DescentBB

Foil wrote:roid, Spidey...

If you're going to continue the discussion, please do so without taking shots at each other.

Ok, ok....

Will Robinson wrote:roid you have a bad habit of taking anecdotal evidence and random bits of partisan rhetoric and assigning it to large groups of people as if it was empirical evidence representing the groups as a a whole.

As long as you make those kind of assumptions the discussion is fruitless!

An example of your false premise:

are you saying the bipartisan opinion was that womens' role should be kept as it is, or rolled up even tighter (Conservative philosophy)

Where do you get the data to support your assertion that conservatives want to 'roll up the womans role even tighter' ?!? where did you learn about this "conservative philosophy"?
When you talk about "conservatives" are you talking about groups like the Taliban? Maybe I made the mistake of assuming you are talking about what we Americans call conservatives.

No in the section you quoted the point i was making wasn't that Social Conservatives ONLY want to roll things backwards - i described Social Conservatives a camp containing both:
- Those who wish things to progress slowly, or stop right where they are.
- Those who wish things to go backwards.
Sorry if my post didn't make this entirely clear.

However - after this point in my post, you'll note that i went on to question whether the "we want things to progress slowly" camp actually exists at all - as if they do exist they are so drowned out by the much louder "go backwards!" camp.
But that was not the part you quoted, so i assume that point was understood.

------

My further responses to Spidey's insults have been put into PM as requested. I believe i've been quite civil to him thus far given the situation i'm presented with, but it's his responses i'm worried about. Can i be blamed for his responses? I might be egging him on merely by supplying a target, but he's tying his own noose. And my responses have been rather civil.
Please - blame where it's suitable. I believe i have responded civily and appropriately - in contrast to Spidey's insults, so please do not include me in "spidey and roid" as if we are a class act.
This is an old thread and i havn't re-read through it again yet, are you referring to something i've previously said within? I can't speak for that until i've re-read it again, but as it speaks now i'm making all efforts to respond civilly to what i can only describe as peanut gallery antics.
I AM making an effort to keep a contrast.

When an opponent is so willingly painting himself the fool, is this a call to back down? I'd sooner his comments just be stricken from the thread for the sake of raising the signal to noise ratio.

If any of MY comments are just noise (pure insulting/abusive - nothing to back them up, and no point) and should be stricken from the current Spidey/Roid discussion to improve the signal to noise ratio - i'd prefer someone to point them out please (PM if you prefer). i believe such accusations to be mistaken.

ThunderBunny wrote:Diseases are progressive too...

Did you seriously try and compare Liberals to a disease?

LMAO. comedy gold!

Spidey wrote:No, you are making a false assumption, you prove it.

See, this is one of the reasons I refer to you as a “pseudo intellectual”, its not because you are not smart, it’s because you have no intellectual training.

Example:
You made an argument, I countered your argument with a valid point, did you choose to see my point, and make one of your own, no you decided to change your argument instead. (and then get all pissy)

And you have a lot of nerve complaining about useless insults…you hypocrit!

I'm not sure where i responded to a post of yours that contained a point. Are you referring to this?

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:Get a new rant, you are refering to a small minority.

get outof my thread if all you have is useless insults.

Show me it's a small minority

I did respond to your point. If one strikes out your insult, and my fitting response to it, it reads like this:

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:you are refering to a small minority.

Show me it's a small minority

looks like a valid response to me. And Foil echoed my point - so you have more than just me to convince that it's a small minority.

And it sure doesn't look like i'm changing my argument. Are you referring to another post?

roid wrote: No in the section you quoted the point i was making wasn't that Social Conservatives ONLY want to roll things backwards - i described Social Conservatives a camp containing both:
- Those who wish things to progress slowly, or stop right where they are.
- Those who wish things to go backwards.
Sorry if my post didn't make this entirely clear.

Tell Roid, just exactly what do conservatives want to roll back?

roid wrote:
No in the section you quoted the point i was making wasn't that Social Conservatives ONLY want to roll things backwards - i described Social Conservatives a camp containing both:
- Those who wish things to progress slowly, or stop right where they are.
- Those who wish things to go backwards.
Sorry if my post didn't make this entirely clear.

