111–120 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talking 'life centuries ago'. Almost every living person tilled a field with a hoe.
No they didn't. We have books on farming that are 2000 years old, people have read them even. Just because movies show dirty peasants hoeing fields doesn't mean that was reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they didn't. We have books on farming that are 2000 years old, people have read them even. Just because movies show dirty peasants hoeing fields doesn't mean that was reality.
If we're talking the middle ages in Europe, then 90% of folk farmed as serfs or peasants. When they weren't dead from frequent droughts or plagues. "No they didn't" isn't an argument.
And that's not what is in dispute anyways. Hoeing fields is. Farmer does not equal hoeing fields. Tillage was done as little as necessary, and was done mainly using horses or oxen pulling plows and cultivators. A hoe was used seldom, and mainly in the vegetable garden. As I said, we have actual period texts on how to farm. All the way back to Rome, Greece and ancient China. None of them describe the modern hollywood portrayal of mentally handicapped peasants spending their lives hitting the ground with sticks.
We also have records of actual farm manors and how much labor each farmer was required to provide for the lord every year. They worked less than us, and had 8 weeks a year without work which they spent playing sports and games in the village green. We have skeletons that show they were taller than us, which indicates better nutrition. But because the late 1700s and early 1800s saw massive numbers of people move to cities and suffer terrible malnutrition and poverty, everyone just assumes things were even worse before that. All available evidence says otherwise. Things have always been bad in cities, especially due to disease, but rural life appears to have been pretty decent and was the majority of the population. Localized famines were rare enough to be major historical events mentioned all across Europe.
If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend https://www.amazon.ca/Life-Medieval-Village-Frances-Gies/dp/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they don’t have modern medicine, and they don’t have the means to deal with droughts, or other natural disasters. Indigenous tribes who have contact with society are overwhelmingly unhappy with some of the highest suicide rates in the world. The ones who don’t have contact don’t have their happiness measured in any meaningful or comparable way... because they don’t have contact. Additionally, if they are in any k…
>But they don’t have modern medicine Yes, we've covered that haven't we? In the very post you just replied to, in order to add absolutely nothing to the discussion? >Indigenous tribes who have contact with society are overwhelmingly unhappy with some of the highest suicide rates in the world. No, indigenous tribes who have been forced into adopting modern lifestyles are: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles…
I’m pointing out that it’s a massive caveat. It’s like claiming they built a plane and other than it not being able to fly, it’s just as good as the ones we have. A society without modern medicine is significantly worse off.
>That would be any kind of environment
No, you should learn about the industrial scale farming that feeds most of the planet
>They barely have a concept of work
Oh? What happens when nobody wants to hunt then? Work is what members of a society do to keep it going. If they aren’t smart enough to recognize it, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
>Tilling a field with a hoe is a completely unnecessary...
Let me stop you there. Hunter gatherer approaches do not scale. Growing food is entirely necessary to prevent 50 and 100 year storms/droughts from causing mass suffering and starvation.
It’s not cultural bias. It’s foresight to plan for the future and actually feed everyone rather than killing babies and old people during hard times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're talking the middle ages in Europe, then 90% of folk farmed as serfs or peasants. When they weren't dead from frequent droughts or plagues. "No they didn't" isn't an argument.
The myth is that 90% were involved in food production in any way. Butchers and millers and brewers and bakers are part of that 90%, they were not doing anything in any fields. But that myth is based on England under Roman rule, where vast quantities of food were grown by slaves and shipped to Rome. After the fall of Rome, people returned to farming for the local population, and so needed fewer farmers. The period is…
But it was done FFS. You know you could get a lot more out of a discussion if you didn’t start out with easily disprovable hostile statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Again, the people who still live in the stone age today and are healthier and happier than us right now, That’s a senseless statement. Nobody lives in the Stone Age today. That’s a period of time. If you’re referring to primitive tribes with no outside world contact, then you’ll need to provide evidence and definitions for healthier/happier. They have high infant mortality rates, they kill disabled children, they di…
>Nobody lives in the Stone Age today. That’s a period of time. Yes they do. It is a period of technological development. There is no singular timespan that makes up the stone age or bronze age or iron age, those periods are different depending on the people. >If you’re referring to primitive tribes with no outside world contact They have outside world contact, they simply choose to continue living the way they prefer…
The dictionary definition of happiness is not something that can be measured and compared between groups of people.
