That said, the structures in the brain that allow for critical thinking aren't formed until around the age of 7, so it isn't really useful to attempt to teach critical thinking skills, except at a most rudimentary level, in kindergarten.
Yeah, and the structures in the brain that allow for learning computer science aren't formed either. If you're going to teach something that that young brains can't handle, I'll choose critical thinking over computer science *every* *fucking* *time*.
"Far too many technology books take a Hamburger Helper approach, where the first quarter or so of the book is about an introduction to the topic, and filler at the end with numerous appendices of publicly available information. These books end up being well over 800 pages without a lot of original information, even though they are written an advanced audience. In software engineering, a design pattern is a general repeatable solution to a commonly occurring problem in software design. A design pattern isn't a finished design that can be transformed directly into code. It is a description or template for how to solve a problem that can be used in many different situations. Using that approach for the cloud, in Cloud Computing Design Patterns, authors Thomas Erl, Robert Cope and Amin Naserpour have written a superb book that has no filler and fully stocked with excellent and invaluable content."
Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you're challenging. Could you be more specific?
I'm saying that if you live in a large metropolitan area in the US and don't want a long commute, you'll likely will have to pay more to live close to your employer than if you lived in a suburb (all other things remaining equal).
If you're in a smaller city or in the stix, living closer to your employer is typically more affordable.
Are you in the US? If so, you are either rich, or you don't live in one of the major SMSAs. While I agree that it's not a "all or nothing" choice, that choice has more to do with wealth than anything else.
Well, my reply to you was meant as a joke - building on your accurate observation that slashdotters rarely read anything beyond the summary.
It's amazing isn't it? We've got so much information available at the touch of our fingers, yet we can't be bothered to spend the *seconds* it would take to find a source document regarding the matter at hand. It's a sad commentary on the status of critical thinking skills among our ranks.
Anywho, it's inspiring to find another of the few here willing to fight the good fight. Maybe one day the impulsiveness rampant on the internet will fade. (I know that's absurdly optimistic.)
The British Museum is going to get a chance to buy at auction the Greek cultural artifacts they didn't manage to loot.
Maybe it's good news for the US...the Greeks could sell the Parthenon to Disney and make it a theme park. Roller coasters and Micky Mouse will save them - and give the Greeks a good lesson in Capitalism in the process.
As to which culture I'm presuming to defend... basically every culture in the first world. They're all endangered.
Everything in western europe, the Japanese are in trouble, the Israelis are in trouble, the US is in trouble, Canada is likely in trouble though I am unaware of their statistics so that is just an assumption.
From what I've seen... nearly every nation in the first world is suffering some version of this.
Specifically I am American... but my worry here is not just for the US. Its the entire first world.
I'm not worried about the US. I don't think the US is in trouble at all, at least not in terms of its culture being under threat.
The thing about US culture is that it's constantly being shaped, and the driving factor of the evolution of US culture is and always has been immigration. It has been that way since the first Europeans landed in America. They don't call it a "melting pot" for nothing. There is no static US culture to defend.
Waves of immigrants have always been met with derision and fear in the US, and those fears have never - not even once - been realized. Quite the opposite...immigrants have built the greatest country the world has ever seen. Immigration has always enriched American culture, not destroyed it.
I'm really not worried about Europe either. After WWII, immigrants flooded into Europe, and the many different cultures there somehow came through it unscathed. I see no reason why Europe won't be able to handle immigration successfully now. It may be a rocky road that takes a while, but it will happen nonetheless. Perhaps the Europeans will follow the US model a little more closely this time around and they'll have an easier go of it.
Japan? That country could use some cultural help. Japan's xenophobia is one of the main reasons for the trouble they're now in. The Japanese have some of the most strict immigration laws in the world, and until that changes they will be stuck with cultural stagnation.
Israel? Israel currently has a fertility rate much higher than necessary to replace it's citizens going forward.
As to objectionable qualities... this is not a useful question because one doesn't simply hold or not hold the views a culture because you find it to be or not to be objectionable.
Well you saw fit to bring up the issue, so I think it's fair that you should answer questions about it. If I thought the question wasn't useful, I wouldn't have asked it. No matter though.
