So we can all agree that Trasymachus did nothing wrong, right? He proved eloquently and clearly that justice is nothing more than arbitary decisions of the one in charge. Meanwhile Socrates just kept applying mental gymnastics and spouting complete baseless nonsense.
Seriously no one here has read the Republic? No wonder this board is so shit
>>3397606
>complaining about mental gymnastics
>In a book about philosophy
3 posts later
>I was only pretending to be retarded guys, seriously
>>3398086
Maieutics isn't supposed to be just mental gymnastics. It's based on logical patterns and pointing out contradictions in one's argument. However Socrates seems really unconvincing when answering Thrasymachus, and this guy is supposed to be some infamous sophist.
All the time during debate Socrates argues about the idealized concept of Justice per se, and is unable to refute the basic argument of Thrasymachus, and that is practical usage of this concept in reality. He didn't explain how can an ideal work in real life as an ideal, without being distorted by human flaws.
What do you know about Thracians, /his/?
>>3397920
Slavs
>>3397964
Coming from a Slav -- wrong.
>>3397964
So what you know is one, incorrect, fact? You literally know less than nothing about them, gratz.
Every history lover know how hard it can be in certain social situations as there are very few people who actually like history.
But would it be possible to convert a pleb into a history lover?
History is plebbeian as it gets. Just look at 90% of posts on this board.
>>3397583
History is a vast topic. Don't try to get people into the specific part you're interested in. This happens way too often with autists who are into military history, the most pleb of history.
>destroys your holy tree
>subdues your entire culture
Phhsst, nothing personal Saxon
t. LARPus Maximus
>>3397653
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC0S60Gp5rM
>ywn shed the blood of the saxon men
>>3397663
Geez he's looking old here
How long until he dies
Hello /his/
I need some help!
I'm in the process of writing my senior thesis, however I'm considering scrapping it because it's boring, I can't find enough sources, and the topic is not interesting enough for me to get motivated.
I instead decided to focus on WWI, however as most of you scholars out there know, a question for a thesis needs to be asked, addressed, and proved using respectable sources.
I need help finding a question about WWI to ask in a "why" or "how" form. The topic needs to be searchable from America and it also needs to be somewhat original.
Really need some opinions! Thanks!
>>3397531
Can't you just ask your proffessor for help?
>>3397531
Why were G*rmans so fucking retarded that they thought enlisting the aid of M*xicans would help them?
It should be easy to find sources about German autism and M*xican cockroachism.
>>3397545
lol
>Gorbachev isn't popular among Russ-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgm14D1jHUw
>>3397483
Why the fuck did he do this? Do we know?
>>3397519
I assume because he wanted the best for his people.
>>3397541
*wants best for own people*
What is the main purpose of a prison?
Keeping criminals away from people they can cause harm to again.
>>3397437
To produce sodomy.
>>3397446
Not all prisons are in America.
How many english soldiers were involved in the Hundred Years' War compared to french soldiers in both sides? Since the Plantagenet had almost half of France at some point, they must have used more french forces, no? It would make more sense to use french soldiers since you don't have to bring them to France.
>>3397373
The English had lost most of their French possessions before the start of the hundred year war. I think most of the English army was English.
>>3397373
Well, all of the "English" side's nobility (knights and commanders) were French, so that's already that
Now for the lower troops, some were brought from England (notably archers) and some were from the original Plantaneget lands (which had never been under Valois control until the French King conquered them at the end, and thus had more loyalty toward their Plantagenet overlords than towrd the "Kingdom of France")
>>3397373
Didn't they also use a lot of flemish, dutch and german mercenaries?
Do you think less of someone if they're a historylet?
I think less of anyone who are not me
>>3397214
Everyone's a history-let as long as you find the correct portion of history to ask them about.
>>3397214
I try to be civil towards everyone I meet. Unless I am on the internet.
Who was the masterrace here?
>>3397167
Obviously the bleached Korean, Himmler.
>In a discussion with Richard Hildebrandt Forster scoffed, "if I looked like Himmler, I wouldn't talk about race".
>>3397167
"If I looked like Himmler, I wouldn't talk about race."
-Albert Forster
>>3397195
Kek
Honestly, is this the most overrated empire of all time?
Look at the shit conquered, just "literally who" countries and shitskins with sticks as weapons.
nice fakenews, the british empire was never that large
thought you couldd slip that by /his/ huh? wrong
>>3397152
Is there any empire that didn't conquer literal whos? One that lasted anyway.
>>3397152
>Fitzroylands
>All blue is clay that was simultaneously controlled by Sweden
What made Sweden be able to controll 90% pf the baltic?
>>3397108
Swedish steel and the decline of Poland.
>>3397108
Weak neighbors mostly, Poland-Lithuania was large but pretty passive as a military power, and an internal political system that was often hijacked by foreign powers being an elective monarchy.
Russia didn't enter the stage until the early 1700's, and once they were in a position to move in, Peter pushed Charles XII's shit in and took the Baltic for Russia.
more importantly how did they manage to lose it all even Finland?
>be Constantine
>take over the Roman Empire and become emperor
>change the official religion
>still the Roman Empire
>be Mehmed II
>take over the Roman Empire and become emperor
>change the official religon
>suddenly it's a whole different country
Really makes you think
turkposting should be a bannable offense
Constantine was a Roman Emperor who took full control of the Empire.
He did not change the religion, Theodosius did, and Theodosius didn't gain his rule by conquest.
Both were Romans.
Mehmed II was an alien conqueror and not Roman at all. Case closed
Was Canada a mistake?
No.
>>3397080
Big if true
whats the difference between morals nad ethics
>>3397020
>>3397020
ethics are a standard you live by
morality is what you find good and evil
one does not necessarily need to have a standard based on morality, but it helps