What the single biggest setback to science that's ever occured?

File: 1493037314429.png (48KB, 924x560px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 924x560px

>>8858776
LE

CHRISTIAN

DARK

AGES

>>8858778
this

>>8858776
Hard to tell. Either the fall of Rome and the subsequent Christian Dark Ages, or the Muslim Dark Ages which followed shortly thereafter.

Leaf posters

premature death of Galois

>>8858782
please return to reddit you gigantic mongoloid, Christian monasticism was the only thing keeping learning alive when Rome fell

Also the Islamic golden age brought a ton of scientific advances

Canada

>>8858785
fuck off leaf

Bill Nye

>>8858790
lol
Educate yourself, kid.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html

>>8858797
>educate yourself
>posts a blog link
bloggo

>>8858778

I think you meant the sand nigger (muslim) invasion of Europe (which caused the Dark Ages in Europe... because lots of people were killed off or enslaved by the sand niggers.)

>>8858804
A blog to a PhD historian, on his topic of expertise, and particularly the topic of his thesis. Considering your rank amateurism, I linked to an article intended for public audiences, instead of a direct link to the thesis itself.

>still used the term """""Dark Ages"""""

You are all autists falling for the worst misnomer in history. The usage of the term is shunned by the historical community for this exact fucking reason

>>8858778
>le + fedora = atheism destroyed
Good shit my man.

>>8858806
Remember when King Henry VIII invented an entire religion so he could fuck his sister?
>shit was so cash

>>8858811
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html

> One might object and say, "Historians no longer believe there were any 'Dark Ages'!" That depends on what you mean by Dark Age. What I mean by that term here is any era in which a considerable amount of knowledge is lost, especially scientific and technical knowledge, while the ruling zeitgeist looks backwards to a time before more enlightened ways of doing things were embraced. The loss of over 90% of all literature, and the corresponding historical and scientific knowledge it contained, is a fact. The abandonment of the highest civilized, technological, historical, and scientific ideals of the early Roman elite, in exchange for more barbarian ways of thinking and doing things, is a fact. And that is, by my definition, a Dark Age.

> Far less was recorded during the middle ages, and far less accurately, than had been the case in classical times, and only a small fraction of what was recorded before was preserved, and even what survived remained known to astonishingly few, and put to good use by even fewer. Again, by my definition, that's a Dark Age. At the same time, the greatest aspirations of the pagans, with their struggling ideals of democracy and human rights, just like their empirical ideals and the scientific spirit they inspired, were chucked out the window in favor of more primitive ideas of "god-given" kings constantly at war over a feudal society, pontificating popes and pulpit-thumping preachers, burning witches and the widespread embrace of hocus pocus, even by the educated elite. That's a Dark Age. And however much one might not like it, we had one.

The answer is reified time, nothing else even comes to mind for me

>>8858776
Unironically capitalism.
I hold the key, I blame the key, made me, defame the mold

>>8858847
Soviet dialetical materialism was also a huge setback but not like capitalism is

>>8858847
>>8858853

why are these such huge set backs in your minds, they seem totally trivial and arbitrary to me

>>8858776
hopefully he'll get a pre-nup

>>8858866
Judges and lawyers can rip it up even if there's only one little little little flaw or the judge doesn't think it's fair.

>>8858847
>Blaming the system and not those who ruined it
You're part of the problem

>>8858820
That guy's talking out his ass and clearly has an agenda. He completely discredits his opinion as a historian by getting basic chronology wrong.

>burning witches and the widespread embrace of hocus pocus, even by the educated elite
Strictly considered heresy in the middle ages to believe in either of those. Indeed, witch burning occurred firmly in the Early Modern Period in the 16th and 17th century, the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment eras. The official stance of the Catholic church had always been that witches weren't a thing, and this stance is seen clearly by the fact that the Roman, Venetian, and Spanish inquisitions never burned witches.

>>8858862
The private ownership of capital leads to science to serve the needs of industry and completely undermines its integrity. It's inherently ethically bankrupt, "the vile maxim" and all that.
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist materialism has really fucked up some ecological systems and suppressed scientific advancement.
I guess the real problem is hierarchal social institutions.
>>8858905
>Blaming the inputs to a system for the systems function
>reducing networks to individual nodes
Wew lad

>>8858914
>I called you a blasphemer not a witch, there's a difference I s-swear!
>muh Spanish Inquisition was totally rational
I think the hate for Chriatianity is overblown, but it's stupid to think that the Dark Ages aren't a thing.

>>8858914
Citations please, for all of it. My preliminary googling strongly suggests otherwise.
Ex:
http://www.salon.com/2005/02/01/witch_craze/

>>8858921

Okay well when you put it this way I agree with you. But also if we look at it from that perspective, I'm not sure what you imagine science is. Science has only just been hierarchical society's project to introduce regiment and domination to nature

>amber heart

Nigga, didn't she donate to charity what little she could get from the massive fortune of Johny Depp? She didn't even put him in the state hes in right now, the dude did it by over expending every last cent he has gotten.

File: albert-einstein.jpg (292KB, 806x746px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 806x746px

The Catholic Church and "global warming"

Catholic here btw

>>8859093
>"No wonder the history of the original European witch hunts of the late 16th and early 17th centuries has become politicized. By the early 1900s, they were seen as outbreaks of hysteria fostered by a sinister and oppressive Catholic Church. Then, about 30 years ago, revisionist historians began to claim that the trials constituted a more systematic campaign by the patriarchal church to extinguish the remnants of goddess-worshiping pre-Christian religions by wiping out the people who preserved them: women, specifically folk healers and midwives.

>Both views are wrong, but as far as popular conception goes, the second has triumphed."

>"There’s more. The Inquisition was not greatly involved in witch burnings; it had its hands full with Protestants and other heretics, whom the church shrewdly perceived to be a far more serious threat to its power. In fact, while the justification for condemning witches was religious, and some religious figures joined in witch hunting campaigns, the trials were not run by churches of any denomination. They were largely held in civil courts and prosecuted by local authorities (some of whom were also religious leaders) as criminal cases."

>"Current popular history holds that the witch hunts were concerted campaigns by a male-dominated church that felt its sway diminished by stubborn pagan and folk traditions that gave too much respect to wise old women. The persecution, the story goes, was designed to stamp out those beliefs. However, when you look at actual cases, the picture is quite the opposite...Against the bishop’s express orders, the mayor and council arrested and tortured several suspects, causing the death of one."

You should probably actually read the things you post, you fucking fedora

unironically oligarchical capitalism occurring at this very moment.

genetic research for example is being suppressed by the medical/pharmaceutical industry.

>>8859169
Could you please explain how that contradicts anything I said or my earlier source said? I'm not seeing it.

The source does say that it was mainstream Catholic belief to allow the punishment, including killings, including burnings, of convicted witches. It also says that this was a common practice in Catholic areas.

Are you reading the text to say that no sanctioned killing of witches happen before 1500? I hope not. The text surely doesn't say that.

Further, I never made the claim that witch burnings was primarily motivated by the church organization, and neither did my first source. Rather, i was just a flippant offhand remark about the state of technological and scientific progress that THE PEOPLE AT LARGE believed such nonsense, and furthermore many of the elite even believed such nonsense. The remark is not a condemnation of the church, and my earlier source goes out of his way to even explain that the Dark Ages wasn't entirely the Catholic church's fault (a position that requires some nuance to explain).

So, no, I think you're the one who needs to slow down a little bit and read more carefully before posting.

>>8859178
this desu
and a lot of waste cleanup places (take Hanford, for instance) rarely do anything substantial or try new techniques when it comes to actually fixing problems because if it works they're out of a job.

>>8858776
1. "World peace" 1990-today
2. Liberalism
3. Jewish nepotism
Take you pick.

>>8858797
The Christian monks are actually the only force that kept any knowledge alive. They manually copied the books in the cellars and went blind from that, carried the books across the continent by foot and saved the book out of wars.

Everything, so a drooling retard on an anime forum can say "HURR CHRISTIANITY IS TO BLAME FOR THE DARK AGES".

>>8858776
in the USA its the republican party, no contest.

File: The-Library-Of-Alexandria-And-Its-Legacy.jpg (326KB, 1340x786px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1340x786px

The destruction of the library of Alexandria by Julius Ceasar. Then what remained was trashed by a Christian mob who, chillingly, did not agree with "pagan" science and knowledge.

All the amassed knowledge of humanity was stored in that one place, there were no copies, no man had memorized a fraction of its contents. When the Renaissance finally came around they had to go by fucking statues, paintings and letters instead of well-crafted scientific journals.

>>8859195
>The Christian monks are actually the only force that kept any knowledge alive. They manually copied the books in the cellars and went blind from that, carried the books across the continent by foot and saved the book out of wars.

You have a grossly distorted view of history.

Even until the 14th century, in practice, it was criminal to translate the bible into English. The church didn't want people to be able to read, and definitely not read the bible, because then they might be better able to challenge the church.
http://www.ralphmag.org/GI/tuchman.html

It was this culture that lasted nearly a thousand years the general public were illiterate, and no general efforts were made to make them literate, and occasionally efforts were made to ensure that they stayed illiterate.

