There is something innately fascinating in finding technical, biological and economical explanations of historical developments, and it's definitely so much more satisfying than having to resort to nationalism, racism, or religion to explain one region or another's successes.

The risk, I guess, in treating human history as a set of engineering problems, is that the human mind is so attuned to finding cause and effect that it might make us a little blind to situations where the answer is actually more blind chance than anything else.

One of my favorite of these explanations is when China's 'failure' to colonize the world is attributed to the success of porcelain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0OhXxx7cQg

It seems almost too neat to be true - like the false etymology of Marie est malade - so does anyone know if there are scholars who poke holes in the Porcelain vs Glass explanation?

Edit: Improving my googling shows that this explanation remains reasonable but still also involves a bit of blind historical chance. Colored glass was available in ancient Greece, and the Romans and Egyptians used manganese oxide to decolor it, which led to transparent glass and the basis for lens-grinding... that decolorization process apparently didn't pass on to China or wasn't valued by their culture, perhaps due to the clear competitive advantages of porcelain.

Oh, Im sorry for calling out his bullshit. PC is much more important than the truth, right? No. PC creates taboos, and taboos have no place in a real democracy by definition.
And thats not opinions, that actually facts. There are even psychological studies about this. But the biggest bully of the world of course wont accept those facts and call them opinions, not only because he doesnt know anything else and would never admit he caused all this crap, but also because people like those would lose their power instantly. Funny how the first concern was about blame, he was afraid of being exposed, like they all are. And here I am putting out blame to the ignorant people who dont want to accept reality and being attacked because of it. Also something learned from history. We had to fight a world war to make people realize what a piece of shit they voted. Again, nothing learned from history. "But I didnt vote for them" instead.

These people are mentally ill, always have been for thousands of years. And they rule THE superpower nowadays. Normally history would have taught us about people like those very well, yet they are still being elected into power, if that history would be taught in schools. Well, it is, but there is no connection being made. "People today are completely different. We are hard working, honest, freedom loving democratic people who love all that lives, no comparison from the Romans or medieval times!!111eleven". BULLSHIT. Humanity hasnt changed a bit. And everyone knows that who knows just a bit of actual history. FACTS.

And now ridicule me for semi-ticking out with things you dont understand, and thus they must be stupid.

A big old spikey gloved fist up the anus to ANYONE pushing X-mas in November. It's the 12 DAYS of X-mas, not the 12 WEEKS of X-mas.
You can't really take the 'Christ' out of X-mas, he was never really in it. If you must insist it's a 'god's' birthday, that god would be Mithra (AKA. Mithras), not Christ. The whole idea that Dec. 25 was Christ's birthday was a political ploy of the Romans, not a religious (and in no way a historical) idea.

Since you brought up unusual punishments, let's take stoning people for adultery (which exists in both the Koran and the Bible). When was the last time someone was stoned to death by a group in the U.S., U.K., Australia, or even Malaysia for adultery? Hundreds of millions of Muslims and Christians around the world seem perfectly fine ignoring that part of their holy texts. Just because something that we find distasteful today is written in the holy text doesn't automatically make the religion evil nor does it suddenly force the practioners to behave like savages.

You need to look at the specifics. Take a look at the countries where stoning actually does still occasionally happen and who actually carries it out: Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Invariably when it does occur it happens in rural areas where there are people who still actually live like it is the middle ages, with extreme poverty and little education to speak of (other than religious). Sure, the book gave them the idea but it wasn't the only factor in play and to ignore these other factors or the fact that honor killings are in fact common across a wide number of cultures with varying religious backgrounds (even the Romans did it) is what would be truly intellectually dishonest.

As for extremists--they exist in all religions including Christianity. It wasn't a mob of Muslims who attacked Charlie Hedbo--it was two deranged individuals. And while some Muslims might have applauded the attack others denounced it, such as the hunderds of thousands of Chechen protestors who who were upset with the cartoons but didn't think violence was the right response (see article here).

