must always be inside of quotation marks, or may be on the outside sometimes and if so, when.

It may also be the case that my use of the perfect continuous conditional is sometimes in error, and I am not sure how to distinguish the p.c.c. from the subjunctive just off hand.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

What is enjoyable or pleasurable needn't be "good" for a person
— Arkady
In which case it is immoral. Desire for something other than the good is immoral. — Agustino

Some people like diet no-caffeine Pepsi. It is clearly not good for people because it contains no nutrients (other than water). Carbonated water is harmful to teeth. Animals have no need for artificial sweeteners. Caramel coloring may be harmful (don't know). This product does not even have the salutary effect of offering a mild stimulant, yet it costs as much as full sugar caffeinated Pepsi. Clearly it is a fraud in a can (one of my favorites).

Drinking it is immoral?

Drinking excessive amounts of soda or pop or tonic, whatever one calls it, is probably unhealthy to some degree, the same way that eating excessive amounts of bacon is unhealthy.

Being unhealthy doesn't make it immoral, it makes it ill-advised.

Bungee jumping is ill-advised too (imho) but its ill-advisédness doesn't make it immoral.

"Morality" is a useful guide, but conservative rules on sex are not the only appropriate guidance we can use for achieving a good life. Doing what is salutary for the maintenance of health, and avoiding what is clearly bad (for health) are also appropriate - and demanding - considerations. Promiscuity in the form of unprotected sex is clearly a bad practice in this time of HIV, Ebola, Zika, and increasingly antibiotic resistant gonorrhea. People who insist on reckless sex and fail to reduce risk and harm achieve immorality, in my opinion, in the same way that people who refuse treatment for TB are immoral. Putting others at needless and life-threatening risk becomes immoral by a different route than your rules of sexual propriety.

Sex-for-nothing-but-fun or "treating your body like an amusement park" (as Mrs. Costanza accused George of doing [Seinfeld], is not harmful and won't be harmful if risk and harm are reduced to negligible levels. Husbands and wives secretly whoring while at conventions, on the other hand, introduces a probable harm into a marriage even if not so much as a virus particle is transmitted. The harm is in acting on a downgraded valuation of one's spouse.

If sexual debauchery didn't collapse the Roman Empire, what did?

1. effective military resistance and offensives by various peoples on the borders of the empire
2. reliance on slave labor and a slowing down of economic growth (linked to decline in geographical expansion)
3. splitting the empire between Rome and Byzantium
4. paradoxically, both the end of the empire's expansion and earlier unsustainable expansion
5. corruption
6. adapting Christianity as the state religion destabilized the previous sustaining value system
7. the infiltration of "barbarians"--less of an invasion and more a migrant movement

and numerous other causes.

Rome didn't so much "collapse" as gradually subside. The western empire didn't end in an apocalyptic event as much as it gradually fizzled out. From year to year, the fizzling out was probably not all that noticeable in many places; decade to decade and century to century, yes. My guess is that world civilizations are being slow-cooked like the proverbial frog in the pot of heating water. We won't notice it on a month-to-month basis. Too slow, too gradual. One day somebody will find a still-intact old magazine (LIFE or National Geographic) and see what the world used to be like, and then it will all become very clear. The curtain had long since fallen. Sic transit gloria mundi and all that.

Yes it was the harems. — Agustino

The last Osman was encouraged by the Young Turks to spend as much time in his harem as possible. Why? To keep him busy and out of the way. When the time came he was relieved of the harem and hustled off to some other location. It wasn't the ladies in the harem that collapsed the Ottoman empire, it was done by the usual methods of bringing down deadwood elites.

equal property rights — Arkady

As if property rights were a big thing in the old days. It was mostly families who controlled property, typically the elders anyways. People were not as independent as they are now - one couldn't do what the fuck they wanted with their property, there were a lot of socially mediated restrictions, from the family as well as from society.