Therefore, the only people who had the literal capability to preserve books by copying them were members of the church. They were the only ones with the literal ability to read, and they were the only ones who received any sort of governmental funding. In other words, the church helped establish a culture where there was no one else with the capability to preserve books, and occasionally used force to ensure that this remained the state of affairs.

So, given this context, you want me to thank the church for preserving a few table scraps? I wish to conjure the usual analogy, where the slave is supposed to be thankful to the masters for literal table scraps thrown to the floor. That is ridiculous. The church is to be blamed for the aforementioned policies of general ignorance and illiteracy, in addition to their willful choices to not preserve more knowledge.

TBC

>>8859237
Further, these monks were often more concerned with preserving arcane and obscure theological tracts instead of scientific knowledge. Just as an example, Archimedes was developing the beginnings of Calculus, more than 1000 years before Newton, and he wrote it down. Some Christian monks had his work, and decided to erase it in order to write some prayer hymns or some shit.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/prayer-archimedes
Can you imagine how much farther science might be today if not for this one act? Imagine having Calculus hundreds of years, even thousands of years, before Newton.

>>8859237
>>8859240
PS:
Muslims also had a very large part in preserving ancient Greek and Roman knowledge during the Christian Dark Ages. Much of our knowledge of ancient Greece and Rome comes from the middle east.

>>8859237
>Even until the 14th century, in practice, it was criminal to translate the bible into English.
For a good reason. Half of it's meaning got lost in translation.

>The church didn't want people to be able to read, and definitely not read the bible, Aha, sure, that's why they opened monastic schools and later universities.

>because then they might be better able to challenge the church.
Why would anyone challenge the church, considering that the Muslims were standing in Europe and beheading everyone in their way?

>It was this culture that lasted nearly a thousand years the general public were illiterate, and no general efforts were made to make them literate
The general public was always illiterate. The only literate ones were the merchants and the nobles.
Just look at you, you are historically illiterate.

>>8859251
Missing the point. Before the church, it was socially and legally permissible to read and write. Under the Catholic church, it was often criminal (more or less) to be able to read and write, unless you were a member of the aristocracy or the church. A ban on English translations of the bible: that's the basic effect and purpose.

>>8859248
Yes, the muslims were good for science. Not so much society.

People like to bash religion but to be fair, only Christianity held science back with such tenacity.

>>8859251
Before the fall of Rome, there used to be libraries, universities, where scientific advancement happened, where debate and discourse happened. That was quite literally gone for a thousand years in Europe, due in large part to the apathy and occasional malicious interference of the church and other political powers. The church was not particularly worse than some earlier pagan religions and city governments, but it was different in that it had a near total control on large swathes of Europe for a whole millenia, where practically zero scientific advancement was made, and where large amounts of scientific knowledge were lost.

>>8859261
>The church was not particularly worse than some earlier pagan religions and city governments, but it was different in that it had a near total control on large swathes of Europe for a whole millenia, where practically zero scientific advancement was made, and where large amounts of scientific knowledge were lost.

But it did create the stability necessary to form powerful nations. As the muslim world collapsed from conquest and internal strife, the rich and powerful christians were free to pursue science at a rate never seen before.

File: 1466754007241.png (1MB, 3630x1615px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3630x1615px

Finno-Korean Hyperwar

>>8859268
>the rich and powerful christians were free to pursue science at a rate never seen before.
You're right, but not in the way that you mean. The Dark Ages are the best testified and recorded 1000 year period where practically zero scientific progress was made. I can agree that in a certain sense, this was entirely unique, and never before seen.

>>8859277
You know I mean afterwards.

Or if you don't then you're waaaay out of your league trying to have a discussion on the subject.

>>8859294
After the Dark Ages? Sure, we saw plenty of scientific advancement after the Dark Ages. I agree to this. Possibly more scientific advancement than at any other point in human history.

>>8859255
>Missing the point. Before the church, it was socially and legally permissible to read and write.
No. The majority of the population were slaves, soldiers and "urban poor", they were all illiterate. The "general public" you are referring too were mostly the middle-class city dwellers.

>>8859261
>Before the fall of Rome, there used to be libraries, universities, where scientific advancement happened, where debate and discourse happened
No, shit. It was all funded by centralized taxation system
You can't have a library, when your barony only has a few thousands serfs, who only bring in enough taxes to keep you lance equipped and trained in case your neighbor decides to fuck you up or your liege goes to war.

And you see how it all came back once centralized empires and kingdoms started appearing again. It has nothing to do with the church, that was busy by taking care of the refugees and the orphans of the never-ending wars.

>>8858778

Nah, that gave us battlefield science, which is generally one of the most important.

I'd say after the Moon missions, when we stopped manned spaceflight and didn't go with manned installations on the moon and Mars.

We had it all good to go with natural evolution of designs and then...we just pulled out.

>>8859310
>The "general public" you are referring too were mostly the middle-class city dwellers.

Which is still a shitton better than under the Catholic church. That's the point.

The point is that under the Catholic church, no such universities formed for a thousand years. No one else took up the mantle. And that's in large part because of the policies of the church and government.

>>8859314
Hell, if you watch Richard Carrier's youtube lecture on ancient science, he gives examples of how Romans knew about the square-cube scaling law, and its applicability to crossbows and ballistae. The Christian monks who copied that shit didn't understand it, and made occasional errors while copying numbers in mathematical tables, rendering them useless.

>>8859318
> than under the Catholic church.
You are acting like the Church was the government. Are you retarded?

>>8859320
Do you know nothing of history? The church had substantial political power. Hell, sometimes during this period, they also had the largest army too. And I'm not just talking about the crusades.

I think it is all of the Tesla's ideas that were just too progressive for their age and got lost.. :/

>>8859169
>the witch-burning based on absurd, ancient superstition was *technically* carried out by municipal, not church, authorities, and the church was too busy burning prots and atheists anyway
Wow. You sure showed him, huh.

>>8859328
>Do you know nothing of history?
Seems like you don't.

> The church had substantial political power.
Not really. You knowledge of history is based on hollywood movies.
Vatican was sacked now and then, most prominently by France and Spain, every king and duke who was anyone had his cardinals in the Vatican and tried to push his candidate into papacy, or even overthrow the current pope and legitimize an anti-pope to further his agenda. The last one you saw with your own eyes by the way, the German Pope was replaced by the current one by the Obama administration (see January CIA leaks). That's classic anti-papacy.
De-facto the Church was a non-profit corporation of charity, military and intelligence, which was used by powers to further their agenda.

>>8859351
I don't see how what you wrote contradicts what i wrote. I largely agree with your description. It was an interesting mix and sharing of political power that we don't see today.

>>8859351
>>8859363
I do want to offer some additional nuance. The church did maintain its own separate court system. The court system of the time was a gigantic mess compared to today. There often wasn't a clear and longlasting hierarchy of courts. The church had their own courts, the king had their own courts, other nobles and counties and towns had their own courts, etc.

It is true that the church had their own courts, which had the full effect of law, which could be used to kill people, and was used to kill people.

>>8858776
>this is what movie stars and billionaires are burning their money and lives on in the goold ole usa

She's a 9/10 at best. Embarrassing.

>>8859363
It contradicts in the way, that Church didn't have anything to do with keeping the masses illiterate or stopping progress.

To educate someone you have to pay for it. That's why only the nobles and the merchants were educated. So the one opening schools and libraries should be the monarchies, not Church.

Church only took upon itself the basic social function of welfare, which collapsed along with the Rome. The Church took care of the orphans, distributed bread to the poor, held festivities, and upheld morals. Basically the functions of the Pontifics and Aediles. Everything else was traditionally done by the government, Including education.
The church had nothing to do with the decline in the theoretical sciences, on the contrary, they at preserved the knowledge of arts and sciences.

>>8859388
I grant that it was not just the church. It was the overall culture of the time, which did not value scientific thinking, reading, and learning.

Again, the church preserved some things, but it was far more concerned about preserving obscure and irrelevant theological texts than actual science, see:
>>8859318
>Hell, if you watch Richard Carrier's youtube lecture on ancient science, he gives examples of how Romans knew about the square-cube scaling law, and its applicability to crossbows and ballistae. The Christian monks who copied that shit didn't understand it, and made occasional errors while copying numbers in mathematical tables, rendering them useless.

>>8859240
>Further, these monks were often more concerned with preserving arcane and obscure theological tracts instead of scientific knowledge. Just as an example, Archimedes was developing the beginnings of Calculus, more than 1000 years before Newton, and he wrote it down. Some Christian monks had his work, and decided to erase it in order to write some prayer hymns or some shit.

>>8859377
>It is true that the church had their own courts, which had the full effect of law, which could be used to kill people, and was used to kill people.
No, the courts could only be used to kill or imprison people inside the realm of the Holy See, as it was a sovereign state.
Everywhere else the king had the say and the best the Church could do is excommunicate. But the kings often traded people for other favors of the church.
Inquisition, everywhere it acted, acted with full consent and authority of the local government. For instance some German states refused the inquisition, others turned to Luther and were burning Catholics instead to send a message.

>>8859399
Dude, that's not how it worked. And I'm also talking about 500 years earlier.

