Does languages get better and more effective as time goes and they evolve?
language evolves according to situations. For exampe in U.S. it's shaped so that people don't commit thought-crimes
Not necessarily, remember that evolution /= improvement, evolution = change.
>>456738
This, you can see for example the changes in American English and Brazilian Portuguese, in some way using simpler grammatical structures so that immigrants could have a easy time.
So /his/torians who are your friends from the past?
>Not choosing Jesus for all of them except crazy and edgy
>>456465
>implying he wasnt crazy and edgy
>>456465
> Implying Jesus wasn't edgy as fuck
He's basically a classical era Linkin Park.
>Thomas Jefferson's bedroom
why would he ruin a perfectly good hallway like this?
>>456235
Jefferson is a fucking troll
>>456235
He was autistic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism#List_of_individuals
>>456235
A literal autist.
Who the fuck are these people?
Why do they live here?
Where did they come from?
Why do they write weird?
Discuss
It's an archipellago whose population remained isolated from the rest of the world until the Europeans came in. Nothing special.
>>456132
why is it independent tho?
>>459053
because it isn't a colony.
it's not a colony because they said "fuck off we're free" in the 40s/50s when the british dismantled their empire after WW2.
We all know who the best generals were, but who were the best diplomats/politicians of all time? Just to throw some names out there
Phillip II
Octavian
Cesare Borgia
>Philip II
m8...
I love the Habsburgs, but Philip II kind of completely fucked Spain.
Toledo, the Spanish Armada, the Netherlands, all entailed political and diplomatic fuck ups.
>This satirical painting depicts a cow which represents the Dutch provinces. King Philip II of Spain is vainly trying to ride the cow, drawing blood with his spurs. Queen Elizabeth is feeding it while William of Orange holds it steady by the horns. The cow is defecating on the Duke of Anjou, who is holding its tail.
>The picture was painted in the period following the visit of François, Duke of Anjou (brother of King Henry III of France) to Queen Elizabeth's court in 1581–82 to discuss his marriage proposal and his military support for the Anglo-Dutch alliance against the Spanish. Anjou's subsequent mission to the Netherlands met with disaster when his army was massacred by the citizens of Antwerp in early 1583. William of Orange was assassinated the following year
>>455877
I actually meant Phillip II of Macedon senpai
Phillip II of Spain was awful
>>455878
Thank god.
Is a usurpers heir a rightful sovereign even if he himself has to perform a coup d'état or is he still a usurper?
[spoiler] I like Napoleonic France don't get me wrong, I'm not using "usurper" as an insult. [/spoiler]
>>455477
It depends. Napoleon III was basically the historical Stannis Baratheon.
>>457713
Not everyone watches GoT, what the fuck does this mean?
>>455477
Bonaparte won an election and his rise to emperor was approved by a referendum, though. His name obviously helped but it wasn't the ground to his legitimacy.
>Satan replied, “Would Job worship you if he got nothing out of it? You have always protected him and his family and everything he owns. You bless everything he does, and you have given him enough cattle to fill the whole country. But now suppose you take away everything he has—he will curse you to your face!”
Is this the basis of Prosperity Gospel? Why does God give some people somethings but not to others?
>>455411
Maybe god isn't all powerful?
>>455485
OP pretty obviously begged the question that we're dealing with (I assume) a protestant theological position, which means we're not talking about the world as it is, but rather, the world from within the conception of protestant theology.
Do you get how we're playing this game now?
>>455485
Then hes no god.
>1. The physical constants of the cosmos take anthropic values.
>2. This coincidence must have a causal explanation (we set aside for the moment the possibility of a chance explanation through the many-worlds hypothesis).
>3. Therefore, the constants take the values that they do because these values are anthropic (i.e., because they cause the conditions needed for life).
>4. Therefore, the purpose of the values of these constants is to permit the development of life (using the aetiological definition of purpose).
>5. Therefore, the values of these constants are the purposive effects of an intelligent agent (using the minimalist conception of agency).
>6. Therefore, the cosmos has been created.
atheists BTFO
>>454563
>>1. The physical constants of the cosmos take anthropic values
Tell that to all the humans that are now dead
>>454563
I take issue with number 5. Every intelligent agent we know of (humans, maybe chimps and whales) have highly complex central nervous systems, with billions of neurons and quadrillions of connections. A god who is highly intelligent, therefore, most probably has a brain that is much larger and more complex than a human brain. An infinitely intelligent god would seem to require an infinitely large brain. This means that theism involves introducing more complexity, more amazing coincidences and purposively organized structures, than was present in the data it is designed to explain. Consequently, the prior probability of theism is even lower than the probability that the cosmos became organized anthropically by chance, and so the anthropic coincidences do not make theism more likely true than false.