However - after this point in my post, you'll note that i went on to question whether the "we want things to progress slowly" camp actually exists at all - as if they do exist they are so drowned out by the much louder "go backwards!" camp....

I guess you and I are thinking of two different entities completely. I don't know of any conservative friends or groups of conservatives that want to roll things back as far as social progression in the arena of civil rights for gays, women or any other minority. So I don't know who you are talking about. Maybe conservatives in your country are different.

If you are forming your opinion of what the mainstream conservative wants based on CNN editorializing, characterizations made by pop culture left wing talking heads like Bill Marr, and other similar sources then I understand why you make these assertions about "conservative philosophy" and where it's headed but if that's the case then you don't have a handle on where the majority of American conservatives are.

Testi touched on one of the 'roll backs' conservatives are calling for which is the intact family unit. I think there is ample data to support that as a worthy goal in spite of the left wingers who would characterize that as bigoted.
Just because blacks have a higher ratio of broken homes, absentee fathers and grandmother raising the kids because mom is a unwed teenager etc. etc. is no reason to make excuses for a phenomena that is clearly responsible for the decay of important social values, a decay that paves the way to crime and drug abuse! The excuse making of the left for this situation is shameful and loaded with self serving political motive.
If calling for 'roll backs' like that are what you think is counter to progressive improvement of our culture then I think your opinion is in fact a problem not the conservative who resists the progression toward decay!

As a conservative:

I believe in progress…

Social progress.
Economic progress.
And Technological progress.

But, I also believe in taking it slow and easy, making sure that the changes are the right ones.

As far as turning the clock back…

Hell Yea, I would love to turn the clock back to a time when…

People weren’t so damned jaded and rude.
Children had respect for age and wisdom.
People had use for things like etiquette and such…I think you get the idea.

I have absolutely no desire to take away peoples hard won civil rights.

OMG…you PM me then slam me in public again, even before I can respond! Maybe I should copy and paste some of your insults.

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:No, you are making a false assumption, you prove it.

See, this is one of the reasons I refer to you as a “pseudo intellectual”, its not because you are not smart, it’s because you have no intellectual training.

Example:
You made an argument, I countered your argument with a valid point, did you choose to see my point, and make one of your own, no you decided to change your argument instead. (and then get all pissy)

And you have a lot of nerve complaining about useless insults…you hypocrit!

I'm not sure where i responded to a post of yours that contained a point. Are you referring to this?

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:Get a new rant, you are refering to a small minority.

get outof my thread if all you have is useless insults.

Show me it's a small minority

I did respond to your point. If one strikes out your insult, and my fitting response to it, it reads like this:

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:you are refering to a small minority.

Show me it's a small minority

looks like a valid response to me. And Foil echoed my point - so you have more than just me to convince that it's a small minority.

And it sure doesn't look like i'm changing my argument. Are you referring to another post?

You responded to this one…

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:It’s not that conservatives don’t want to change, it’s that conservatives want to change slowly, and want the correct kind of change.

Again I see your history has failed you.

The greatest conservationest ever was Teddy, he started the national parks, and Nixon passed a lot of civil rights law. Etc.

A part of the Social Conservative camp wants things to go BACKWARDS. Back to "better times" as they call them.
These are the loudest social conservatives, and i hardly see the "slow change" conservatives trying to shut them up or distance themselves from them. Can they even be told apart?
They are the same camp as far as i've been concerned. Unless here either a "slow change" social conservative, or a "go back" social conservative wants to distance themselves from the other in this thread? Any takers?

I find it hard to believe that a conservative will actually tell me "oh... the amount of rights that Gays have right now are good. No more, no less". I'm not sure i've ever heard that before. Mostly what i hear is various flavours of "we need to go back".
It ranges the gammut of gays should not be allowed to adopt, have families, and/or marry, or just free to be appropriately fabulous in public or on the media (All of which are CURRENT rights enjoyed in various respective places).
To the more extreme backwards types saying that gays should be punished, locked up, beaten, strung up in trees (yeeeehaw).
Is any social conservative actually happy and comfortable with the rights gays currently have? no more, no less? I could find something that makes you uncomfortable, guarenteed.