Again, it's a complex issue that can't be boiled down to "Islam = Good/Bad." Islam as practiced by ISIS or Boko Haram? Yeah, there's some dark shit going on there. Islam as practiced by average citizens in Kuala Lumpur or Boston? Not so much.

But again, moderate statements based on reason and facts are not what sell books, generate online clicks, or fill lecture halls to capacity.

Damnit, I had written a long response addressing your points, but it got lost somehow and I can't be bothered typing it all out again.

Basically, your arguments are all either irrelevant or wrong.
Definition of monogamy? Widely accepted as one partner at a time, not one partner for life.
Romans / Greeks? Irrelevant, paranoid, and wrong. (They had good and bad stuff).
Circumcision? Irrelevant.
Polygamy is learned? I never said that.
Monogamy is inconvenient for "damn near everyone"? Patently false. Also irrelevant... what does the convenience or otherwise of monogamy have to do with anything?

Three things I have to say, @bobknight33:
1. You're complaining about christianity being attacked. Ok, fine, I'll tell you something: I am tired of your religious beliefs invading my life like an middle eastern dictator a small, oily country. Oh, I have it good, I'm a straight, white middle-european man, I'm fine so far. Others are not. They're tired as well.
I can go on a meth-bender, marry one of the Kardashians in Vegas and annul the whole affair in less than a week. If I win the lottery, I can post on Craigslist and get myself a nice gold-digging whore who'll sign a certificate that makes us husband and wife if I'm willing to trade lackluster blowjobs for money. Best part, it ain 't prostitution if you're married, legally worldwide. Heck, I can even become an abusive piece of shit as long as I can beat her well enough so she won't complain to others.
Because marriage is sanctimonious.
If I was gay and would like to marry the guy of my dreams that I've been with for 20 years, that isn't possible. Because the book doesn't approve.
If my sister got raped, you people would force her to birth the child of her rapist. Her concerns don't matter, life is a holy gift from god. Care to explain to me the position of the catholic church (you know, those christians that make up the majority of christianity) on slavery during centuries slavery? How holy was life in all those european colonies back in the day with all these missionaries teaching the good book? What exactly was their statement as an organisation when millions or people were murdered during the third Reich?
All that silence but when it comes to abortion, you people show up with guns and show the value of this great gift by murdering doctors. Fuck my sisters concerns, right? It just rape, walk it off.
I'm well of, I could join the club as a full member anytime. As long as I'm not calling the cops on the pedophile priests and the self-loathing faggots can stand on their pulpits and tell little children they're broken. I could be among you.
But I have a conscience. I can't buy all that talk about love and forgiveness and ignore all that hatred and cruelty that is in the very basis of your beliefs, that wretched, old bible of yours.
I have to look that man in the mirror in the eyes.
The only way you can impose all that crap on me anymore if through the government. I believe your faith has as much place in there than Tom Cruise's. None.
The Prodigy said it best and I think the people who lived at the time the bible was written would agree: Invaders must die.
Your religion invades my rights as a human being.

2. Did he rise?
Nope, little, brown Jewish got killed. End of facts, begin of story. I don't trust the testimony of men (and I said this before) who consider a walkman witchcraft. People at that time could be convinced that they farted because they swallowed an angry spirit that wants to escape.
You book did a terrible job of explaining how the world came to be (we're golems that had so much incest that they inbred mankind), makes up the worst disastermovies (everything turns to Waterworld but we have a boat with a pair of every animal in existence [imagine all those different kinds of ants alone] and then incest till population is back up) and turns mushroomtrips/mental illness in supposedly accurate future predictions (you know it's the end of the world because none of the riders is called "Incest").
The only reason people buy into the mythology and the extended universe (where's that bible chapter about Satan ruling the Sarlac Pit and Santa being canon again? ) is because for centuries children were taught it at a young age. And then you told them not to question it as heretics get the stake. Ashes yes but not the quick Buffy way.
Don't get me wrong, I like that Jesus fellow and I'm willing to believe his basic message but let's be honest. If J.K. Rowling was born 2000 years earlier, we'd pray to Harry Potter and wear lightning shaped jewelery around our neck. You guys got big because the Roman empire made you relevant. That's it.