As to why we have problems, yes... gender relations are used as political weapons and it results in poisoning gender relations in general which damages the ability of people in my culture to form relationships, start families, have the confidence to have children, and remain together long enough to socialize them into our culture.
I see many of these gender issues to be leftovers from the women's rights movement and the sexual revolution of years ago. A lot of men still haven't figured out how to navigate in the new environment, and a lot of women still think men are their enemy oppressors. This will fade away eventually once new generations who don't have their butts clenched so tightly take things over.
Since you're having problems understanding the quote, let me repeat it for you:
"In Seattle, the historically gay-friendly Capitol Hill neighborhood saw same-sex households dive by 23% from 2000 to 2012, while such households were on the rise in nearly every other neighborhood in the city as well as surrounding suburbs."
Since you're also having problems remembering your claim, let me repeat it for you:
"Declining as a proportion of the population as the population becomes less diverse."
Sorry, I don't see how gays moving out of Capitol Hill to the suburbs shows that the proportion of gays relative to Seattle's general population is decreasing.
So now you're replacing your original claim with a new one. Fine. Do you have anything to support your new position, or do we have to take your word for this as well?
1. I live on the Hill in Seattle. I'm well aware of what is happening in this neighborhood.
Great! And the fact that there's been a spike in hate crimes in the area is beyond debate. But unless you work for the Seattle Police Department, you don't have any idea of the perpetrators' demographics.
Furthermore, there's been a concurrent spike in other crimes in the area...are overpaid Amazon frat boys responsible for those as well?
2. The culture of Amazon's swelling ranks is not reflective of the overall tech industry. They hire so many young bros and shove money in their faces. The result is a whole bunch of rich man-children running around like they own the place. And increasingly, they do.
How can you possibly know this? Do you work in Amazon's Human Resources department?
3. Regarding your article, it reinforces one of my points (the Hill's becoming less gay).
...yet the article makes no mention of Amazon or any other tech company as a factor in the spike in hate crimes. I can't find anything about tech employees committing hate crimes in The Capitol Hill Times either. How is it you are more informed on the situation than your community's news outlets?
The night life boom is absolutely a consequence of Amazon (and other tech) growth. It's frankly a disgusting scene. And it absolutely has all the ingredients to lead to increased violence toward queers in the neighborhood.
It is certainly possible that tech growth is a factor in the booming nightlife scene. But surely you know that there's plenty of young affluent people in Seattle that aren't in tech and view Capitol Hill as a nice place to live and/or party. I would bet that is as big or bigger factor than an increased tech presence downtown.
As far as your assessment of the nightlife in Capitol Hill, am I to assume you've spent a lot of time people watching at these new "disgusting" establishments? If so, how did you identify these homophobic Amazon employees? Were they all wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the Amazon logo?
The fact is, nobody knows the causes of the spike of hate crimes. That's why mayor Ed Murray (a Capitol Hill resident and a gay man himself) has set up a task force to look into the matter.
It may in fact turn out that tech employees committed some of these crimes. Until that is determined, your unsupported opinions only indicate some sort of bias or resentment on your part.
As the queer population in Seattle is decreasing, violence against queers is increasing. My neighborhood is a homogenizing community with increasing conflict.
The gay population in Greater Seattle is increasing, not decreasing. If you've got stats saying otherwise, let's see them.
Certain "gayborhoods" in Seattle have declining gay populations, and this is attributed to growing acceptance of LGBT in Seattle generally:
"In Seattle, the historically gay-friendly Capitol Hill neighborhood saw same-sex households dive by 23% from 2000 to 2012, while such households were on the rise in nearly every other neighborhood in the city as well as surrounding suburbs."
It isn't clear that I'm saying that decreasing diversity of sexuality is contributing to the rise in hate crimes against minority sexualities? Maybe the problem is that you're not actually trying to understand.
What's clear is you haven't spent any time looking into the matter beyond reading the summary. You seem to have taken select terms in the summary and conflated them to jump to your ridiculous conclusion. The only piece of hard data in any of the forwarded articles is:
"Seattle Police Department records show that "bias crimes" against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the first half of 2014 had already outnumbered those for the whole of 2013."