Spidey wrote:As far as turning the clock back…

Hell Yea, I would love to turn the clock back to a time when…

People weren’t so damned jaded and rude.
Children had respect for age and wisdom.
People had use for things like etiquette and such…I think you get the idea.

Yet one of the recurring things I hear from many conservatives is, "I want to go back to when people didn't have to be so darned careful about what they say." (i.e. "so darned P.C.").

Foil

It takes all kinds...

Maybe you need some new friends...no insult, or pun intended...

BTW I don’t understand the relevance of your remark to mine.

EDIT:

Oh yea, and PC can hit the road as well! As Mencia puts it \"There is no truth anymore\"

woodchip wrote:

roid wrote: No in the section you quoted the point i was making wasn't that Social Conservatives ONLY want to roll things backwards - i described Social Conservatives a camp containing both:
- Those who wish things to progress slowly, or stop right where they are.
- Those who wish things to go backwards.
Sorry if my post didn't make this entirely clear.

Tell Roid, just exactly what do conservatives want to roll back?

A gammut of rollbacks from casual to extreme highlighted below in BOLD:

roid wrote:I find it hard to believe that a conservative will actually tell me "oh... the amount of rights that Gays have right now are good. No more, no less". I'm not sure i've ever heard that before. Mostly what i hear is various flavours of "we need to go back".
It ranges the gammut of gays should not be allowed to adopt, have families, and/or marry, or just free to be appropriately fabulous in public or on the media (All of which are CURRENT rights enjoyed in various respective places).
To the more extreme backwards types saying that gays should be punished, locked up, beaten, strung up in trees (yeeeehaw).
Is any social conservative actually happy and comfortable with the rights gays currently have? no more, no less?

Also answered by

Foil wrote:

Spidey wrote:As far as turning the clock back…

Hell Yea, I would love to turn the clock back to a time when…

People weren’t so damned jaded and rude.
Children had respect for age and wisdom.
People had use for things like etiquette and such…I think you get the idea.

Yet one of the recurring things I hear from many conservatives is, "I want to go back to when people didn't have to be so darned careful about what they say." (i.e. "so darned P.C.").

Do i need to provide more examples? i feel like i'm just repeating myself repeating myself.

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:It’s not that conservatives don’t want to change, it’s that conservatives want to change slowly, and want the correct kind of change.

Again I see your history has failed you.

The greatest conservationest ever was Teddy, he started the national parks, and Nixon passed a lot of civil rights law. Etc.

A part of the Social Conservative camp wants things to go BACKWARDS. Back to "better times" as they call them.
These are the loudest social conservatives, and i hardly see the "slow change" conservatives trying to shut them up or distance themselves from them. Can they even be told apart?
They are the same camp as far as i've been concerned. Unless here either a "slow change" social conservative, or a "go back" social conservative wants to distance themselves from the other in this thread? Any takers?

I find it hard to believe that a conservative will actually tell me "oh... the amount of rights that Gays have right now are good. No more, no less". I'm not sure i've ever heard that before. Mostly what i hear is various flavours of "we need to go back".
It ranges the gammut of gays should not be allowed to adopt, have families, and/or marry, or just free to be appropriately fabulous in public or on the media (All of which are CURRENT rights enjoyed in various respective places).
To the more extreme backwards types saying that gays should be punished, locked up, beaten, strung up in trees (yeeeehaw).
Is any social conservative actually happy and comfortable with the rights gays currently have? no more, no less? I could find something that makes you uncomfortable, guarenteed.