I'm sure that the church had the consent of the local kings when they ran their religious courts, just like the king had the consent of the church to run his own courts. However, it's not like in every instance the religious court needed to seek approval from the king. It was its own independent operation, with its own assumed legitimacy, independent of the king, and the kings went along with this publicly.

>>8859397
>The Christian monks who copied that shit didn't understand it, and made occasional errors while copying numbers in mathematical tables, rendering them useless.
The monks came from the lower classes, had a basic education and didn't have any special training in sciences. They did best they could in the time where war never ended and cannibalism was an everyday thing. They sacrificed themselves to copy scientific documents, even if they failed to copy them accurately or didn't realize the importance of some of them.

>>8859404
>And I'm also talking about 500 years earlier.
So when the Rome just fell? Well, there was no government, so yes, they took the job of the courts too but it was a very strange time, because the barons, dukes and the kings were actually all Roman patricians, who's positions were made hereditary during the 4th century reforms. Technically up until the 9th century it was all branches of Roman government trying to figure out how to rule.
The era ended with Charlemagne and that's when the rulers claimed independence in legislature and the courts.

>>8859428
That is most of the era claimed to be the Dark Ages, roughly 300 AD to 1300 AD. I thought this is what we were talking about. What were you talking about?

>>8859431
I'm talking about 700-1300. Since until the mid 5th century Rome was still a thing, and was slowly crumbling under it's own corruption and liberalism, very much like we are now. And the next ~300 years it was falling apart, but still trying to hold together on paper.
The "dark ages" rightfully started with the Muslim conquest of the southern provinces and the crisis in the Eastern Empire.

>>8859457
>slowly crumbling under [...] liberalism

Oh goddamnit, I'm being trolled by a neo-Nazi from /pol/. Go away to your own board, won't you, please.

>>8859431
By the way if you look into the reforms of the 2-4 centuries, especially the financial ones, you will see how Church had nothing to do with it and everything scientific got defunded to keep the legions happy and pretend Rome stronk, so the vassalized Germanic tribes don't start a revolution.

>>8859466
It is true tho. It's a vicious cycle of empires. Liberalism is one of the traits.

If you compare Valens, who let a massive number Visigoth refugees cross Danube and settle into the empire (which later led to massive wars and them sacking Rome) to Caesar, who slaughtered 100,000 Germanic refugees, only because he was getting late to sail to Britain, and didn't have to talk to them, it becomes apparent.

>>8859457
>liberalism
Rome didn't have a bourgeoisie

>>8859482
What? Rome was ran by the bourgeoisie. As you remember, the majority of people in the empire were slaves.

>>8859469
Yes, I'll agree. My first source says as much as well. It wasn't just the church, and it's wrong to blame Christianity as being the sole cause. Christianity was at fault, and it was generally indifferent to hostile to scientific progress, but it was more than just the literal church organization, and it was more than just Christianity too.

>>8859487
Eh no it was slaveowners and landowners
If your "means of production" are free gifts of nature, agricultural land and privately owned people you're not bourgeois

>>8859492
I'm saying the the Church no only didn't have anything to do with it, it helped salvage what was salvageable. If you consider that all the research up until renaissance was done by the church, it's a lot. Then the Church had to do the healthcare during the plagues, oversee basic education and even the propaganda. Basically the Church had to do every administrative function of the state, except the legislature, because the rulers were preoccupied with preparing for wars and repairing the aftermath of wars.
All that for 10% taxes they were getting. I think the indulgence trade was a direct result of them being stretched too thin.

Besides as we know the more functions the government oversees, the less effective and more corrupt it gets.

>>8859515
>If you consider that all the research up until renaissance was done by the church, it's a lot.
What scientific research? There was precisely zero scientific research. That's part of why it's called a Dark Ages, again circa 300 AD to 1200 AD. Absolutely no scientific nor technological nor engineering advances of any kind, and a great loss of existing scientific knowledge.

There was fabulous stuff going on before that, such as Galen, Archimedes, Ptolemy, etc. We were making great advances in mathematics, medicine and biology, physics, engineering, etc.

>>8859500
>Eh no it was slaveowners and landowners
Every free citizen with some money was also a slave owner. Due to the permanent conquest the slave market was so oversaturated you could get a slave for a denarius.

By the way the corporations were a thing after the Punic wars, due to the price drop on slaves the merchant collectives and rich families bought out all the land and worked it with slave labor. The unlanded people moved to the cities and formed a large caste of "urban poor", for whom later a welfare system was installed and they were used for political campaigns for the promises of more gibs, similar to the modern American negroes.

>>8859522
>Uses the word "negro"
>Expects to be taken seriously
I curse thee vampire, away!

>>8859525
What's wrong with that word?

>>8859529
I curse thee vampire, away!

>>8859522
>Every free citizen with some money was also a slave owner.
I mean, yeah. They had a ruling class in the usual sense, and the contrast was immense. Just no bourgeoisie.

>>8859531
Niggers. Is that better?

>>8859532
Well, are mills, smithies and sawmills means of production? Because literally everything was ran by slaves.
Of course they had bourgeoisie.

And by the way land is a mean of production too, according to the Marxist theory you're referring to it should belong to the farmers working the land, not to the land owners.

>>8858776

Hippies and socialism. Imperialism and war would have landed us in Space already.

>>8859543
Science only happens in a free society, where society values independent thinking, critical thinking, free expression, and truth over dogma. Those values are not compatible with imperial dictatorships. That's the point. Any sort of religion is an impediment, and any sort of dictator is an impediment (because they'll want to squash those sorts of values).

>>8859548
>Science only happens in a free society, where society values independent thinking, critical thinking, free expression, and truth over dogma.
USSR and Hitler's Germany would like to have a word with you.
It's actually quite the opposite, the more totalitarian the government, the more progress occurs.

File: 1481816028780.jpg (26KB, 424x339px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 424x339px

>>8859548

Explain how North Korea is developing systems to launch nuclear weapons, then?

Science grows on necessity for survival. Look at the leaps of progress we made in technology in WW2. Global warming will be the best thing to speed up the singularity, only in the face of danger does motivation kick in, just like grinding up non stop a day before the final exam.

>>8859554
You might see that for a short period of time, but it's not stable. In most dictatorships, you see the opposite.
http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL3503H05/olson.pdf

>>8859557
Because someone else worked out the basic idea before them, and they are squandering the resources of an entire fucking country. Highly inefficient use of resources.

>>8859558

>Because someone else worked out the basic idea before them, and they are squandering the resources of an entire fucking country. Highly inefficient use of resources.


They are still making progress, so Science is definitely happening. Whether it's efficient or not, it's another point entirely. Do not move goalposts, buddy. You do not need a free society for Science to progress.

>>8859558
>In most dictatorships, you see the opposite.
Actually no, you see the same. Because nothing stimulates more that "get that thing into space or we will kill your family".

You can see this in North Korea, a country in a complete economic isolation under total trade embargo managed to have a successful nuclear program, a space program and is now testing a long range ICBM.

>>8859564
>Whether it's efficient or not, it's another point entirely.
No, that's the entire fucking point. The earlier claim was that progress is made faster under extreme dictatorship or something, and North Korea is definitely not a fucking example of that.

>>8859569
North Korea is a perfect example of it see >>8859568

They even have their own computers with their own processor architecture. No free country of their size and population has achieved the same technologically, ever.

File: 12556131_1528042197525599_1253395658_n.jpg (28KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x480px

>>8859569

>The earlier claim was that progress is made faster under extreme dictatorship or something
>or something


>>>>Hippies and socialism. Imperialism and war would have landed us in Space already.


This claim clearly indicates Scientific progress is made in times of necessity and war. Get some reading comprehension skillz.

>>8859574
Dude. It's not like they invented that shit. They got it off the internet. That's not scientific advancement. It barely even qualifies as repeating the engineering advancements of others.

>>8859577
No, it was "imperialism and war". You just ignored half of it.

I'll grant that war is often a big cause for innovation - for the winner's side anyway. Still, I suspect you see only practical engineering advancements, and very little pure math and pure science advancements, for obvious reasons, and pure math and pure science advancements are very important for tomorrow's technological advancements.

>>8859578
>They got it off the internet.
Yes, there is a lot information on the internet about enriching uranium, building intercontinental ballistic missiles or starting a silicon foundry.

>>8859586
As I said, practically no scientific advancements, and pisspoor repeating of engineering advancements of others with lots of guidance and help.

>>8859589
Most countries can't even do that, with free trade, international banking and massive help.

File: 1486523467893.jpg (127KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1000x664px

>>8859589
>>8859584
>>8859578

I think it's very clear to everyone here, that you're just talking out of your butthole, Mr ''Scientist''.

>>8859540
>land is a mean of production too
Yes, yes, but land itself is a free gift of nature, the total supply of which can't be expanded by performance of labor. In that sense it's "truly scarce" amid an analysis which largely holds labor to be the only truly scarce resource.
There's a reason we don't refer to the landed feudal aristocracy as "bourgeois" despite knowing land is a means of production, and that has to do with the mode of production itself, and land having different properties.

>>8859543
>>8859577
>Imperialism and war would have landed us in Space already.
Yeah, okay Lord Keynes. I forgot that fighting the opium wars made China a technological superpower while fucking around with zaibatsu kept Japan stagnant.
I have a ditch you can dig and refill or some windows you could smash up, if you want. You might discover how to build the first mars colony, think about that!