>>454582
lool what? this fucking board mane
Is logic a valid way to find out the truth-value of a statement, or is it just a way of privileging certain discursive modes over others?
RHODESIA #BTFO (AGAIN)
>60 million africans
fuck outta here with this reddit shit
>>453881
>truth value of a statement
Read Philosophical Investigations. All truth values of statements are subjective and subject to context.
There used to be an idea that statements contain 'atomic facts' which are the absolute bear meanings, all of them which can be assigned true or false values. Wittgenstein showed that the idea is objectively wrong.
Something that has always frustrated me about my history professor is what he thinks of idioms. He says some idioms are "historical" and are good, but others are "plebian" and bad.
What makes an idiom good or bad to put in an essay?
Eg:
>...during the late 1770s the British ministry had much more on their plate than just the War Of Independence...
is BAD
>... for the East India Company much more lay in the the balance than simple economic gain....
is GOOD
how do i tell which something is?
>>453592
>plebian
He almost certainly doesn't use this term.
>...during the late 1770s the British ministry had much more on their plate than just the War Of Independence...
You've hidden a claim about what actually happened behind the idiom here. Also, for fussy classist arseholes this idiom would be considered common.
>... for the East India Company much more lay in the the balance than simple economic gain....
Here you've contextualised the subjective as being possessed by a past historical agent, and there's a nice pun about "balances" and "economic gain" given that balances, or weigh scales are associated with trade and money as specie.
>>454211
>plebian
He does. Hes kind of weird. But nice.
and i pulled those quotes out of my ass, theyre just examples as to two idioms, one of which he said was good and one of which was bad.
the tone/register of one is formal "lay in balance", the other very much less so "have on plate"
Why did India never get mass-converted to Islam by the Delhi Sultanate/Mughal Empire?
And why didn't the British/Portuguese spread Christianity more in India like they did with their other colonies?
because the hold by the sultanates and the ME,was tenuous and shaky.
The brits found it out the hard way in 1857
>>452986
To add to this, The delhi sultanate did go on conversion sprees when they were able to consolidate their power for a long period of time.
tughlaq tried converting his subjects.
But more often than not they were on a war footing trying to conquer more land, especially the then rich rajput princes because of the overland trade routes they held.
These campaigns resulted in general truces and ocassional win for the sultanate, mostly under allauddin khilji. Dynastic instability also plagued the sultanates.
The nawabs of bengal were often in open rebellion against the sultanate, and didn't have a policy of aggressive conversion, but the imposition of jizya changed the religious map of bengal.
The mughals initially barely had a toehold in india under babur and humayun, and were briefly expelled by sher shah suri, AKA the guy who started the grand trunk road.
The mughals under akbar consolidated their power primarily via a policy of religious tolerance.
Aurangzeb shit the bed and killed the empire slowly.
>>452963
The stench from the mass pooing in the streets kept them away
What is the most respectable new-age movement?
What is the least respectable?
>>452405
Polyamory
>>452405
1. DEFINE "RESPECTABLE".
2. THE WHOLE OF THE "NEW AGE" PHENOMENON WAS SOCIALLY ENGINEERED IN THE NINETEEN SIXTIES TO DIVERT AND NEUTER THE REVOLUTIONARY SOCIOCULTURAL FORCES THAT HAD BECOME ACTIVE.
"NEW AGE" IS NOTHING BUT DECEPTION, LIES, AND PERVERSION.
>>452405
Chaos Magic
Deities are admittedly fictional.
Why do believers pray for world peace, pray for speedy recoveries, pray for their final exams, pray for food, pray for their football team, etc?
For the same reason communists like you go to street protests against global capitalism.
>>452250
>prayer is only when I ask God to do things for me.
You have a shitty way of thinking about what prayer is.
>>452280
I'm not taking about prayer/meditation in general, I mean when someone asks God for something (examples in OP)
Name a country with more boring history.
not possible. maybe Australia. It went down hill after the Brits went up the St. Lawrence and BTFO the frogs.
Australia and NZ?
>>451756
boring aint bad
its more fun to observe instability from afar rather than to experience it firsthand.
What makes Marxism so attractive to the academic class?
>>449661
>What makes Marxism so attractive to the academic class?
Because it makes sense.
>>449661
We already had this thread.
If you don't believe in God, then communist/socialism is what you naturally come to conclude.