equal voting rights, — Arkady

As women did not go to war, and did not understand the art of war, it was a peril to allow them to vote. Because they did not understand matters of war practically, they were likely to simply vote for the wrong candidate, and it was a pragmatic matter not to allow women to vote. This was perfectly normal given the circumstances of the world at the time. And by the way, you should be aware that women in ruling classes typically played major roles behind the scenes in politics. Livia, wife of emperor Augustus was very influential. Faustina the Younger (likely to have committed adultery) was treated extremely well by her husband, emperor Marcus Aurelius, despite her moral failings. There simply is not evidence that women were mis-treated historically. There are no documents, no writtings to justify such a view. In all of history, until the 19th century, no one complained about the role of women. And the first to complain, were MEN, who were annoyed that they couldn't fuck around (because adultery was punished socially at the time), and so wanted to free themselves, and thereby were interested to change the role of women in society. Charles Fourier is one, and so is K. Marx.

ability to get an education — Arkady

Again, you're under the illusion that most average people had the ability to get an education. This is false, education was largely a privilige of the rich, and even rich women got an education, although a different one than men. Men would be trained in the art of fighting, the art of war, horse-riding, politics, philosophy, while women would be trained in cultural and social matters. If you read about the role of women among the elite, for example in the Roman Empire, you'll be surprised by how influential women actually were, even in politics. In some parts of the world, like in the Korean Peninsula, there were women leaders: for example, Queen Seondeok of Silla and her main political enemy at the time was also a woman leader, Lady Mishil of Silla. But of course your retarded modern feminism knows nothing of this. Just open a book of history. Please, before you open your mouth again. Just don't embarrass yourself anymore. You've already shown you know and understand nothing about historical matters.

Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain? (You do realize the difference between a valid and sound argument? No doubt you do, but I ask only because you've shown no such familiarity here.) — Arkady

Explain what, that you purposefully and willfully refuse to understand the meaning of my words, and keep fighting against all sorts of strawman and derailing my message? Really, all your posts have had 0 intellectual content and purely rhetorical one.

Wow. You are just trolling at this point, right? I hope for your sake that you are. Otherwise, you are truly a moral lunatic. — Arkady

No. Being capable to fight, being capable to conquer, etc. are virtues. The fact that modern Western society no longer accepts traditional male virtues, has rendered modern men to be alike women - weak and frail. There is a growing alienation amongst men, especially in the working classes, as they no longer have any ideals to live up towards. Their natural propensities are given no means of expression, nor are they given the opportunities to engage in the activities men generally engaged in. Instead, they are told to go to clubs, drink, and have sex. That's what the modern message is towards men. It has dumbed man down.

I see. So, you present no arguments, only warmed-over Kant and bullshit social conservative bromides, and then accuse me of sophistry. And I want to "disprove you a priori." I'm also uninterested in the "truth" which you assert you've presented, but for which you've presented no argument. I stand duly chastened. — Arkady

I asked you what you found wrong with the Kantian argument, and for about 4-5 posts you have been stomping your feet like a baby and diverting attention from the argument. Here's my position stated in another thread, if you would actually be interested to learn rather than rebut me, you could profit more from this discussion. But your hatred of sexual morality just blinds you.

No, what you're talking about is not sexual morality. Everything that involves another person should have the other's consent before going through. If I want to have dinner with you, I should get your consent before having dinner, and not force you. But I don't call that dinner morality - that would be stupid. So really, if consent is the only matter that you think is important for sexual morality, then in truth you are arguing for NO sexual morality whatsoever, and merely masking this.

As for sexual morality. Sex has two purposes; one physical (reproduction) and the other psychological (intimacy). Failure to meet at least one of those purposes is wrong, end of story. Promiscuous sex does not facilitate intimacy, and a growing together in love, and is therefore a failure to actualise the potential that exists in sex. Because one who engages in this 1. fails to fulfill the potential of sex, and 2. damages their mind by training it to become blind to the real potential of sex and 3. harms the other partner in the same way s/he harms himself, and 4. harms their own future committed partner and/or the future committed partner of the other person. Fact remains, that no rational person would sacrifice intimacy + pleasure for pleasure. Only an irrational, or at least a rational but ignorant person would do so.

Take a small child, and watch his development, to the age when he learns about sex. You will see, that a child finds it morally horrendous to think about having sex with someone if they don't love them, and are committed to them. Why? Because this is natural for human beings. The one who is seeking to impose extremist values on others is not me, but you. You should be aware that literarily 80%+ of thinkers, including atheists, have thought as I say about sex. Check out Epicurus for example. They don't make atheists like that anymore, do they? The man realised that consent isn't the only important matter when it comes to sex. The effect it has on your mind is more important - that's why Epicurus encouraged non-sexual relationships between people, because he understood the dangers of non-commitment.