>>8859591
So what? It's still not scientific advancement to repeat what others have done with lots of documentation from others.

>>8859594
Then almost nothing nowadays is. 99.9% of the modern advancement is recycling of the old projects.

>>8859596
Again, so what? You don't get to change definitions just because you want to win the argument.

>>8859594

>It is not scientific advancement for North Korea to gather information, learn and apply to create something new they didn't have before or knew how to make.


True, god works in mysterious ways I guess.


>>8859593

>Yeah, okay Lord Keynes. I forgot that fighting the opium wars made China a technological superpower while fucking around with zaibatsu kept Japan stagnant.
I have a ditch you can dig and refill or some windows you could smash up, if you want. You might discover how to build the first mars colony, think about that!
It's undeniable that war between countries of equal power and technology boosts Science, and knowledge in general. If you want to compare the U.S.A using rifles against a couple sand dweller throwing rocks so you can feel better about your tree hugging endeavors, go ahead, pal.

>>8859601
Again, repeating something that someone else has done based on extensive notes is not really scientific advancement. Scientific advancement is doing something /new/. That's what the "advancement" in "scientific advancement" means.

File: 1491699925884.png (106KB, 662x594px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 662x594px

>>8859598

Said the guy doing extreme damage control to defend his erroneous views that Science cannot exist in authoritarian societies. Just accept you're wrong, Anon.

File: amber_heard.png (385KB, 500x499px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 500x499px

>*cuts herself behind you*
nothing personal kid

>>8859607
>Science cannot exist in authoritarian societies
Never said that.

File: 1491720053112.jpg (10KB, 342x344px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 342x344px

>>8859611
>Never said that.
>>8859548
>''Science only happens in a free society, where society values independent thinking, critical thinking, free expression, and truth over dogma. Those values are not compatible with imperial dictatorships''.
Thanks for the hearty kek, you backpedalling retard.

>>8859611
>>8859621
Welp, my bad. I should not have said that. I exaggerated.

>>8859601
>It's undeniable that war between countries of equal power and technology boosts Science, and knowledge in general.
>mass appropriation of public resources towards some cohesive end boosts science.
Gee. I wonder how the resultant "progress" compares to that of similar scale appropriations towards literally any other project.
What's that? The social resources exist to lead us into a new scientific golden age, but the market simply doesn't appropriately coordinate them, so we need to go bomb people in order to effectively advance?

File: 1484479191087.jpg (19KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x300px

>>8859623

>>8859630

Making the statement that war between nations of equal power greatly boosts technology out of necessity does not equal making the statement that war between nations of equal power is something to willingly seek out. The same why realizing racial differences in IQ does not mean we should go out and bash black people over the head.


I think you're a doing a disservice to Science, and truly, truth in general to make such an assumption.

File: 1434190973423.gif (141KB, 300x420px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 300x420px

>>8858778
Im keeping that pepe,in return a rare card.

>>8859318
>Hell, if you watch Richard Carrier's youtube lecture on ancient science, he gives examples of how Romans knew about the square-cube scaling law, and its applicability to crossbows and ballistae. The Christian monks who copied that shit didn't understand it, and made occasional errors while copying numbers in mathematical tables, rendering them useless

Warfare improved dramatically over the "Dark Ages", greatly exceeding what the Romans had.

You went from bronze swords and bows/siege weapons of the Romans to steel swords and firearms/cannons in Medieval Europe.

>>8858778

This. And the conservatives are trying again.

>>8859634
My point is that there's nothing about war that uniquely lends itself to social progress above and beyond "funding science" in general.
The market doesn't allow for that level of innovation because social need is subordinated to private profit. Then war is the classical "government solution" - not particularly efficient, but it's the most effective solution profitable enough to become and remain public policy. The "democratic solution" would be one step further, discarding constraints on private profit to fully optimize the problem for social need and expense. Of course, we'd have to get rid of the bourgeoisie first.

>>8859093
>blogs
>salon
reconsider your life

>>8859643
Firearms happened after the Dark Ages.

Iron swords were in common use before the Dark Ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_sword

Very little advancement even in the tech of warfare happened in the Dark Ages. Almost all of the cool arms and armor stuff happened after 1300 AD.

>>8859659
First hit on google. Sue me.

File: 1491627757641.jpg (184KB, 432x444px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 432x444px

>>8859651

>Conservatives are going to bring back the dark ages by stopping low IQ immigrants from flooding first world nations
>Defending freedom of speech
>Denying gendered Newtonian fluids from acquiring special rights
>Supporting NASA
>Stomping extreme authoritarians states threatening the world with nuclear war
I welcome thy, darkness.

>>8858815
Double negatives negate each other, am I right?

File: Cute.jpg (31KB, 536x527px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 536x527px

>>8859653

>Of course, we'd have to get rid of the bourgeoisie first.


Basically, you're a fucking commie. You're deluded if you think you're going to change anything by removing the 1%. This issue is ingrained in human nature, politics are just the outcome of it and sincerely, you should be very thankful of our current system compared to the other possibilities. Remove those on the top, and you'll do nothing but replace the actors playing the same role.

>>8859643
Cannons in Europe also post-date the Dark Ages. Also invented in China, and the knowledge made it to the west via Muslims (AFAICT).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon
> The first confirmed use of cannon in Europe was in southern Iberia, by the Moors, in the Siege of Cordoba in 1280

>>8859643
So, I'm going to bed, but I wanted to emphasize strongly before I do, that this post is one giant entire asspull. I've just shown that all of the particulars are false.

I take care to not pull shit out of my ass. I actually care about what's true. It seems that you have no similar compunction. Honesty. Intellectual integrity.

>>8858790
m8, islam is destroying scientific thought. the arabs were only good with categorizing math from the greeks. they are worse than christians when it comes to evolution or if the earth revolves around the sun.

>>8859673
>removing the 1%
Oh no, way, way less than 1% of the population. It doesn't matter how wealthy someone is, but how they acquire their wealth. If you earned it, great, but we do have a tiny, parasitic minority that subsists off extracting the labor of others without performing a useful social role, because they own the means of production. The idea is to remove this violent social relation itself, not to remove the people and replace them with others who do the same.
>This issue is ingrained in human nature
Claiming that "human nature" is fixed, immutable, and uniquely responsible for X is just a fatalistic, unfalsifiable position that completely sidesteps comprehending X in its specific character.
>you should be very thankful of our current system compared to the other possibilities.
Fallacy of relative privation.
Yes, for the most part we're better off now in terms of standard of living than under feudalism, but that doesn't mean capitalism isn't deeply contradictory and invariably trended towards crisis.
>Remove those on the top, and you'll do nothing but replace the actors playing the same role.
Again, the idea is to change the material conditions which give rise to the social role in the first place. "Abolish money, classes and the state" -really- means to make them obsolete.

The key idea is the bourgeois themselves who administer the state apparatus understand that the market can't perform and make compensating for it their business. That's what the neoliberal "technocrats" like. Science is one of the clearest, most glaring areas where this is so.

>>8859721
Stop shitposting on the computer you parasitic filth, you didn't earn it. Give it to a Indian wunderkind so he can design better toilets.

>>8859721

>Abolish money, classes and the state

But you can't do that, because there's inherent differences in people. Those who are smarter will always rise to the top, sooner or later owning the system and modifying it to their wishes.


How are you going to motivate people to work without money?

>>8859558
Holy shit you are the king of moving goalposts

>>8859734
Yeah. I didn't mean "earn" in the sense of subjectivist moral philosophy. What I mean is, people should be entitled to the product of their own labor, and to free exchange of it with others. This is stolen in the form of surplus labor value through the wage system, however. Profit presupposes underpayment, which is possible because the means of production are concentrated into relatively few hands. Their use is necessary for survival (i.e. for performance of socially necessary labor under capitalism) and so a labor contract is inherently coercive.

>>8859739
Read the rest:
>-really- means to make them obsolete.
Now think about what this means, for a second. Existence of money, a ruling class holding the means of production, and the ruling class organized as the state, are all outcomes of definite material influences. My point is precisely that you CAN'T merely "abolish" these by force of will or imagination, but you MUST remove these influences themselves, and hence make these outcomes "obsolete" for them to truly vanish. For instance, the existence of a bourgeoisie is made obsolete by post-scarcity conditions, say, under full automation.
>But you can't do that, because there's inherent differences in people. Those who are smarter will always rise to the top, sooner or later owning the system and modifying it to their wishes.
This is an argument against any arbitrary form of social change at all - "it's all useless." Again it's this sort of fatalistic sophistry people come up with to avoid examining non status quo ideas.
>How are you going to motivate people to work without money?
First, wage slavery is hardly motivating. A lot of people find pride and fulfillment in their work and do it for reasons other than the money. A great many jobs we have are objectively unnecessary and with the extent of automation and the productive forces today, we could get by each working eight hours a week by producing for need and not exchange. etc.

>>8859771

>1. Automation is not here yet
>2. You still have not explained how to motivate people to do jobs without working
>3. You still have not explained how you are going to make the exchange of labor for access goods obsolete

>open thread
>hope that nobody fucking says dark ages
>some idiot is arguing about the dark ages and uses witch burning which happened after the fucking dark ages as justification
The anon who said monks maintained knowledge in the Western empire were entirely correct. Also I would like to note that the REST OF THE WORLD had not been destroyed and that Western europe had pracically always been an outpost in comparison to the rest of the world. It is widely accepted among historians that the Dark Ages are a myth.

women.