3. What's up with '53'? Is that the christian answer to '42'?

Your video, Roman Army Structure, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Okay, sorry to continue the trend of givin' you shit but..

Yes, absolutely. You're the only one.

Because everyone else.. was too busy learnin' shit about the Roman Army.




...but also, yeah I too was confused by the 80 men in a century thing.

Time wise, we should be in the 25th/24th century.. weird.

well now I want to know more, more about artichokes, more about jewish roman cooking, more about this family, more about this restaurant. And I want to learn Italian.

Many people seem confused about our government's origins.
Wiki- Treaty Of Tripoli-unanimously ratified by congress and President John Adams 1797
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]

The constitution and bill of rights were based on English Common Law, which existed long before the Romans brought the idea of Christianity to England....so if people insist our laws are based on religion, remind them the religion in power where/when they came from was Pagan religion, and they should be worshiping Odin.

The issue for you is not "change", but that society would "capitulate" for "such an insignificant demographic group" of "less than 4% of the population", correct?

You cited this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles) of how many Americans were in same sex marriages.

Another Gallup poll shows the historical trend of religious self-identification in America from 1948 to 2014: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

In 1948, the proportion of respondents who self-identify as either Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jewish, is 95%. ~5% said "None" or didn't answer (less than 0.5% said "Other").

In following years, they tracked more detailed responses and grouped some as "Christian (nonspecific)" and Mormon, and changed the Roman Catholic grouping to just Catholic.

In 2014, those who specified a religion (which is everyone except those who said their religion was "None" or didn't answer) represented 80%.

The full statistics are in that link -- these two years are endpoints in the polls, but not outliers.

Thus, over 66 years Americans who identified as religious (not all of whom follow the Bible, but most do so I'll be generous to you) lost 15 percentage points. That's a rate of 0.227272 percentage points per year.

If Americans keep leaving religion behind at this same rate, in 2348 all religious people will represent less than 4% of the population.

Then we get to trample your rights, right Bob?

The "integration" of foreign cultures into Danish society should not be blamed for the current political or economic state of the country. Particularly when it is the very xenophobia (to put it generously) expressed in that sentiment which is more likely at the root of those difficulties. The historical success of the economic model in Denmark was not dependant upon the monoethnic values that existed in the country before the current influx of immigrants. Although it's fair to say that the collectivism inherent in the tribal attitude of Nordic countries was key in smoothly implementing and maintaining successful socialism in the region, it is not fair to blame new immigrants if it falters. Perhaps true integration would have been beneficial to the system, rather than segregation and blame.

Puting all that aside, the US would never, could never, implement Nordic socialism. It is true that we are a different culture with a very different set of goals and challeneges. If socialistic policies were implemented it would be a distinctly American Socialism. In speaking of political or economic systems we often err by contextualizing them in absolute terms. As if "socialism" means only one thing. But the fact is that the democracy we practice in the US shares little with the democracy practiced by the ancient Romans. When speaking of socialism, we need to put it in context. Is it post WW2 Swedish socialism? Modern Sri Lankan socialism? These are necessarily different things. Similarly, it is possible to implement modern US Socialism as a system that is uniquely reflective of our culture. In theory anyway. In reality, the challenge of employing socialism in, arguably, the most individualistic culture in the world, may be insurmountable.

World's Biggest Ballpit PRANK! (ft. Roman Atwood) has been added as a related post - related requested by blackfox42 on that post.

boring?
I'll upvote the classic dialog:
Sister asks, "Why does it smell like gasoline?"
To which Roman replies, "Because we're at a gas station."

Also, maybe the video is like Schadenfreude, we're all expecting something to fail in a horrible way. Too bad it was just "so annoying" for the sisters, and nobody died. Too dark?