Edit: I might add the Kantian argument here which is also valid:

1. It is wrong to use another person solely as a means for personal satisfaction - this objectifies them, and treats them as an object and not a person.
2. Promiscuous sex involves using another person for personal satisfaction, treating them effectively as a temporary object to help one gain something (pleasure) for themselves.
THUS: promiscuous sex is wrong, as it objectifies the other person, and does not lead to the spiritual/psychological betterment of the other, as sex in a committed relationship would.

The facile objection that having sex involves giving the other person pleasure as well won't cut it. Why? Because the intention is to use the other to get pleasure for yourself, the fact that the other may also enjoy it is only of secondary concern to you, and ultimately accidental if it happens. Committed sex on the other hand treats the person not as a means to an end, but rather as an end in itself - through having sex you seek unity with that person. — Agustino

Some people like diet no-caffeine Pepsi. It is clearly not good for people because it contains no nutrients (other than water). Carbonated water is harmful to teeth. Animals have no need for artificial sweeteners. Caramel coloring may be harmful (don't know). This product does not even have the salutary effect of offering a mild stimulant, yet it costs as much as full sugar caffeinated Pepsi. Clearly it is a fraud in a can (one of my favorites).

Drinking it is immoral?

Drinking excessive amounts of soda or pop or tonic, whatever one calls it, is probably unhealthy to some degree, the same way that eating excessive amounts of bacon is unhealthy.

Being unhealthy doesn't make it immoral, it makes it ill-advised.

Bungee jumping is ill-advised too (imho) but its ill-advisédness doesn't make it immoral. — Bitter Crank

Something that harms yourself is immoral, BC. Just like there is a moral imperative not to harm other people, there is also a moral imperative not to harm yourself. That's why things like gluttony are immoral.

Sex-for-nothing-but-fun or "treating your body like an amusement park" (as Mrs. Costanza accused George of doing [Seinfeld], is not harmful and won't be harmful if risk and harm are reduced to negligible levels. — Bitter Crank

I argued above and in other threads that sex for nothing but fun is psychologically harmful in-so-far as it involves objectify the other, not controlling one's sexual appetites, and renouncing the real potential that exists in sex.

If sexual debauchery didn't collapse the Roman Empire, what did?

1. effective military resistance and offensives by various peoples on the borders of the empire
2. reliance on slave labor and a slowing down of economic growth (linked to decline in geographical expansion)
3. splitting the empire between Rome and Byzantium
4. paradoxically, both the end of the empire's expansion and earlier unsustainable expansion
5. corruption
6. adapting Christianity as the state religion destabilized the previous sustaining value system
7. the infiltration of "barbarians"--less of an invasion and more a migrant movement — Bitter Crank

Yes, sexual debauchery definitely was also in the list. I highly advise you to start by reading this article: http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Many proeminent historians agree that moral collapse was one of the leading causes of the Empire's collapse.

The last Osman was encouraged by the Young Turks to spend as much time in his harem as possible. Why? To keep him busy and out of the way. When the time came he was relieved of the harem and hustled off to some other location. It wasn't the ladies in the harem that collapsed the Ottoman empire, it was done by the usual methods of bringing down deadwood elites. — Bitter Crank

Again, you're refusing to admit that sexual debauchery played a role, even though many historians seem to think it did.

Augustino, you're right. I see now that women were historically the equals of men (and the fact that a few highborn Roman women were puppet masters behind the scenes proves their equal status). Historically women suffered no barriers to education in the Western world (or, really, anywhere) relative to their male peers. Conquering and warmongering is not only less egregious than libertine attitudes towards sex, but is actually a desirable trait (due the feminizing and "dumbing down" of maleness in the modern world). You've won me over. Enjoy your victory.