Stats from over a year ago with nothing more than the opinion of the article's author that the violence was caused by white male gay haters in the tech industry. But, you know, if there's one thing we can say for sure, it's that educated high income tech geeks have a long and storied history of gay bashing. Right?
As someone who spends a fair amount of time in Seattle, I can say that the gay community in Capitol Hill doesn't blame rampaging high testosterone white software developers for the violence against them. Tell you what, why don't you read this article, entitled "5 reasons for Capitol Hill’s hate crime ‘spike’". It was written by a guy on the ground in the neighborhood in question around the time the statistics cited in TFA were published.
Thanks taking the time to compose a very informative post. Learned a lot today about Sparta, Thebes and classical Greece in general thanks to you. Anywho, After more searching, I was able to find several sources confirming your observations on Spartan populations at the time of their fall.
I do however think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the Spartan's decline in population was a result of their more liberal attitudes towards women. The most oft cited reasons I found for the decline of Sparta's population was it's practice of eugenics and male losses due to war.
I did find, however, a few sources mentioning gender strife in Sparta. Although they didn't specifically mention any effect on birth rates, certainly one could see how particular Spartan laws - especially those regarding female inheritance/property ownership - could be a significant source of conflict between the sexes.
Again, thanks for the info. I look forward to further discussion on threats to first world cultures in our other thread.
Thanks for your post - there's a lot of good information there.
As to Thebes, the issue was the low population growth rate of Sparta. They were just barely able to meet population replacement rates which is unacceptable in a warrior culture that suffers attrition from battles.
I've searched and searched and I can't find any population data on Sparta vs Thebes around the time of the Battle of Leuctra (which I understand marks the fall of Sparta). Where are you getting your population information?
They also sent about 10 times as may people to the fight as Sparta."
Had Sparta had greater numbers... everything would have been different.
The information I have on the Battle of Leuctra indicates Sparta fielded 10,000–11,000 hoplites and 1000 cavalry, while Boeotians led by Thebes fielded 6,000–7,000 hoplites and 1,500 cavalry. I can't find any mention of farmer/slave soldiers in either army, and Sparta in fact outnumbered the Boeotians. Were there other decisive battles where Theban non-professional forces greatly outnumbered the Spartans?
I've also found that Sparta dominated the region after the Peloponnesian War, which ended in 404 BC. Sparta fell to Thebes only 33 years later. Did Spartan birthrates fall that dramatically in the space of a generation?
Why one society has numbers and another doesn't doesn't really matter to me.
Wait...you said earlier that the Spartans had a very liberal attitude towards female equality, which was a factor in their society ultimately being crushed by the larger population of Thebes. I thought the "why" of Sparta's population disadvantage was one of your main points. Is this not the case?
They were crushed by farmers with little more than weight of numbers.
Interesting...but like I said, I can't find any mention of farmers/slaves of consequential numbers in either army. Obviously, you're getting your numbers from somewhere. I'd appreciate if you could point me in the right direction.
In any case, I'm finding that I'm learning quite a bit about Greek city states during that time period, so it's all good.
As to birth rates, those born and socialized into our culture. I believe you're fishing for me to make a racist comment. You'll not find it. I am not racist. I don't care what color people are... My issue is what society you were socialized into.
If those socialized into my culture die out and are replaced by another culture... then my culture dies.
Racism? Race isn't the same thing as culture, and I have no problem with people defending their culture. I'm just asking you to identify the culture you're defending.
As to what I find objectionable about south american Catholicism...
I didn't ask what you find objectionable, I asked what views you hold that they might find objectionable. Here's your quote: "...south American Catholic perspective... also not especially friendly to your views or mine. I'm reading that as you saying you hold views that S. American Catholics might not like. Am I mistaken?
I'm growing tired of you transparent attempts to find some political correctness violation I've made.
What attempts? I made one post. All I asked you to do was clarify a few of your statements. If you think I'm attacking you, you're seeing things that aren't there.
The only demographics that are doing okay in this are the ones that utterly ignore the discussion.
The religious groups are breeding. And the various foreign cultures that immigrate and don't take the gender discussion seriously are breeding.