What about the three basic examples of Bruno, Ol' Copernicus and Galileo?
Weren't they forced to redact their ideas and inventions for the sake of Christianity's heliocentric belief? Or anything disproving their religious belief was halted by the church. It's happening right now with Islam as well.

>>8858790
>Islamic golden age
https://youtu.be/WZCuF733p88?t=1m20s

>>8859804
You're just mincing words.

Monks maintained knowledge in the West = Only Monks were allowed to read or write.

>>8859846
>Weren't they forced to redact their ideas and inventions for the sake of Christianity's heliocentric belief? Or anything disproving their religious belief was halted by the church. It's happening right now with Islam as well.
Don't forget the USA

Climate scientists silenced because their research is inconvenient for the lobbies influencing the government

>>8859804
>dark age is a myth
You are probably mistaking Historians for the skydaddy shamans at your local church.

>>8859879
Right. So, why aren't we discussing that, instead of trying to dig up dirt on who did what at what time? We're discussing what held back science, and so far it's been ideologies and how the advancement of science disproved them, and how it destroyed profits for some. Anything beyond that is lost in the history books as subjective. We can't really prove the fine points of history.

>>8859667
>I welcome thy

And I welcome thee, lack of an education

>>8858782
fucking retard

>>8859548
Not if that society is Imperialistic and Expansionist for the general goal of developing science and advancing technologically. Someone in a very class-based, brutal and Collectivist society will always be superior to someone in an inefficient, more individualistic society.

If those making the decisions see the worth of such progress, then it will be undertaken in an exponential and extremely factory-like efficiency. Even to do the detriment of individual safety, health and happiness.

>where society values independent thinking, critical thinking, free expression, and truth over dogma.
All of this is irrelevant if you make a core part of your society: attacking goals or issues in a rigorous and systematic fashion. Whereby something is not found due to independent thinking or free expression, but an efficient machine of running through everything that it could be.

Darkie ages

>>8859213
Well they are definitely the most dangerous aggregate of humans in history, as in the consquences of their actions are an exterme threat to the survival of humanity and the rest of the current complex life

>>8859651
Is this bait?

File: 465467114.png (736KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 750x563px

>>8858776
Consumerism

The part where the Crusades wiped out the world's single greatest Mecca of science and knowledge was pretty bad

>>8858776
Leftism in all its forms. Not a singular set back but a long permanent drag against progression and accomplishment in favour of bitterness and equality.

>>8860131
0/10

>>8860133
oh look, its another conservatist who willingly pays his taxes to corrupt politicians with a vacation house on some random island

>>8860135
are you retarded? pre 21st century islam was fuking OP, they only cared about science and bringing humanity to new heights. In their fucking holy book the Quran it even says shit about the universe, physics, hell even muslim aliens are mentioned living in planets on different galaxies with their own prophets and shit.

>>8860137
> polticians are corrupt
> so lets put more power and wealth in their hands whilst reducing individual autonomy from the state
Leftists.

>>8860145
I've read the quran, it talks as much about the universe as any abrahamic religion and less than other religions. What it does say is fantastical nonsense with no relation to reality.

Further to that islam was never OP, there was a strong arab strength pre-islam takeover which immediately stopped with the anti-intellectual traits of islamification of their states and institutions. Later they had a role as conveyors of knowledge from other groups, which was massively helpful but in no way reflective of them being OP. At least the christian monks who kept up the tradition of writing were often philosophers and scientists themselves, guess shithead muslims cant manage that.

>>8860146
>muh I dont need no fukin state to babysit me
>heey where all the roads went!!!!

>>8860155
What an idiot, even if i was a libertarian that wouldn't apply.

>>8858776
It will be the left impeding genetic editing. The idea of having to face up to inherent differences in capacity will be too much for them.

>>8860152
>christian monks
>people that just copied books
>hue we wuz memesophers n shits

>>8860158
>muh free market will fix itself
>heey am i being scammed???!
>i dont need no babysiter though!!!

>>8859915
Oh nice one dude!!

File: 1484808803215.png (174KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 308x308px

>>8858778

>>8860129
>The overconsumption of science based technology is the greatest deterrent to science
K

>>8860185
>muh computer science
lol k

>>8860165
> aquinas
> Anselm
> Luther
> ockham
> magnus
> bacon
> mendel
> copied books
wew lad, might want to head back to school

>>8860173
> no law in a libertarian world
It makes sense you being left wing when you are so absent of political education.

>>8860193
Thomas Bayes, too

I'd lick his religious cokc

>>8860200
That was just a list i remembered from my philosophy degree and engineering degree. I'll have missed hundreds that i never learnt about.

>>8860197
Hey! I'm a liberterian socialist and that guy is a complete retard
The real criticism
>capitalist liberterian
Self-refuting idea, capitalism is individualistic authority

>>8860197
XDDDDDDDDDDDDD I WAS JUST JOKING LOOOOLLL
WHY U GOTA BE SO SERIIOUS BOUT SOME LABEL YOU PUT ON YOURSELF?? XDDD
YOU GONNA GO RALLY ON THE LIBERTARIAN MARCH THIS TUESDAY AS WELL? XDD

>>8858776
Science doesn't have setbacks. That's like saying the meteor that killed the dinosaurs set back evolution. No, it just set back the dinosaurs, it didn't set back evolution. Scientists can be set back, because they have aspirations, agendas, and goals. There is no goal in science, only that of understanding. And the only thing that can setback one's understanding is oneself.

>>8860217
Kill yourself statist

>>8860219
Hm. I see your point, but what about the censorship, and destruction of scientific data that has already been established by someone, but unable to teach it to the masses? As such, the basic three examples, Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno.

>>8858776
>le christian dark ages meme

actually, the roman empire stopped progressing centuries before it collapsed (which might be the main reason it collapsed in the first place) and the christian kingdoms from ~800 onwards actually started technological progress again and your average european kingdom around ~1300 way way ahead of roman levels of technology.

>>8860303
That's often the matter of skepticism and politics, heliocentrism wasn't as controversial as it's thought in pop culture. During that era there was much debate over it and many prominent people defended the model without issue. There is always going to be an uphill battle when challenging the very root of a science but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A more interesting example to have used would be Darwin having refused to publish on the origin due to his personal religious convictions. Censorship is undeniably the enemy of science but it's usually at the hands of public and personal opinion.

>>8860317
They also permitted human dissection which helped advance medicine a lot, even if it took a while.

>>8860324
Interesting, but I feel like you did a side-step there.
>at the hands of public and personal opinion
During those times, wouldn't religion be a controlling factor? Religion teaching one thing, science trying to prove the other. Healthy skepticism, I'm sure, and I do understand, but even now you can see these battle of ideologies where people scream, when facts and research are the prominent debate points.

The Holocaust.

>>8860339
Yes definitely they informed public opinion - but they were a scientific institution. In those ages most academic work was funded by the church, universities were church run and most people in higher fields were clerics themselves. So their say was the prevailing researched scientific opinion and people had good reason to listen. However skepticism could also be dressed up as heresy when unwanted. The point of saying this all is that the church didn't really impede science through their censorship as they were really the only ones doing research at all. It was only later when this all became more available to the public and lay institutions that they could be said to have started frustrating the process and holding things back. Especially in medical fields today.

>>8860358
Well, they might have held back certain discoveries, to protect their own ideology.
Anyways, though, thank you for the enlightening perspective on this whole "dark ages" thing.
What do you think was the most problematic thing for scientific discovery, though?

>>8860340
The nazi experiments actually forwarded science inordinately. I dont support it at all but if you remove all ethical constraints and people's freedom you can really get progressing.

>>8860365
On the most abstract level our brains are, they weren't designed to work out the world and so we're entirely at the whim of whether they're reliable narrators or not. It's amazing we've come so far.

In real world terms the problem is always funding and interest, science is a luxury and it barely progressed for the majority of human existence because we had other things to worry about. It's rocketed in the last couple of centuries because it's now viable to be a dedicated, specialized scientist. In turn with hyperspecialization we now see diminishing returns with funding and so interest wanes in things like space travel or medical research. Science only really moves on so long as someone here and now is making money. Censorship is a huge issue but only when the research is being made in the first place. So you have to keep a healthy and happy society for scientific fields to grow, which requires good economics, which requires good culture. I'm not so sure that the current post-modernist hatred of the enlightenment and reason, with a strong religious cult ready to pick up the slack is a good omen for progress at all.

>>8860366
That's what people think, but the truth is that using their data is so taboo that nothing has ever been published using them. In other words, the experiments conducted by Nazi Germany, at least those conducted on humans, were utterly useless since people refuse to look at the data. Also, if you think Nazis made important contributions to sciences like physics, think again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

>>8858778
>It's an american doesn't know about byzantine empire's existence: the thread

>>8860582
Science in the Byzantine Empire was pretty sub-par.

>>8860317
Citations. Oh wait, you don't have any, because none exist, because you're full of shit.