Augustino, you're right. I see now that women were historically the equals of men (and the fact that a few highborn Roman women were puppet masters behind the scenes proves their equal status). Historically women suffered no barriers to education in the Western world (or, really, anywhere) relative to their male peers. Conquering and warmongering is not only less egregious than libertine attitudes towards sex, but is actually a desirable trait (due the feminizing and "dumbing down" of maleness in the modern world). You've won me over. Enjoy your victory. — Arkady

This is a philosophy, not a political forum. I can care less about winning you over, all I care about is the merit of the arguments. I have presented three arguments regarding the sexual matter, you have addressed NONE of them. I have given you multiple historical examples illustrating why women did not hold political office, and why they shouldn't have held political office in such times, nor have been allowed to vote. You on the other hand, who believe something as ahistorical as female oppression, have the burden of proof on yourself, to show, if women were indeed oppressed through history, why is there so little evidence for it? Why aren't there records of women protesting against their oppression historically? We have, for example, for slavery during colonialism multiple sources which attest to their oppression and unjust suffering - hundreds upon hundreds of attempts at slave revolts. Why are there no such sources regarding women? Furthermore, you ignored my historical argument about sexual mores. If the sexual mores that I propose are indeed wrong, you have to tell us how come MOST of the greatest minds who have ever lived have believed and encouraged them, be they atheist, be they theist, be they white, asian, male, female, etc. How come, that people who have sprung up in different corners of the world, across different times, and different places, and different cultures have believed almost the same thing regarding this subject? You dismiss it saying that just because so many believed it doesn't NECESSARILY mean it is correct. I agree, and argumentum ad populum is not necessarily true. But it certainly begs for an explanation, even if it is indeed false. My explanation is the intuitive one: people believed like this, because they have perceived, from their experience and that of their fellow men, that such behavior leads to a fulfilled life. You will have to argue that people have been (1) stupidly retarded, or (2) oppressive and outright evil, seeking to promote values that oppress certain groups, and then explain how come people in the West have suddenly become enlightened and are no longer (1) or (2). And keep in mind that you will accuse virtually ALL of the geniuses in Western history of stupidity by making your argument.

I see now that women were historically the equals of men (and the fact that a few highborn Roman women were puppet masters behind the scenes proves their equal status). — Arkady

Low class MEN AND WOMEN lived harsh lives Arkady. There wasn't much difference between the suffering of one and the suffering of another. Low class people had lower status, be they male or women. The distinction wasn't between sexes, it was between social class.

Augstino, you are apparently a person who won't take "yes" for an answer. Sorry, I can't help you with that. Have a nice life.

Writing an ironic post, and then pretending that it wasn't meant to be ironic will not save you Arkady. I have addressed what your post meant. You mockingly answered yes. So I have responded.

Anyway, pleasure is most definitely a subjective sensation. One can no more be in error that one is in pleasure than one can be in error that one is, say, in pain. Again, you are simply asserting what people ought to enjoy rather than acknowledging what they do enjoy. — Arkady

I will address this for others interested, so don't feel like you've got to respond. It is true that pleasure is a subjective sensation, but pleasure is not always good (ie, en-joyable). For example, when someone is raped, they most probably will feel pleasureable sensations. But guess what, most people would feel ashamed and bad for feeling pleasure during such an act. Therefore pleasure is not always good, and it does not always constitute joy. This is simply a fact. However, joy always requires to be associated with pleasure, but that in itself is not sufficient to constitute joy. Joy cannot be degraded to the simple level of pleasure. Like I said in my previous post, joy has two components. One subjective, and one objective. For joy to occur, both components must happen at the same time. If I feel pleasure, but there is no objective improvement in my condition, then my pleasure is an illusion and cannot be called joy (such as when taking drugs). If I feel pleasure, and there is an objective harm done to my condition, then my pleasure isn't only an illusion, it is a great source of active suffering (such as in the case of rape). If I don't feel pleasure, but there is an objective improvement in my condition, then I am affected by some condition which constrains my judgement or affective system in such a way that I cannot feel the subjective state that is normally associated with the objective state. This happens if I am depressed for example. I may succeed in getting my loan from the bank, but I will not feel pleasure in the achievement, even though, objectively, it is an improvement to my condition.

Yes, sexual debauchery definitely was also in the list. I highly advise you to start by reading this article: http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf — Agustino

OK, I'll check this article out -- but it is a fairly long article, I'm heading off to a funeral right now (just ushering -- never met the man) and I may say something before having the alleged enlightenment to be derived therefrom.

Again, you're refusing to admit that sexual debauchery played a role, even though many historians seem to think it did. — Agustino

From which century?

For pretty much all of history, but I was referring to Roman + Ottoman empires in this thread.

I was referring to "many historians" believing that. Which century was that? That was indeed a credible view in the past... but not recently... if by many you mean more than like ten people... then yeah probably, but if by many you mean a considerable portion of all modern historians then definitely not.