No, the response to your point was within what you quoted. If you STILL can't see it AFTER I POINTED IT OUT AGAIN TO WILL ROBINSON.... #$%@#$... is that this my problem or yours?

i highlighted the part of your post that i responded to.
The rest i didn't know howto respond to, was it relevant?
Because Teddy and Nixon did something good doesn't mean the Social Conservative philosophy is good.
I know that Nixon also made terrible desisions from his "lets try to wind the clock back and erase hippys from existance" Social Conservative base. The anti-liberal (ie: Authoritarian) Drug laws that have given you the lovely position that OVER HALF YOUR PRISON POPULATION ARE NOW DRUG OFFENDERS. America is STILL building more prisons, just to keep up with the constantly increasing prison population.

This is the typical problem with Social Conservativism. Build more prisons. More prisons, more prisons, more prisons. Coz we have to lock up all your philosophical enemies:


___________________________________________________
Year_____Total_____Total______Total______Percentage
_______sentenced___sentenced__sentenced__of________
_________and_______pop._______drug_______sentenced_
_____unsentenced______________offenders__prisoners_
______population_________________________who_are___
_________________________________________drug______
_________________________________________offenders_
___________________________________________________
1970______21,266___20,686_____3,384______16.3%
1971______20,891___20,529_____3,495______17__
1972______22,090___20,729_____3,523______16.9 <-- Nixon's War on Drugs starts
1973______23,336___22,038_____5,652______25.6
1974______23,690___21,769_____6,203______28.4
1975______23,566___20,692_____5,540______26.7
1976______27,033___24,135_____6,425______26.6
1977______29,877___25,673_____6,743______26.2
1978______27,674___23,501_____5,981______25.4
1979______24,810___21,539_____5,468______25.3
1980______24,252___19,023_____4,749______24.9
1981______26,195___19,765_____5,076______25.6
1982______28,133___20,938_____5,518______26.3
1983______30,214___26,027_____7,201______27.6
1984______32,317___27,622_____8,152______29.5
1985______36,042___27,623_____9,491______34.3
1986______37,542___30,104____11,344______37.7
1987______41,609___33,246____13,897______41.8
1988______41,342___33,758____15,087______44.7
1989______47,568___37,758____18,852______49.9
1990______54,613___46,575____24,297______52.2
1991______61,026___52,176____29,667______56.9
1992______67,768___59,516____35,398______59.5
1993______76,531___68,183____41,393______60.7
1994______82,269___73,958____45,367______61.3
1995______85,865___76,947____46,669______60.7
1996______89,672___80,872____49,096______60.7
1997______95,513___87,294____52,059______59.6
1998_____104,507___95,323____55,984______58.7
1999_____115,024__104,500____60,399______57.8
2000_____123,141__112,329____63,898______56.9
2001_____131,419__120,829____67,037______55.5
2002_____139,183__128,090____70,009______54.7
2003_____148,731__137,536____75,801______55.1
2004_____154,706__143,864____77,867______54.1
_____________________________________________


The Drug War existed before Nixon (that's why the figure in 1970 was an already high 16%), and was always championed by pandering to Social Conservative votes who want to "get tough" on ...whatever. In Nixons's case it was the hippys, and other revolutionaries.
If you know it's history, you know the Drug War is historically based on racism and other Biggoted mantras. Nothing has changed.

The point “you” are missing is that there is good and bad in every political philosophy, but you can only seem to see the bad…while never acknowledging the terrible parts of the “progressive” philosophy.

P.S. if wanting a more civil environment makes me a bigot, well then, so be it.

what terrible aspects of the Progressive philosophy specifically?

(different people say different ones)

it's possible i may agree with you on specific points.

I will give you just one, because I have to go to bed now.

The welfare dependant underclass.

i agree that is a problem that could use some tackling.
But it's a complex topic, and i'd have to know what bullets you bite on it. (ie: what alternatives do we have? Do we kill off people who can't afford their treatments ie: diabetics? Should old people have a Pension? etcetcetc).
Is the Social Conservative solution, in comparison, realistic?

perhaps best for a thread on it's own.

The problem with socialist systems that exist now are that too many people take from the system and dont give anything back.

You asked for an example, not to start a debate.

And JFTR…I was not refering to healthcare or pensions, those are both different topics.

well here i am...