>>8860303
All post-date the end of the Dark Ages, i.e. 1200 or 1300, and so are irrelevant. Even then, several of those people got fucked by the church.

File: 1280px-Hand-siphon_for_Greek_fire,_medieval_illumination.jpg (454KB, 1280x891px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1280x891px

>>8860604
begone, pleb

>>8860385
I doubt modern cults would pick up the slack. It would be more of a mysticism and occult type of progress or regression overall.

>>8859261
>Before the fall of Rome, there used to be libraries, universities, where scientific advancement happened
Not at all you retarded tripfag. For Christ sake, universities are a Catholic invention. Shut the hell up about things you know nothing about. The Christian """""dark ages"""" are a myth. And here's some sources:

"Historians and archaeologists have never liked the label Dark Ages ... there are numerous indicators that these centuries were neither 'dark' nor 'barbarous' in comparison with other eras."
Snyder, Christopher A. (1998). An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400–600. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. xiii–xiv. ISBN 0-271-01780-5..
The stereotype of the Middle Ages as 'the Dark Ages' fostered by Renaissance humanists and Enlightenment philosophes has, of course, long since been abandoned by scholars."
Raico, Ralph. "The European Miracle".
"A popular if uninformed manner of speaking refers to the medieval period as "the dark ages." If there is a dark age in the history of Germany, however, it is the one that follows: the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, the time between the Middle High German Blütezeit and the full blossoming of the Renaissance."
Dunphy, Graeme (2007). "Literary Transitions, 1300–1500: From Late Mediaeval to Early Modern" in: The Camden House History of German Literature vol IV: "Early Modern German Literature".
"It is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the fact that little was then known about the period, the term's more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/151663/Dark-Ages

>>8858797
>>8858810
>>8859318
>Richard Carrier
"Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an American historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker, and blogger." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier
>atheist activist

Gee, there's no way he could have any form of anti-Christian bias. Certainly an atheist ACTIVIST who doesn't even have any degrees in medival history, only ancient history, would have no reasons whatsoever to paint the classical era as enlightened and the predominantly Christian medival period as unenlightened. Nope, no reason whatsoever.

>>8859236
I was going to say this and Gauss hiding some of his ideas, he set back mathematics 50 years, and with computers making it faster, who knows how much we'd have by now. Maths going forwards really furthers science too.

>>8860605
>Citations

googling "technology in the middle ages" or "inventions of the middle ages" seems to be extremely hard. But as a help for you, brainlet: The first universities in europe were founded around the year 1000, in the midst of the alleged le dark ages.

So, you guys are telling me that the shithead Christians, that wanted to preserve "MUH THEOLOGY" didn't intervene into scientific endeavors. Nor did the Muslim cults and society totally destroy progress after a golden age of science.

>>8860720
No, they didnt. Also note Spain sailed to America because they wanted to spread Christianity there. This is what started the age of colonization. So maybe no Christianity, no global dominance of Europeans.

>>8860720
>So, you guys are telling me that the shithead Christians, that wanted to preserve "MUH THEOLOGY" didn't intervene into scientific endeavors.
No, because you're uneducated on Christian thought. The Catholic Church is far from anti-science, that's a myth made up by Protestants during the reformation. A fuckton of important scienctists and mathematicians were either catholic clergy or devoutly Christian, and the number only increases if you include Protestants. The Church is one of the primary reasons that we still have classical scientific literature.
>Nor did the Muslim cults and society totally destroy progress after a golden age of science.
That did happen, but it was muslims destroying a golden age of science in the muslim world. Philosophers like Al-Farabi are one of the primary reasons we still have Aristotle

>>8858776
After all these very abstract, more generalising answers without concrete reasoning (le christianity lol), I'd give you one very concrete example, where science was definetely and without a doubt got set back: Cutting almost all funds for space exploration after reaching the Moon.

>>8860743
> Most scientists were christians, therefore christianity was good for science

t. butthurt christfag

>>8860750
It's more like
>the institution of the church preserved and funded science, therefore it was good for sciece

>>8858778
>>8858782
>>8858797
>>8858810
>>8859190
>>8859237
>>8859255
>>8859261
>>8859277
>being this fedora.
>Reading only these biased sources
>not paying attention to actual historical accounts and realizing there wasn't a """"dark age"""""

>>8860750
Well, greeks and romans produced like 4 or 5 great scientists in 1000 years, christian europe produced way way more than that.

>>8860750
its not that christianity was actually in favor of science. Its more like christianity and western views allowed scientists to be largly uninhibited

>>8860750
>Christians preserve scientific knowledge
>Christians create universities and teach science and math
>Christians fund the sciences
>Christians make major scientific discoveries

Anon
>therefore Christians are bad for science

Really makes you think

>>8860757

number of scientists != progress made by scientists

>>8860720
Islam had it's own golden age of of scientific and mathematical progress till the Mongol's sacked Baghdad in the 1200's and pretty much killed off the majority of scholars, mathmaticians, philosophers, and scientists living within it.

>The Mongols showed no discretion, destroying mosques, hospitals, libraries, and palaces. The books from Baghdad’s libraries were thrown into the Tigris River in such quantities that the river ran black with the ink from the books. The world will never truly know the extent of what knowledge was lost forever when those books were thrown into the river or burned.

http://lostislamichistory.com/mongols/

It kind of sounds like we're only focusing on the good, and none of the bad religion did for science.
Fundamentalists today are holding back progress even now.

>>8860820
Oh most definitely, but nobody but fundie proddies agrees with fundie proddies.

>>8859651

All liberal atheists need to be killed.

>>8860826
Bill Nye with his new show is also hindering science. Science is not about what you feel about your genitals.

>>8860767

There is a difference between christianity and christians. And I'm not saying that christianity was bad for science, just that science probably would've made more progress had it not been for christianity.

I'm not a m'atheist by the way, I would consider myself a pantheist. I'm also not against religion, but whenever science and religion conflict, science should always win.

>>8860617
Technology and science are two different things, and this was especially true in Antiquity and the Middle-Ages. Read some proper history of science books instead of browsing Wikipedia like a gaylord.

>>8860870
had it not been for christianity it would have been for polytheistic religions that actually hindered scientific progress much, much more.

>>8860870
>There is a difference between christianity and christians. And I'm not saying that christianity was bad for science, just that science probably would've made more progress had it not been for christianity.
Please provide the evidence. And no, Gallileo doesn't count, because he was flat out wrong given the evidence at the time. Objectively prove that Christianity held back science and that without it science would be more advanced.
>I'm not a m'atheist by the way, I would consider myself a pantheist. I'm also not against religion, but whenever science and religion conflict, science should always win.
If relgion and science ever conflict, then that is a sure sign one has stepped out of the bounds of it's purpose: they seek to do and explain 2 very different things, and as such should never conflict.

>>8860743
>A fuckton of important scienctists and mathematicians were either catholic clergy or devoutly Christian

sure, like a fuckton of academicians in the Soviet Union were devout commies, right?

atheism was punishable by death until the middle of the 18th century and with lifelong inprisonment in a lunatic asylum for another century or so. you expect openly non-christian scientists during those centuries or what?

in before atheists were just loved by the church.

>>8860908
>atheism was punishable by death until the middle of the 18th century
No it wasn't, that's an outright lie.

>>8860918
yeah, told you. in before etc.

it is you who are spreading lies here. plus you never prove any of the egregious shit you keep claiming, as if you came from an alternative history where the church did not commit all of the well-known atrocities. the church in medieval europe played the same role as the communist party in soviet satellite countries.

>>8860881
>Please provide the evidence. And no, Gallileo doesn't count, because he was flat out wrong given the evidence at the time. Objectively prove that Christianity held back science and that without it science would be more advanced.

It is impossible to see alternative timelines. I'll give you this argument. Maybe a religion like christianity was necessary for the scientific revolution that followed the middle ages, but the exact teachings of christianity definitely didn't help with science.

>If religion and science ever conflict, then that is a sure sign one has stepped out of the bounds of it's purpose: they seek to do and explain 2 very different things, and as such should never conflict.

Science conflicts with the bible. So you're saying that the bible isn't a part of religion?

>>8860908
>sure, like a fuckton of academicians in the Soviet Union were devout commies, right?

uhh yes? even today most scientists lean left or are flat out socialists.

>>8860946
>yeah, told you. in before etc.
You literally said that it was illegal to be atheist until the 1800's, long after the fucking enlightenment, and after the fucking French Revolution, when you were more likely to be killed for not being atheist. inb4 doesn't excuse you from outright lying.

>>8861011
>but the exact teachings of christianity definitely didn't help with science.
Prove it. As is, the church preserved and advanced science, which would in fact help science. And this is rooted in it's teachings, the catechism says as much.
>Science conflicts with the bible. So you're saying that the bible isn't a part of religion?
Stuff like genesis has long been considered a metaphor, since at least Augustine. So no, they don't conflict, unless you're a braindead creationist

>>8860777
well then i guess its a good thing they made incredible progress and invested in future progress too.

>>8860946
>plus you never prove any of the egregious shit you keep claiming, as if you came from an alternative history where the church did not commit all of the well-known atrocities
Such as?
You haven't actually proved shit, you're just using vauge ad populums like "well everyone knows the church did all these atrocities, you dumb christcuck"
Offer actual evidence for these atrocities, specific dates, events, etc.