I was referring to "many historians" believing that. Which century was that? That was indeed a credible view in the past... but not recently... if by many you mean more than like ten people... then yeah probably, but if by many you mean a considerable portion of all modern historians then definitely not. — Wosret

No doubt not that recently, if by recent you mean in the last 30 years. Don't forget that progressives have highjacked the intellectual elite of the West - in Universities studying social sciences, the ratio of liberals to conservatives is 9:1. No doubt they have introduced their biases. However, the fact of the matter is that the data we have access to has not changed. We have access to historical documentation from the periods in question, where people who lived then recount the collapse of their societies.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/few-conservatives-on-university-campuses . There's been many articles like this one remarking the problem recently.

Data varies, but it's a very large difference between the number of conservatives accepted in academia, and the number of liberals. Conservatives end up being marginalised and ignored at the moment:

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160113_LiberalProfessors2_Johnson.png

Again, this is not that different from the historical progression that we have witnessed in the past. Read the article I posted to BC.

Big liberal conspiracies aside, allowing you to make untrue statements, that are clarified with only accepting the historians you agree with in the first place... totes setting that aside...

Data has changed a shitload. Sociological, scientific, multicultural data has changed, which makes us evaluate, and consider different things credible than in the past.

A better question though, as obviously we'd never agree about this, but why does it matter, and what can we learn from it? How do we prevent it from happening to our society too? What kind of steps are you willing to take? Just complain, and tell people how bad they are as they ignore you and civilization crumbles around your righteous pure ears?

That's because they're bad at their jobs. Can't make much progress with people that's politically identified label means holding you back.

Data has changed a shitload. Sociological, scientific, multicultural data has changed, which makes us evaluate, and consider different things credible than in the past. — Wosret

What does this have to do with historical data, in the form of primary and secondary sources regarding the periods in question? Again, revisionist history is just that. It imagines whatever it wants into the past. Traditional history is the one that actually takes the evidence we have available to us, and does not impose our imagination on the past.

You should know that waves of progressive mentalities have occured before the collapse of other empires and civilisations in the past as well. Fact of the matter is, that a society which is morally ignorant can never survive, even for the reason that barbarians will destroy it. Look what's happening. ISIS is screwing us, and we're just waiting like sitting ducks to be destroyed because we don't want to harm others. We think we're moral. But we have lost the hard virtues, of justice, duty, courage, etc. The West will either change, or it will perish in the next 100 years.

A better question though, as obviously we'd never agree about this, but why does it matter, and what can we learn from it? How do we prevent it from happening to our society to? What kind of steps are you willing to take? Just complain, and tell people how bad their are as they ignore you and civilization crumbles around your righteous pure ears? — Wosret

Read the article I posted to BC if you want to know. It's a recent article as well, writtein in late 1980s or early 1990s.

Big liberal conspiracies aside, allowing you to make untrue statements, that are clarified with only accepting the historians you agree with in the first place... totes setting that aside... — Wosret

It's not a conspiracy, it's a statistically proven fact.

That's because they're bad at their jobs. Can't make much progress with people that's politically identified label means holding you back. — Wosret

If you've reached the peak of the mountain, a move left, or right, or backwards or forwards is a move down ;)

And btw Wosret, the one who is ignoring historians is not me. It's you. You ignore far more historians than I do, because you only listen to the last 30 years of historians. I listen to the last thousand years historians. So I am not the one cherry picking. I am the one taking the global view on the matter, and saying "wait a minute, these people have all been saying something, and no historical data has changed, and these guys in the last 30 years are telling us something different??"

Unfortunately history doesn't write itself, isn't free of evaluation, and interpretation, and people from centuries ago where isolated, puritanical, and ignorant of their own natures, and the actual causes of most everything.

ISIS isn't coming to get you, and have never been, nor will ever be an actual threat to you or I.

Those articles aren't recent enough for me, and are by single people. You can find people that will say just about anything about anything. I was suggesting what is more orthodox among modern historians, and that Rome fell because of moral decay isn't.

You continue to act as if information is free of interpretation. If there are far more liberals occupying a field it means that there is a big conspiracy forcing out the far superior, more accurate and truthful conservative historians. Like creationists claim about scientists that support creation science. It isn't that they're bad at their jobs, it's just a conspiracy to silence them.