Spidey wrote:acknowledging the terrible parts of the “progressive” philosophy.

Foil wrote:

Spidey wrote:...Hell Yea, I would love to turn the clock back to a time when…

People weren’t so damned jaded and rude.
Children had respect for age and wisdom.
People had use for things like etiquette and such…I think you get the idea.

Yet one of the recurring things I hear from many conservatives is, "I want to go back to when people didn't have to be so darned careful about what they say." (i.e. "so darned P.C.").

Spidey wrote:...I don’t understand the relevance of your remark to mine.

I was simply pointing out that your statement about going back to a time of respect and ettiquette doesn't fit my experience with the conservative call to "return to the days when we didn't have to be careful about the words we used" I often hear.

I meant it as a compliment.

Spidey wrote:Hell Yea, I would love to turn the clock back to a time when…

People weren’t so damned jaded and rude.
Children had respect for age and wisdom.
People had use for things like etiquette and such…I think you get the idea.

You just want children to have more respect for the elder because now you're the elder! Frankly, I'd prefer if the elders showed more respect for children, they're always automatically passed off of as considerably dense with nothing to contribute, and I don't like that.
As far as I remember, people were even more jaded back in your time, and they had as little respect for wisdom than now too. Unless by wisdom, you just mean age.
And I really don't know how etiquette had a use other than as a means of differentiating between social classes, which isn't a good thing.

Spidey wrote:EDIT:
Oh yea, and PC can hit the road as well! As Mencia puts it "There is no truth anymore"

I agree, we deserve the right to say "All black people are downright niggers and wanna stab you at any chance they can get! And all Jews are b*****ds too!"
...yeah, somehow I doubt that's what you meant. But that's what being un-Politically Correct is.
Of course, that's not to be confused with what I call "Politically Stupid", where words that are in no way insulting are frowned upon because they differentiate between the subject and the majority.

TIGERassault wrote:
I agree, we deserve the right to say "All black people are downright niggers and wanna stab you at any chance they can get! And all Jews are b*****ds too!"
...yeah, somehow I doubt that's what you meant. But that's what being un-Politically Correct is.
Of course, that's not to be confused with what I call "Politically Stupid", where words that are in no way insulting are frowned upon because they differentiate between the subject and the majority.

Your ability to take things to such an extreme is both disgusting and inflammatory and as usual way out of context.

Cuda68 wrote:Your ability to take things to such an extreme is both disgusting and inflammatory and as usual way out of context.

That's not being extreme, that's what being un-PC is, that's what people used to do in 'ye olden days'. I don't know what you're thinking of otherwise.

Yes, the nature of \"P.C.\" is debateable.

... but the post was certainly inflammatory with by at least one of the words used. I understand you were trying to make a point, but I think you could do so without using that kind of language.

Roid, you do understand that for a good portion of your chart, the liberal democrats controlled the house and the senate and enacted laws that helped increase the prison population?

As to your gayness problem, I suspect you will find a cross aisle mix of people who do not believe gays should legally be allowed to vote or adopt children. Do you have some source that empirically shows gay rights are being thwarted solely by social conservatives or is it as Will says you are listening to too many biased news outlets and web sites that want to paint conservatives in a bad light any way they can?
Try to use all that psychology you've picked up over the years and apply it to real world events instead of having it used against you.

Just to clarify my position on Political Correctness:

A polite society doesn’t need it. And it’s also very silly, for the most part.

Tiger…

There is one constant in just about everyone’s life, that being as you age you realize just how st..er… (politically corrected) intellectually challenged you were as a younger person.

And…JFTR I’m not PC, and I would never speak like that. That’s exactly the kind of rude behavior I’m against. You have hate speech confused with political correctness, which is using less offensive words. (euphemism) IE: Short = Vertically Challenged.

PC is brow beating already polite people, those who use hate speech, will never be PC.

woodchip wrote:Roid, you do understand that for a good portion of your chart, the liberal democrats controlled the house and the senate and enacted laws that helped increase the prison population?