Women

>>8861254
*proven shit

>>8860946
>here are my points not backed up by facts.
>well thats wrong because facts and history
>THATS A LIE REEEE

>>8860908
>atheism was punishable by death until the middle of the 18th century and with lifelong inprisonment in a lunatic asylum for another century or so. you expect openly non-christian scientists during those centuries or what?
>the enlightenment never happened
>the french and german nihilistic schools never existed
>major early 29th century atheist scientists never lived
This is impressive. You have to try to be so uneducated to think that you were put in a madhouse or jail for being atheist until the 1950's.

>>8858782
>Muslim Dark Ages
You mean the present?

Ironically?
>le DUMBald DRUNPF xdddddd #billnyedontlie

Unironically?
French Revolution.

>>8860317
I'm gonna say no, mostly on grounds of lack of Aquaducts, mass cement production, irregularity of steel production (every roman gladiolus was made of steel, via a celtic method), also lack of sewer systems.

>>8860317
Also, a good measure of scientific progress and understanding is how man fountains a civilization has, of which ancient rome and greece had many, but dark age europe had none until the Renaissance.

>>8861369
are you retarded? the middle of the 18th century is 1750, and a century later would be 1850

>>8861459
1200 to modern day yes

It's a huge shame though, the Muslims were the most advanced scientifically at that time. The House of Wisdom in Baghdad was the largest repository of knowledge in the entire world and the Muslims had access to more Greek scrolls than all of Europe did. The Muslims themselves weren't special, but the way they brought together Greek, Chinese, Indian and Persian knowledge together and worked on it was truly a good thing for humanity.

The burning down of Baghdad and all it's intellectual hubs is the scientific equivalent of the loss of the library of Alexandria for historians. To make things worse, look at what Muslims have become today... I wonder if a more civilized Islam would have been detrimental to Europe's progress or if it would have helped it develop further by being competitive.

>>8859236
this is the only correct answer in the thread, everything else is politically charged rhetoric attempting to deceive.

>>8861531
>French Revolution
how

>>8861571
le jealous jean-paul marat killed ubermensch lavoisier ecks dee

>>8859236
Nobody actually knows if caesar did it

>>8860720
4chan defends Christianity now because it's butthurt about social liberalism. Just look at /lit/ or /pol/ they're all converting because they're butthurt about sluts and gays.

>>8861556
Shoot, it did say 18th century rather than 1800's
Either way, that still ignores the enlightenment, the foundation of modern atheistic thought.
Anon is a retard either way.

>>8858776
/sci/ is

>>8859791
>Automation is not here yet
More and more is automated every day, and automation, rather than freeing up people for more leisure time or more fulfilling pursuits as the machines take over their responsibilities, sends them to the breadlines.
>You still have not explained how to motivate people to do jobs without working
I feel like this is an awkward, roundabout way of fishing for a response like "we'll send men with guns to remove you from your house if you don't work enough," but that's exactly what happens under capitalism. Hmm... As I say, people are motivated by countless things besides money, but if you own and control the full product of your own labor, clearly you make more by working harder, rather than the same minimum needed to keep you on board while Porky pockets the remainder. Hard work is incentivized, because you can produce more for yourself or work less, according to your own priorities.
Another option is "labor vouchers" which is like currency and similarly represents a claim on resources, except it is issued to an individual, expires after use, and does not circulate. But that's really kinda silly.
>You still have not explained how you are going to make the exchange of labor for access goods obsolete
Labor is only made completely/practically obsolete under full automation, but any increase in automation does decrease the socially necessary labor time it takes to produce the same goods/services, meaning the same effort goes farther and produces more. Aligning production with social need also allows for more rapid automation and more substantial investment in the technology for it.
Many people suggest that markets are a fine way to coordinate the exchange of luxury goods, while essentials should be planned, but again that's one of many viewpoints. The actual strategy can, and should, be adapted to the real conditions of society/production and chosen by what works the best.
I didn't say I was going to make labor obsolete, though.

File: 5998076+_cdc6baeee2c8f3bb0a8e7eb6a4f89038.jpg (14KB, 326x239px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 326x239px

>>8859915

>>8861632
Not the anon you replied to, but did you get this from an earlier thread??

>>8861658
I think that should be a dt in the Gamma function.

File: math progression.png (4KB, 363x323px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 363x323px

>>8858778
for those who unironically believe this

>>8858797
>blog
lol
what a fucking idiot

>>8858843
Please explain.

>>8861786

t. went back in time with a scientific instrument to measure scientific advancement

>>8858806
Plague

>>8860709
>!!
Pity they didn't do anything of any note whatsoever. At least not until many hundreds of years later.

>>8860743
>The Catholic Church is far from anti-science
It is anti-science. They believe things for no good reason. They embrace believing things for no good reason, aka faith. That sort of thinking stands in direct contrast to science. That kind of thinking is fundamentally incompatible with science.

>>8861229
>French Revolution
>I cited an anecdote and an outlier as though this makes a legitimate point!
Asshat.

>>8861238
> the catechism says as much
> The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it
Err
> The church says it, I believe it, that settles it

>Stuff like genesis has long been considered a metaphor, since at least Augustine. So no, they don't conflict, unless you're a braindead creationist

Noah wasn't real. Neither Abraham. Exodus is fiction. Practically all of the gospels is fiction too, along with Acts. Half of the letters of Paul in the Bible are known forgeries. We know very little about Jesus with any reliability whatsoever, assuming that there even was a Jesus in the first place.

File: 1423585411286.png (2MB, 1386x4653px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1386x4653px

for the uninformed

>>8863029
>no conflict between science and religion
lols

>>8863029
>galileo wasn't persecuted because heliocentrism disagreed with church dogma, but because he taught it as fact instead of """a theory""" while some people disagreed
Huh

>>8858776
Marxism. Redistributing wealth away from science and industry.

And Neo-Marxism with its anti-positivism and social constructionism. Basically infected all of the 'soft-sciences', hence no real progress in these fields for more than half a century.

>>8863096
>>Trump wasn't persecuted because anti-global warming-ism disagreed with science dogma, but because he taught it as fact instead of """a theory""" while some people disagreed

>>8863035
do yourself a favor and read the article.

File: Galileo_facing_the_Roman_Inquisition.png (350KB, 511x496px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 511x496px

>>8863096
>If the earth is moving, why don't we feel it?
>If the earth is moving, why don't we see the stars move?
>Galileo: .... Fuck you, heliocentrism is muh waifu! You must be stupideo!

Liberal arts and useless university courses. They drain funding to real sciences.

>>8863161
>/pol/tard fails at logic, episode 9765823

>>8858776
People

>>8858776
It is possible that the pace of my many continued discoveries in the years 2009-present might have been lessened had I received the accolades I deserve in a timely manner. However, they may have been hastened had I acquired some collaborators.

>>8860756
Of course there wasn't a Dark Age in territory not controlled by the Cucktolic Church.

>>8858776
Bill Nye the sex junk guy, just set us back 20 years in the global warming awarness by associating himself with the most despicable human beings.

>>8859310
>slaves
As a matter of fact during Roman times it was desirable to educate your slaves, many of them founded schools after they gain their freedom, look it up.

>>8863415
THIS
THIS
THIS
FUCKIN THIS!

People don't even realize we are living in the capitalist dark ages.

>>8859554
>USSR
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>>8863010
>the French Revolution and the enlightenment
>outlier
Go learn some history you retarded tripfag.

>>8863096
Except Gallileo was wrong given the evidence at the time. The church, and most every other scientist at the time, knew that for the heliocentric model to be right, there would have to be a parallax, which they didn't see at the time. Gallileo's model failed to explain the lack of the parallax, and as such it was rightfully veiwed as wrong. It wouldn't be another 200 years until Bessel would show that there was a parallax. Given the evidence at the time, Gallileo was wrong

>>8858776
Marxism
TV Shows
Civil Rights movements

Well if you want to do science today you need funding. Bankers and politicians and as of late, billionaires, dictate what kind of science gets done.

I don't know what the greatest setback ever was, but as it is currently, our economic and political systems are the biggest bottlenecks.

For everybody reading this thread:
"Scientist" has admitted he's an actual commie and a brainless thorium worshiper. Don't bother engaging with him until he's older.

>>8863415
Blame bill bye and not the corporate interests and politicians that have been repressing the science, misinforming the public and delaying action since the 1990s
Sex junk is irrelevant and you spergs are making it a big deal for no fucking reason

>>8863928
You can't avoid people protecting their inetrests, fighting oil industry is forced to happen.
On the other hand when you are a public figure of the scientific community and climate science in particular, you have the responsibility to not stain your image and the climate science image by association.
Bill Nye is 100% responsible for that, and the scientific community should massively disavow him to distance themselved from him.
The fact this is not happening infuriate me even more.

>>8864074
>it's okay for sociopaths to endanger the survival of humanity for profit
>the real problem here is popsci advocating for unrelated things I do not like
Fuck off sperg, gender roles are not biologically determined and that is scientific truth. It's like you don't only believe in the gene-centered veiw of evolution, you believe in a gene-centered view of behavoir LMAO. You have been completely brainwashed by post-gamergate memes and are getting butthurt when others aren't.
Who fucking cares anyway? This is an insignificant issue that has nothing to do with climate change.