So if I understand you correctly, your culture is not religious/not breeding, and it is being subsumed by other cultures that are religious and breeding. Further, a major reason that your culture is not breeding is that it uses "gender relations and family relations as political weapons" against itself, whereas the other cultures do not. If your culture would stop the gender/family attacks within itself, it's birthrates would rise enough to match or exceed those of other cultures - thereby protecting itself from dying off. Is that correct?
If not, it might be helpful to move the discussion forward if you would simply identify your culture.
Interesting post. I have a couple of simple questions regarding a few of your comments:
The Spartans had a similar issue... they are known for having a very liberal attitude towards female equality... their society ultimately was crushed by larger population of Thebes.
Are you saying Thebes' superior numbers screwed Spartan society, or you saying it was Sparta's gender equality?
So long as the birth rates are reasonable, we can maintain the status quo.
Whose birthrates? Who is the "we" you are talking about?
For the US... we're more likely to adopt a south American Catholic perspective... also not especially friendly to your views or mine.
What views do you hold that South American Catholics might find objectionable?
This rift between our camps is destroying our society... it is time to stop being petty children... and take some responsibility for what must happen.
What is it you think must happen? Who is supposed to take responsibility for getting it done?
One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.
So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.
Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.
We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.
Hit. Nail. Head. I wish I had mod points today. What's happening with liberalism today is a case study in self destruction. All we need to do is sit back and watch it play out.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, the structures in the brain that allow for critical thinking aren't formed until around the age of 7, so it isn't really useful to attempt to teach critical thinking skills, except at a most rudimentary level, in kindergarten.
Yeah, and the structures in the brain that allow for learning computer science aren't formed either. If you're going to teach something that that young brains can't handle, I'll choose critical thinking over computer science *every* *fucking* *time*.
Government would hate that.
FTFY
ps - why the cap on "conservatives"? RU1?
The horror! The horror!
I pay $450/wk rent for a two bedroom unit 40 mins from Sydney.
Is that US$? If it is, consider yourself lucky.
That's great! As soon as alllllll the richie richers leave, the entiiiiiire USA can be like Detroit! It's gonna be fucking awesome!!
But what about the Aussies? Can their immigration infrastructure handle hundreds (if not thousands) of immigrants who list their names as "John Galt"?
" ...conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends, and ensuring that all kindergartners learn 'computer science.' "
How about we start teaching our kindergartners "critical thinking" instead?
"Far too many technology books take a Hamburger Helper approach, where the first quarter or so of the book is about an introduction to the topic, and filler at the end with numerous appendices of publicly available information. These books end up being well over 800 pages without a lot of original information, even though they are written an advanced audience. In software engineering, a design pattern is a general repeatable solution to a commonly occurring problem in software design. A design pattern isn't a finished design that can be transformed directly into code. It is a description or template for how to solve a problem that can be used in many different situations. Using that approach for the cloud, in Cloud Computing Design Patterns, authors Thomas Erl, Robert Cope and Amin Naserpour have written a superb book that has no filler and fully stocked with excellent and invaluable content."
5 to 1 that was generated by a bot. Any takers?
Not really.
Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you're challenging. Could you be more specific?
I'm saying that if you live in a large metropolitan area in the US and don't want a long commute, you'll likely will have to pay more to live close to your employer than if you lived in a suburb (all other things remaining equal).
If you're in a smaller city or in the stix, living closer to your employer is typically more affordable.
Do you disagree?
Are you in the US? If so, you are either rich, or you don't live in one of the major SMSAs. While I agree that it's not a "all or nothing" choice, that choice has more to do with wealth than anything else.
But it's the health insurance company's worst nightmare.
Diabetes has been around a long time. Insurance companies built diabetes into their rates long ago.
Well, my reply to you was meant as a joke - building on your accurate observation that slashdotters rarely read anything beyond the summary.
It's amazing isn't it? We've got so much information available at the touch of our fingers, yet we can't be bothered to spend the *seconds* it would take to find a source document regarding the matter at hand. It's a sad commentary on the status of critical thinking skills among our ranks.
Anywho, it's inspiring to find another of the few here willing to fight the good fight. Maybe one day the impulsiveness rampant on the internet will fade. (I know that's absurdly optimistic.)