Schizophrenia is not a “modern mental illness”. It’s been around forever.
>Simply repeating the fallacy is not going to accomplish anything
Then why TF did you do it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but this debate in particular has overwhelming evidence in support of it being correct. Yet you provide none despite you making the extraordinary claims. Worrying about society overeating wasn’t even a thing in the US until the 50s.
I have not made any extraordinary claims, I have repeated the very standard scientific consensus, which is constantly repeated in the popular media. I do not presume that every piece of common knowledge is going to be considered an "extraordinary claim" by someone who hates search engines. >Worrying about society overeating wasn’t even a thing in the US until the 50s. So, our modern lifestyle is good because we've on…
>our modern lifestyle is good because we've only been worried about it killing us since we've had it?
Nope. It’s good because it’s provided us with abundance to the point where we are no longer struggling just to feed ourselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>that the people born into the top 1% almost always remain there, and people born in the bottom 99% almost always remain there. The former isn’t true for income and doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations. The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%. When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers,…
>The former isn’t true for income Wealth inequality is not about income is it? >doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations So, it only remains true for as long as it has existed? >The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%. The statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there. >…
You are woefully misinformed if you think wealth inequality has only been around for 100-150 years.
>statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there.
That’s not true though. A non-negligible portion of the richest people are first generation. And again, of course most of the 99% will stay in the 99% because math. Even with a complete turnover in one year, 98% didn’t move.
>deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive?
It’s not propaganda when it comes mostly from the people on the left using it to argue for higher income taxes. Higher income taxes are an attack on income inequality, not wealth inequality. You might think it’s propaganda, but it would behoove you to listen to people on the left to hear what they are proposing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Nobody lives in the Stone Age today. That’s a period of time. Yes they do. It is a period of technological development. There is no singular timespan that makes up the stone age or bronze age or iron age, those periods are different depending on the people. >If you’re referring to primitive tribes with no outside world contact They have outside world contact, they simply choose to continue living the way they prefer…
Sorry mate, but your terminology doesn’t line up with other English speakers: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Age The dictionary definition of happiness is not something that can be measured and compared between groups of people. Schizophrenia is not a “modern mental illness”. It’s been around forever. >Simply repeating the fallacy is not going to accomplish anything Then why TF did you do it?
Your link very clearly says it does:
"The date range of this period is ambiguous, disputed, and variable according to the region in question. While it is possible to speak of a general 'stone age' period for the whole of humanity, some groups never developed metal-smelting technology, so remained in a 'stone age' until they encountered technologically developed cultures"
>Schizophrenia is not a “modern mental illness”.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
>Then why TF did you do it?
You did it: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The former isn’t true for income Wealth inequality is not about income is it? >doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations So, it only remains true for as long as it has existed? >The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%. The statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there. >…
>only remains true for as long as it has existed? You are woefully misinformed if you think wealth inequality has only been around for 100-150 years. >statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there. That’s not true though. A non-negligible portion of the richest people are first generation. And again, of course most of the 99% will stay in the 99% because math…
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
>A non-negligible portion of the richest people are first generation.
>And again, of course most of the 99% will stay in the 99% because math
And again, that's not what was said. You seem to have a very difficult time responding to the actual words people use rather than what you want to pretend they said.
>It’s not propaganda when it comes mostly from the people on the left
Wow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The myth is that 90% were involved in food production in any way. Butchers and millers and brewers and bakers are part of that 90%, they were not doing anything in any fields. But that myth is based on England under Roman rule, where vast quantities of food were grown by slaves and shipped to Rome. After the fall of Rome, people returned to farming for the local population, and so needed fewer farmers. The period is…
>Tillage was done as little as necessary But it was done FFS. You know you could get a lot more out of a discussion if you didn’t start out with easily disprovable hostile statements.
What does the rest of the sentence say that you deliberately cut out just to give yourself a lame excuse to keep shitflinging over a childish grudge?
"and was done mainly using horses or oxen pulling plows and cultivators."
Nobody hoed fields. There's even a book written by an actual historian on this very subject linked to in the post you replied to. If you do not wish to purchase it, I am sure you can find an alternative means of acquiring a digital copy.