>>8858776
Maybe the destruction of the Library of Alexandria? Either that or the Muslim Dark Age.

>>8863256
>ad hominem

It's literally the same thing.

The contamination of a lot of cancer cell lines with HeLa cells.

A general failure of biomedical researchers to learn how to use proper statistics.

>>8864152
>You believe in the gene-centered veiw of evolution!
Hahaha! you got me here. I'll steel this one from you for a copy pasta.

>>8858776
my phd supervisor

>>8864152
>gender roles are not biologically determined and that is scientific truth
Oh come on, this gotta be bait.

File: image[1].jpg (21KB, 214x320px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 214x320px

>>8863143
>Marxism. Redistributing wealth away from science and industry.
Marxism isn't redistributionism. It's the bourgeois government that "redistributes" wealth in the interest of its own stability.
Maxists think the workers should own the means of production and democratically control the product of their labor, since all wealth is created by labor and "ownership" does not fulfill a social need, only make labor contracts inherently coercive.
Obviously a robust, developed "science and industry" is in line with social need. Marxists wouldn't want to stifle their development.
>Neo-Marxism with its anti-positivism and social constructionism
I should mention that these theories are essentially incompatible with Marxism itself, and "Neo-Marxism," if it serves any useful purpose to call it that, is thus in no substantial sense Marxist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
>All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.
Postmodernism with its "profound incredulity towards all meta-narratives" is first and foremost a rejection of any attempt to scientifically understand the course of history, the structure of society, and the cyclical crises in both. It is first and foremost anti-Marxism, and it is this fact which explains its predominance in academia.

>>8863161
>>8864322
Trump wasn't persecuted. He's never been deprived of life, liberty or property for his views, or placed in jeopardy of the same.
These days apparently we don't even lock up people who commit perjury, mishandle classified information, and destroy public records in an effort to dodge public accountability, so go figure.

>>8864959
Not the guy you are replying to, but the point of the frankfurt school neo-marxism is the acceleration of the natural decline of capitalism and the subsequent establishment of socialism by non-violent means.

>>8864979
Yeah, and they renege rather centrally on the philosophical foundations of Marxism, differing fundamentally in how they think the world works
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm
Petty-bourg academic "radicals" are frankly a dime a dozen. The Nazis, too, were nominally "anti-capitalist," but their theory and program didn't account for (the same) reality.
In the case of the Frankfurt Friends, it's pretty elementary that the cultural "superstructure" derives from and then reinforces the material "base," so that presuming to change the real conditions of life through and by first changing culture is both sheer pretense and utter nonsense.
Also, you're probably heard this before, but "socialism" is not some utopian state of affairs to be established, rather it means the real sublation of the contradictions of capitalism. In consideration of this, the Frankfurt School trying to "achieve socialism" isn't well-defined. All we really have to judge them on is the quality of their theory, and that leaves much to be desired - they went along for the Stalin ride long after other Marxist thinkers had criticized early signs of degeneration, bureaucratism, and "state capitalism," straight up to the Moscow Trials, where they had a protracted "disillusionment" phase and declared that it was Marxism itself to blame, and not their faulty, adventurist understanding of it.

File: IQ loss immigrants.png (276KB, 1580x746px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1580x746px

>>8858776
Modern mass immigration, we're not feeling the effects on science so much yet but when millions more uneducated Muslims and Africans displace white people in the West, the amount of scientific output we generate will decrease like crazy.

>>8865079
>The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international assessment that measures 15-year-old students' reading, mathematics, and science literacy every three years. First conducted in 2000, the major domain of study rotates between reading, mathematics, and science in each cycle. PISA also includes measures of general or cross-curricular competencies, such as collaborative problem solving. By design, PISA emphasizes functional skills that students have acquired as they near the end of compulsory schooling.
I think it's to be expected that immigrating to another country decreases a student's performance on such a test, no?
It's also not a measure of IQ, this is an improper inference to draw.

>>8864959
>Marxists wouldn't want to stifle their development.

> "true" Marxism

No true Scotsman fallacy - the post

>>8858796
Nice

File: 1480541344376[1].png (29KB, 385x209px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 385x209px

>>8865109
>an essential characteristic of Marxism points towards bleeding out science with the bourgeois state and frustrating scientific advancement, which is why I've deliberately said "Marxists" instead of "government redistributing" or even "liberals" or "conservatives"
>but that contradicts the basic knowledge that Marxism is an effort to resolve the contradictions of capitalism, such as those between use value and exchange value, or private profit and social need, which regards the state as inherently a device of class rule
>haha wow did you just try to define Marxism?! you're fucking dead, kiddo!

>>8865109
>>8865148
Adding to this, you run the risk of obscuring the real causes of "anti-science" policy when you insist, without evidence, on purely ideological causes.

Boasian anthropology and its assassination of sociobiology.

>>8863910
I dunno but looks like Catholic dark ages for 1000 years across Europe takes 1st place. On the other hand feudal society wins 1st place for durability. At least back then you knew who master was.

>>8864959
>Trump wasn't persecuted

You haven't seen antifa?

>>8865413
>antifa regularly beats up climate change deniers because of the fact that they deny climate change
Do you believe that, or are you taking me out of context as a rhetorical sleight of hand?

>>8858776
The fall of National Socialism in the Germany in 1945 at the end of WWII. That was probably the biggest setback throughout all of human history.

>>8865104
>immigrants from Somalia come to school
>test scores drop
>school gets less funding
>scores of native students continue to drop until all natives leave the school
>Now you have to fund more schools

File: image.jpg (91KB, 840x560px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 840x560px

>>8864783
No takesies

>>8858776
Any period where the burning of books occurred. Looking at you Mao Zedong

>>8858778
its less the dark ages and more the fall of the roman empire. The christian monks tried to save as much knowledge as they could, but they made mistakes.

>>8865515
You misunderstand me. A decrease in average test performance is indeed a bad thing and causes certain social problems. But the data does not suggest that test performance is decreasing because of a drop in average innate reasoning ability, or the contention that average innate reasoning ability is decreasing at all, merely that children who immigrate to these countries tend to have poorer levels of educational achievement at 15 than their native counterparts. Which, clearly, is influenced by the poorer educational resources in their birth country and the educational interruption/lack of continuity of teaching and expectations involved in moving across national borders.

>>8859213
Being from the US I have never seen society become some vehemently anti science. Even liberals tend to scoff and make fun of scientists, especially if they disagree with the subject. I'm very sad to my country spiraling downward, wish we could fix it.

>>8865589
*become more
*to see

String theory.

Nuclear weapons ensuring there won't be a WW3.
The Soviet Union being BTFO.

>>8863910
Marxist != commie. Completely different things. I'm not a communist. Social democrat is pretty accurate.

>>8863497
In context, as an atheistic revolution and a wholesale rejection of religion, for Europe during that era, yea, it was an outlier.

>>8865790
fuck off commie.

>>8864795
underrated

>>8863029
>>8863188
It's probably true Jesus didn't exist, albeit it's not maisntream scholarship.

> Talks about 12th century as start of rennaisance,
> Implies that this kills the notion of Dark Ages, which is generally considered to be 3rd century to 12th century.
Right. /s
I don't know what this is arguing against. That's more or less when the Dark Ages ended. It's the 900 years before that which is the Dark Ages.

> Aristle was the height of ancient Greek and Roman science.
Jesus Christ. What am I reading, and how ignorant could they possibly be?

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12361

> Buridan was one of the first to compare the movements of the cosmos to those of another Medieval Innovation - the clock.
(Actual quote this time.)
Jesus fucking Christ. Seriously? I don't even know what to say. The ignorance or dishonesty is astounding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

>Galileo wasn't just threatened with being killed for blaspheming, but also for disagreeing with science orthodoxy.
That's just as bad, dude.

Also, doesn't really defend the thesis that scientific thinking and values are compatible with religious / Christian thinking and values. Protip: They're not.

>>8865626
>The Soviet Union being BTFO.
It's pretty interesting. They put a dog in space fifty years after overthrowing their agrarian monarchy while using an economy that was planned on paper. That takes ingenuity.
I don't like bureaucratism and think members of planning bodies should've been elected by their local soviet, but you have to admit the bureaucrats got an impressive amount done

>>8865790
Filthy dumb socdem scum

File: hurr.jpg (59KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 960x960px

>>8860756
"muh fedora" christfag detected

>>8858776
>amber heard.jpg
>implying musk is important for scientific progress
fuck off shill

File: dark ages.gif (9KB, 363x323px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 363x323px

>>8861786

Wrong picture

>>8860908
I came from /his/ to call you a faggot

>you are a faggot

>>8865790
Marxist = Commie
Go back to revleft or whatever shithole you crawled out of with your popsci articles.

>>8865793
You're an utter idiot. The fucking enlightenment was the entire period of European history. That's like saying rome was an outlier in the classical era.

Please, never ever talk about history again, you're too retarded to not come across as an utter mong

>>8865790
>Marxist != commie
Off yourself.

You people already ruined the world enough, you make even the nazis look good. At least Hitler only killed 6 million and not a hundred million like stalin and his comrades did.

Also stop trip fagging.