You could always jump off the fucking mountain, join us down here on the ground.

I can't be ignorant, and selective. I can't willfully dismiss, and not know about something. For most of human history evil spirits caused disease and illness, so taking the entirety of history, and ideas about it, and see how disease and illness hasn't changed in that time, why would moderns be saying something different?

Unfortunately history doesn't right itself, isn't free of evaluation, and interpretation, and people from centuries ago where isolated, puritanical, and ignorant of their own natures, and the actual causes of most everything. — Wosret

Right. And you are knowledgeable about your own nature :S. Why should I believe that? Again, you may dismiss the ignorant masses. But you cannot dismiss the geniuses we have had through history, many of them much more intelligent than you can find today. It is these geniuses who noticed the collapse of societies, not the superstitious idiots, who by the way, were generally immoral by the time societies were collapsing.

ISIS isn't coming to get you, and have never been, nor will ever be an actual threat to you or I. — Wosret

That's what you think. I disagree.

Those articles aren't recent enough for me, and are by single people. You can find people that will say just about anything about anything. I was suggesting what is more orthodox among modern historians, and that Rome fell because of moral decay isn't. — Wosret

Yes it is. The article I linked with is recent. it's within the last 50 years, that counts as recent by any standard. That Rome fell because of moral decay is an accepted view in history, and you have to show me why the intellectual elite in the last 30 years wants to argue differently. What changed? Oh yeah, I'll tell you what changed. The current intellectual elite is highly promiscuous, has no sexual mores, and so do not want to admit the truth. That's what changed. Because, as I said before, no new historical evidence was uncovered in the form of primary or secondary sources in order to change our perceptions.

What is happening is that these idiots calling themselves social scientists these days, do all sorts of stupid experiments, regarding for example sexual matters, on a population which is already highly biased, and in a culture which already determines the behavior and thoughts of most members. Thus they spawn all sorts of abominative theories, which make no conceptual sense, but nevertheless have empirical backing. No one bothers to criticise the methodology, nor the population sampled, nor the effectiveness of the statistical method in addressing such questions. And then some revisionist historians will go like "Ummm we know that people are promiscuous today, and so we shall re-read all of history as if this was always the case hurr hurr" ... this isn't scientific research, this is a sham.

You continue to act as if information is free of interpretation. If there are far more liberals occupying a field it means that there is a big conspiracy against forcing out the far superior, more accurate and truthful conservative historians. Like creationists claim about scientists that support creation science. It isn't that they're bad at their jobs, it's just a conspiracy to silence them. — Wosret

Well there is: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/?page=all

For most of human history evil spirits caused disease and illness, so taking the entirety of history, and ideas about it, and see how disease and illness hasn't changed in that time, why would moderns be saying something different? — Wosret

Is this what Aristotle, Plato, and the other highly intelligent people in history believed? No :) . So taking popular superstition and comparing it with modern science will not do any good. If you want, compare highly intelligent people from back then, with highly intelligent people from today. Stephen Hawkings is a small baby compared to an Aristotle.

You could always jump off the fucking mountain, join us down here on the ground. — Wosret

I don't want to join the dirt, sorry. Virtue is its own reward. Much rather prefer the freedom of the skies. Virtue must not be sacrificed for anything else in the world, because, as Socrates taught, virtue makes everything else good for men, and without virtue NOTHING can be any good whatsoever.

Because we know far more about nature now than we ever did in the past. Do you really dispute this? It's honestly getting painful to continue to exchange with you.

You're just repeating yourself, you never answered my questions about why this even matters, nor addressed my criticism that information isn't without interpretation, and the tools people have for more realistic, reasonable interpretations were far fewer than what exists today.

No, demons wasn't what the likes of Aristotle, or Plato thought. They still believed in that shit, but it just so happens that they thought different equally wrong nonsense based on primitive notions caused diseases of the body. Like elemental, or humorous imbalances. Plato never struck me as particularly impressive, or interesting like Aristotle did (he was a twat), but it's mainly their scope of topics, and how little there was to know about anything at the time. It's impossible to become a polymath today, because each field is far too developed and complex. A few centuries ago if you read a few dozen books you'd know everything that was known about everything. You just sound romantically enchanted by the past.

Yeah, I'm sure you're great.