As to your gayness problem, I suspect you will find a cross aisle mix of people who do not believe gays should legally be allowed to vote or adopt children. Do you have some source that empirically shows gay rights are being thwarted solely by social conservatives or is it as Will says you are listening to too many biased news outlets and web sites that want to paint conservatives in a bad light any way they can?
Try to use all that psychology you've picked up over the years and apply it to real world events instead of having it used against you.

This is the exact same copypaste you said in another thread. i answered it there:

viewtopic.php?p=220289#220289

woodchip wrote:Roid, you do understand that for a good portion of your chart, the liberal democrats controlled the house and the senate and enacted laws that helped increase the prison population?

By world standards USA's Democrat party are Conservative, but yeah i get what you mean.
Even progressives politicians are politicians. Politicians are generally vote panderers - You must get the Social Conservative vote to get elected.
Like i said before - this vote-pandering by politicians (of ANY philosophy) to the Social Conservative voting base is the source of many problems.
By First World standards current America is Socially Conservative and Fiscally Liberal. A terrible combination. A nation happily paying through the nose to lock up OVER ONE PERCENT OF IT'S POPULATION - YES, over 1% of USA's population is in prison.
That's a world record.

Here's the slightly lower figures from 2006, compare to other countries:



YOWZA!

Spidey wrote:And…JFTR I’m not PC, and I would never speak like that. That’s exactly the kind of rude behavior I’m against. You have hate speech confused with political correctness, which is using less offensive words. (euphemism) IE: Short = Vertically Challenged.

PC is brow beating already polite people, those who use hate speech, will never be PC.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: my posts were there to show you that the term refers to more than just your "vertically challenged" example, and that you need to specify what level of Political Correctness you'd prefer to have.

Oh you where clear. Your words where very clear. I am beginning to think you are related to Howard Stern, or perhaps just a drama queen.

Do you really expect hard core bigots to speak politically correct? Because those people are the only ones that I know that talk that way. Everyone who is going to “obey” PC has already long since given up that kind of talk.

roid wrote:

woodchip wrote:Roid, you do understand that for a good portion of your chart, the liberal democrats controlled the house and the senate and enacted laws that helped increase the prison population?

just to add to what i said. Since we live in a democracy, the problem is technically not Socially Conservative politicians. The problem is the voters who elect them - the problem is voters who are either card-carrying Socially Conservative, or they are vulnerable enough to the philosophy that they will vote as they're told by the Socially Conservative base (ie: they are not innoculated against "tough on X" style propaganda)

But really, society merely gets the government it deserves.
In a democracy any problems of the government are generally systemic in culture that elects them.

It's not politicians i'm speaking to in this thread

i can see why Liberal and Progressive philosophies seem interchangable in our day and age.
Also why Social Conservatism and Authoritarianism seem interchangable.



In \"the old days\", we wern't exactly Authoritarian - if anything we probabaly had LESS laws. This is likely because society didn't think it needed as many laws - we probably thought we were gretting along just fine as we were - the trains ran on time etcetc.
Note that this is odd, coz Social Conservatives generally want to return to aspects of the olden days - yet the olden days were not Authoritarian. Yes Social Conservatives are commonly associated with Authoritarianism, i'm comming to that.

As Social Progress naturally happened in society (as it does), we identified downtrodden group and devised ways of fixing their situations (ie: ways of giving them more liberty).

If the Social Conservative mindset does not want these changes - if they think things were fine the way they were and this new stuff is just going to wreck everything - then they will fight against these changes. Or if the changes have already happened - they will push to roll them back.
But - the problem is that any rolling back of INCREASES to personal liberty, is by definition AUTHORITARIAN. It is DECREASING Liberty.