The British Museum is going to get a chance to buy at auction the Greek cultural artifacts they didn't manage to loot.
Maybe it's good news for the US...the Greeks could sell the Parthenon to Disney and make it a theme park. Roller coasters and Micky Mouse will save them - and give the Greeks a good lesson in Capitalism in the process.
+mod points please.
An important caveat:
Germany destroying Greece to send a message to Spain and Italy is a bit of a stretch.
Can you provide a TL;DR version? Thanks in advance!
As to which culture I'm presuming to defend... basically every culture in the first world. They're all endangered.
Everything in western europe, the Japanese are in trouble, the Israelis are in trouble, the US is in trouble, Canada is likely in trouble though I am unaware of their statistics so that is just an assumption.
From what I've seen... nearly every nation in the first world is suffering some version of this.
Specifically I am American... but my worry here is not just for the US. Its the entire first world.
I'm not worried about the US. I don't think the US is in trouble at all, at least not in terms of its culture being under threat.
The thing about US culture is that it's constantly being shaped, and the driving factor of the evolution of US culture is and always has been immigration. It has been that way since the first Europeans landed in America. They don't call it a "melting pot" for nothing. There is no static US culture to defend.
Waves of immigrants have always been met with derision and fear in the US, and those fears have never - not even once - been realized. Quite the opposite...immigrants have built the greatest country the world has ever seen. Immigration has always enriched American culture, not destroyed it.
I'm really not worried about Europe either. After WWII, immigrants flooded into Europe, and the many different cultures there somehow came through it unscathed. I see no reason why Europe won't be able to handle immigration successfully now. It may be a rocky road that takes a while, but it will happen nonetheless. Perhaps the Europeans will follow the US model a little more closely this time around and they'll have an easier go of it.
Japan? That country could use some cultural help. Japan's xenophobia is one of the main reasons for the trouble they're now in. The Japanese have some of the most strict immigration laws in the world, and until that changes they will be stuck with cultural stagnation.
Israel? Israel currently has a fertility rate much higher than necessary to replace it's citizens going forward.
As to objectionable qualities... this is not a useful question because one doesn't simply hold or not hold the views a culture because you find it to be or not to be objectionable.
Well you saw fit to bring up the issue, so I think it's fair that you should answer questions about it. If I thought the question wasn't useful, I wouldn't have asked it. No matter though.
As to why we have problems, yes... gender relations are used as political weapons and it results in poisoning gender relations in general which damages the ability of people in my culture to form relationships, start families, have the confidence to have children, and remain together long enough to socialize them into our culture.
I see many of these gender issues to be leftovers from the women's rights movement and the sexual revolution of years ago. A lot of men still haven't figured out how to navigate in the new environment, and a lot of women still think men are their enemy oppressors. This will fade away eventually once new generations who don't have their butts clenched so tightly take things over.
Uhm, you linked it and quoted it.
Since you're having problems understanding the quote, let me repeat it for you:
"In Seattle, the historically gay-friendly Capitol Hill neighborhood saw same-sex households dive by 23% from 2000 to 2012, while such households were on the rise in nearly every other neighborhood in the city as well as surrounding suburbs."
Since you're also having problems remembering your claim, let me repeat it for you:
"Declining as a proportion of the population as the population becomes less diverse."
Sorry, I don't see how gays moving out of Capitol Hill to the suburbs shows that the proportion of gays relative to Seattle's general population is decreasing.
Care to try again?
So now you're replacing your original claim with a new one. Fine. Do you have anything to support your new position, or do we have to take your word for this as well?
1. I live on the Hill in Seattle. I'm well aware of what is happening in this neighborhood.
Great! And the fact that there's been a spike in hate crimes in the area is beyond debate. But unless you work for the Seattle Police Department, you don't have any idea of the perpetrators' demographics.
Furthermore, there's been a concurrent spike in other crimes in the area...are overpaid Amazon frat boys responsible for those as well?
2. The culture of Amazon's swelling ranks is not reflective of the overall tech industry. They hire so many young bros and shove money in their faces. The result is a whole bunch of rich man-children running around like they own the place. And increasingly, they do.
How can you possibly know this? Do you work in Amazon's Human Resources department?
