- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 6,131
- Reaction score
- 1,943
You did when you said
“Its a quote about the cyclic nature of siciety,”
Yes the original quote, not evolution lol. We defo had our wires crossed there hahaha
You did when you said
“Its a quote about the cyclic nature of siciety,”
Not the gender you silly goose. It’s “strong” and “weak” those are moral claims as your opinion on what strength is may differ to someone else’s.Oh, your upset by the gendered language?
Apologies, ill happily replace strong men with strong people, i think youve taken it way too literal tbh, or maybe you havnt and im being generous in my interpretation.
Strength is pretty universal no? Resilience, ingenuity, empathy, courage, discipline, collaberation etc...
Weakness - complacency, cowardess, lack of integrity, impulsiveness etc...
Edit: its interesting that the reasons you dont like it, its literal nature, is why the right seemingly do like it.
Yes, but society does not work like that does it?Yes the original quote, not evolution lol. We defo had our wires crossed there hahaha
Not the gender you silly goose. It’s “strong” and “weak” those are moral claims as your opinion on what strength is may differ to someone else’s.
Strong = good and weak = bad. Hence the moral claim.
Even accepting your terms it’s still laughably simplistic and not accurate at all
So who on here is eligible for military conscription? We should prepare a nice gesture for when people get deployed to the Front.
No, I’m simply asking you to define what strength is in this context and why it is good.I mean, good and bad dont have to be moral, or even a binary. The human experience is far more complex than that.
So you dislike the terms strong and weak, on moral grounds that you ascribe good to strength and bad to weakness? I think your aligned with the right wingers who like it on this.
Lets play a game, lets say you subscribe to this theory, what type of times do you think we are in in 2025?
Sorry, to answer your question would require a nuanced answer rather than being a 6 year old and saying “we live in good times” or “we live in bad times”I mean, good and bad dont have to be moral, or even a binary. The human experience is far more complex than that.
So you dislike the terms strong and weak, on moral grounds that you ascribe good to strength and bad to weakness? I think your aligned with the right wingers who like it on this.
Lets play a game, lets say you subscribe to this theory, what type of times do you think we are in in 2025?
No, I’m simply asking you to define what strength is in this context and why it is good.
Do you honestly believe this is how human societies have risen and fallen throughout history?
It’s child like because, as I say, it’s taking something extremely complex and nuanced and breaking it down into something extremely simplistic, not to mention inaccurate. That’s my problem with it.1. Ive given you strength characteristics
2. I never ascribed them good or bad, you did.
3. Ive told you i dont necesarily susbscibe to it, i find its popularity interesting.
Im not sure how much clearer i could be, the idea this thought experiment is for 6 year olds i find fascinating. I was expecting this board to not like it, but i would have hoped for some valid reasoning more than complaints it’s too dumb for you. Thats more Chicagos steam hahaha
I’d love to read some of the replies you got from right wing people on this Harry. Just to prove how idiotic and simplistic they are. If you have time that is.
Im not saying that though am I. I just said that’s what makes it a moral claim.I mean, with out insulting you, they are saying the same things as you are. Strength equals good, weakness equals bad. Some pointing out the cycles of rises and falls of societies arent linear, or neat.
There seems to be a feeling that the UK and west in general are shooting themselves in the foot, and self sabotaging when it comes to big decisions. There is a big danger around the corner, potentially civil unrest...
It’s child like because, as I say, it’s taking something extremely complex and nuanced and breaking it down into something extremely simplistic, not to mention inaccurate. That’s my problem with it.
It’s laughable.
Probably best not to deal with just quotes and deal with concepts and arguments and debate the points. Posting a single quote that says it can describe all of human history, why it rises and why it falls is just child like. Honestly it’s something I’d expect my 9year old boy to say. I’m not jokingWhat philisophical quote does that excuse not lend itself too?
If you cant explain it to a child, you dont understand it yourself
Im not saying that though am I. I just said that’s what makes it a moral claim.
Even leaving the morality out of it and just looking at whether it’s factual it just doesn’t hold up.
Probably best not to deal with just quotes and deal with concepts and arguments and debate the points. Posting a single quote that says it can describe all of human history, why it rises and why it falls is just child like. Honestly it’s something I’d expect my 9year old boy to say. I’m not joking
Of course empires rise and fall. It’s the idea that these are always down to weak and strong men is just ludicrous. As I say, it’s so simplistic. Do you believe this nonsense? I would’ve thought you’d be a lot more nuanced.Empires dont rise and fall? Societies dont go through difficult times and then through prosperous? Adversity doesnt vreed resilience and ingenuity?
Whats not holding up? I think it doesnt hold up if you view it as a right wing characature would, strength good, man good, man rule world, man make society good.
Of course empires rise and fall. It’s the idea that these are always down to weak and strong men is just ludicrous. As I say, it’s so simplistic. Do you believe this nonsense? I would’ve thought you’d be a lot more nuanced.