In the past there were also kindof non-law grey areas, like drugs. In the 60s LSD wasn't even illegal, but until that point few people ever knew about it, so it wasn't really on the public scope. So the LSD wave of the 60s wasn't really a push to change laws at all - it was all perfectly allowable in the current Liberal law system (as it should be IMHO).
This new wave was causing an incredible fast change to culture, Social Conservatives were of course horrified - CHANGE!!! ARGH!!!
So propeganda campaigns (based on falsehoods as always - know your Drug War) were put into effect and new laws were drafted against stuff like LSD. These were laws in the way of a Liberty that everyone (everyone but Social Conservatives i suppose) previously enjoyed. They were AUTHORITARIAN.

Thus - this is why Social Conservatism is always aligned with Authoritarianism.
Society always Progresses forwards, it's unstoppable, it's always been this way except for unnatural gaps like the Dark Ages.



I recall they were very Authoritarian times. I'd have to brush up on my Dark Ages history to say more.

Society, if left to it's own devices, always progresses - always going forward.
We identify groups of people that lack liberty - and we try to fix that.
Thus - Social Progressivism is tied in with the pursuit of Liberty. Is this why it's interchangable with Liberal philosphies? Maybe, i dunno, i guess we'd have to define Liberal in the thread.


TL:DR: Social Conservatism is binded with Authoritarianism, and thus goes AGAINST the pursuit of Liberty.

I'd like to make a slight correction. The term \"dark Ages\" was coined in the 1800's when some Greek writings were unearthed. \"They\" decided that these writings were \"enlightening\" and basically christened everything prior as a Dark age. \"Christian dark Ages\" is a misnomer. Typically, the dark ages refers to the fall of the Roman Empire. When the Empire finally collapsed, it gutted the structure that help most of primeval Europe together.

Also, it eludes to a meteor strike that blackened the world for about 4 years about 1100 AD?

and where a technological fall off is concerned; the black plague went a long ways in bringing most all of society including science to a screeching halt for quite some time.

Over all, there were numerous variables.

Want some insight, check out the site that chart is from.

One story linked on there says Christ never existed.

I commonly see that image used around the place, i wanted to use it and tracked it down by doing a google search. I've never actually been to the website mentioned on the image, but it wouldn't surprise me if i agreed with much of their opinions.
I believe the graph to be an rough estimation but accurate for the purposes of illustration of my point that The Dark Ages were a time where Progress suffered at the hands of Authoritarianism.

I'm not sure if you honestly want to know this or if i'm wasting my time biting on trollbait.
I'd appreciate it Spidey if you answered that.

common Roid. We've all been around this block enough times to know where each of us stand. We are all aware of Church history. Nuances aren't going to make any difference. That chart proves nothing other than someone hates the church.

Quite frankly, I'm as tired of people pointing to ancient church history and going \"SEE??? SEE???\" and religating to every Christian today as I am TB posting on Islamic fundamentalism.

If you truely understood the teachings and deeds of Christ, you would really understand how silly all the anti-Christian rhetoric is. And btw, the guys killing doctors and the like are NOT Christian. And I DON'T CARE what \"YOU\" think a Christian is (the whole semantic thing is foolish). ANYONE that has real brain can figure that out.

Duper wrote:common Roid. We've all been around this block enough times to know where each of us stand. We are all aware of Church history. Nuances aren't going to make any difference. That chart proves nothing other than someone hates the church.

Quite frankly, I'm as tired of people pointing to ancient church history and going "SEE??? SEE???" and religating to every Christian today as I am TB posting on Islamic fundamentalism.

If you truely understood the teachings and deeds of Christ, you would really understand how silly all the anti-Christian rhetoric is. And btw, the guys killing doctors and the like are NOT Christian. And I DON'T CARE what "YOU" think a Christian is (the whole semantic thing is foolish). ANYONE that has real brain can figure that out.

Yes, because I'm sure history has nothing to do with anything...

It doesn't matter what we do because that was then and this is now.

Let me see…

Left on its own, a society always progresses.
A society always gets the government it deserves.
Government is holding back social progress.

Humm…there is something wrong there, but I just can’t put my finger on it.

Roid…don’t assume I’m talking to you, I make most of my observations for others to read. (unless I use your name or someone else’s you can assume I am speaking to everyone)

Oh, And I do agree with your general premise, just not the specifics.