3. Regarding your article, it reinforces one of my points (the Hill's becoming less gay).
...yet the article makes no mention of Amazon or any other tech company as a factor in the spike in hate crimes. I can't find anything about tech employees committing hate crimes in The Capitol Hill Times either. How is it you are more informed on the situation than your community's news outlets?
The night life boom is absolutely a consequence of Amazon (and other tech) growth. It's frankly a disgusting scene. And it absolutely has all the ingredients to lead to increased violence toward queers in the neighborhood.
It is certainly possible that tech growth is a factor in the booming nightlife scene. But surely you know that there's plenty of young affluent people in Seattle that aren't in tech and view Capitol Hill as a nice place to live and/or party. I would bet that is as big or bigger factor than an increased tech presence downtown.
As far as your assessment of the nightlife in Capitol Hill, am I to assume you've spent a lot of time people watching at these new "disgusting" establishments? If so, how did you identify these homophobic Amazon employees? Were they all wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the Amazon logo?
The fact is, nobody knows the causes of the spike of hate crimes. That's why mayor Ed Murray (a Capitol Hill resident and a gay man himself) has set up a task force to look into the matter.
It may in fact turn out that tech employees committed some of these crimes. Until that is determined, your unsupported opinions only indicate some sort of bias or resentment on your part.
As the queer population in Seattle is decreasing, violence against queers is increasing. My neighborhood is a homogenizing community with increasing conflict.
The gay population in Greater Seattle is increasing, not decreasing. If you've got stats saying otherwise, let's see them.
Certain "gayborhoods" in Seattle have declining gay populations, and this is attributed to growing acceptance of LGBT in Seattle generally:
"In Seattle, the historically gay-friendly Capitol Hill neighborhood saw same-sex households dive by 23% from 2000 to 2012, while such households were on the rise in nearly every other neighborhood in the city as well as surrounding suburbs."
.
It isn't clear that I'm saying that decreasing diversity of sexuality is contributing to the rise in hate crimes against minority sexualities? Maybe the problem is that you're not actually trying to understand.
What's clear is you haven't spent any time looking into the matter beyond reading the summary. You seem to have taken select terms in the summary and conflated them to jump to your ridiculous conclusion. The only piece of hard data in any of the forwarded articles is:
"Seattle Police Department records show that "bias crimes" against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the first half of 2014 had already outnumbered those for the whole of 2013."
Stats from over a year ago with nothing more than the opinion of the article's author that the violence was caused by white male gay haters in the tech industry. But, you know, if there's one thing we can say for sure, it's that educated high income tech geeks have a long and storied history of gay bashing. Right?
As someone who spends a fair amount of time in Seattle, I can say that the gay community in Capitol Hill doesn't blame rampaging high testosterone white software developers for the violence against them. Tell you what, why don't you read this article, entitled "5 reasons for Capitol Hill’s hate crime ‘spike’". It was written by a guy on the ground in the neighborhood in question around the time the statistics cited in TFA were published.
Thanks taking the time to compose a very informative post. Learned a lot today about Sparta, Thebes and classical Greece in general thanks to you. Anywho, After more searching, I was able to find several sources confirming your observations on Spartan populations at the time of their fall.
I do however think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the Spartan's decline in population was a result of their more liberal attitudes towards women. The most oft cited reasons I found for the decline of Sparta's population was it's practice of eugenics and male losses due to war.
I did find, however, a few sources mentioning gender strife in Sparta. Although they didn't specifically mention any effect on birth rates, certainly one could see how particular Spartan laws - especially those regarding female inheritance/property ownership - could be a significant source of conflict between the sexes.
Again, thanks for the info. I look forward to further discussion on threats to first world cultures in our other thread.
As to Thebes, the issue was the low population growth rate of Sparta. They were just barely able to meet population replacement rates which is unacceptable in a warrior culture that suffers attrition from battles.
I've searched and searched and I can't find any population data on Sparta vs Thebes around the time of the Battle of Leuctra (which I understand marks the fall of Sparta). Where are you getting your population information?
They also sent about 10 times as may people to the fight as Sparta."
Had Sparta had greater numbers... everything would have been different.
The information I have on the Battle of Leuctra indicates Sparta fielded 10,000–11,000 hoplites and 1000 cavalry, while Boeotians led by Thebes fielded 6,000–7,000 hoplites and 1,500 cavalry. I can't find any mention of farmer/slave soldiers in either army, and Sparta in fact outnumbered the Boeotians. Were there other decisive battles where Theban non-professional forces greatly outnumbered the Spartans?
I've also found that Sparta dominated the region after the Peloponnesian War, which ended in 404 BC. Sparta fell to Thebes only 33 years later. Did Spartan birthrates fall that dramatically in the space of a generation?
Why one society has numbers and another doesn't doesn't really matter to me.
Wait...you said earlier that the Spartans had a very liberal attitude towards female equality, which was a factor in their society ultimately being crushed by the larger population of Thebes. I thought the "why" of Sparta's population disadvantage was one of your main points. Is this not the case?
They were crushed by farmers with little more than weight of numbers.
Interesting...but like I said, I can't find any mention of farmers/slaves of consequential numbers in either army. Obviously, you're getting your numbers from somewhere. I'd appreciate if you could point me in the right direction.
In any case, I'm finding that I'm learning quite a bit about Greek city states during that time period, so it's all good.
As to birth rates, those born and socialized into our culture. I believe you're fishing for me to make a racist comment. You'll not find it. I am not racist. I don't care what color people are... My issue is what society you were socialized into.
If those socialized into my culture die out and are replaced by another culture... then my culture dies.
Racism? Race isn't the same thing as culture, and I have no problem with people defending their culture. I'm just asking you to identify the culture you're defending.
As to what I find objectionable about south american Catholicism...
I didn't ask what you find objectionable, I asked what views you hold that they might find objectionable. Here's your quote: "...south American Catholic perspective... also not especially friendly to your views or mine. I'm reading that as you saying you hold views that S. American Catholics might not like. Am I mistaken?
I'm growing tired of you transparent attempts to find some political correctness violation I've made.
What attempts? I made one post. All I asked you to do was clarify a few of your statements. If you think I'm attacking you, you're seeing things that aren't there.
The only demographics that are doing okay in this are the ones that utterly ignore the discussion.
The religious groups are breeding. And the various foreign cultures that immigrate and don't take the gender discussion seriously are breeding.
So if I understand you correctly, your culture is not religious/not breeding, and it is being subsumed by other cultures that are religious and breeding. Further, a major reason that your culture is not breeding is that it uses "gender relations and family relations as political weapons" against itself, whereas the other cultures do not. If your culture would stop the gender/family attacks within itself, it's birthrates would rise enough to match or exceed those of other cultures - thereby protecting itself from dying off. Is that correct?
If not, it might be helpful to move the discussion forward if you would simply identify your culture.
The Spartans had a similar issue... they are known for having a very liberal attitude towards female equality... their society ultimately was crushed by larger population of Thebes.
Are you saying Thebes' superior numbers screwed Spartan society, or you saying it was Sparta's gender equality?
So long as the birth rates are reasonable, we can maintain the status quo.
Whose birthrates? Who is the "we" you are talking about?
For the US... we're more likely to adopt a south American Catholic perspective... also not especially friendly to your views or mine.
What views do you hold that South American Catholics might find objectionable?
This rift between our camps is destroying our society... it is time to stop being petty children... and take some responsibility for what must happen.
What is it you think must happen? Who is supposed to take responsibility for getting it done?
Thanks in advance for your considered reply!
One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.
So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.
Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.
We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.
Hit. Nail. Head. I wish I had mod points today. What's happening with liberalism today is a case study in self destruction. All we need to do is sit back and watch it play out.
Like those ideological purity tests...if we started measuring conservatives on the basis of how conservative are you, it would surely mark the beginning of the end. Liberal purity tests have pushed their kind so far to the extreme, they're now attacking themselves. And their tactic of keeping one constituency or another outraged at any given time has totally backfired.
I don't really blame liberals for being baffled. They've spent so much time in an echo chamber, they've lost touch. When reality finally slaps them in the face, it is only natural for them to try to figure out what happened. The question is, do they have the capability to make the necessary changes in order to correct their course?
Somehow I doubt it. Liberals are so