Seattle high schooler marked incorrect on quiz for saying only women can get pregnant: report

[Ceallaigh]

Oh, did it now?

Yes. Perhaps not right before, but leading up to it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yes. Perhaps not right before, but leading up to it.

And what impact is that purported to have had on the empire?

 

[Ceallaigh]

And what impact is that purported to have had on the empire?

The trend was probably a symptom of decline.

 

[RDKirk]

It's about mainstreaming the rapidly growing trend of transsexualism. The same trend flourished in the Roman Empire right before its decline.

Christianity had been legal in Rome for nearly a hundred years before Rome was sacked by the Visigoths. Christianity had been the official and only legal religion of the Roman Empire for about 40 years before it was sacked. Rome continued on as officially Christian until the western empire fell about 60 years later.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Christianity had been legal in Rome for nearly a hundred years before Rome was sacked by the Visigoths. Christianity had been the official and only legal religion of the Roman Empire for about 40 years before it was sacked. Rome continued on as officially Christian until the western empire fell about 60 years later.

So Christianity is more of a symptom of decline than rampant trassexualism?

 

[RDKirk]

So Christianity is more of a symptom of decline than rampant trassexualism?

That was an argument Augustine actually had to debate.

However, I'd argue that "rampant transsexualism" was not a significant problem in ancient Rome in the first place...less of an issue than in the US today, for that matter.

 

[Lukaris]

There is an emerging condition of “transableism” that will probably be encouraged instead of discouraged. When enough subscribers are formed, a social need for it will be demanded. It will be demanded as a social need because the subscribers will otherwise jump off a bridge if what should be dysfunctional is not catered to. It seems to be a fostered pattern of breaking down humanity.

Understanding transableism: Why do some people want to be physically disabled?

The science behind transableism

kinesismagazine.com

 

[Ceallaigh]

There is an emerging condition of “transableism” that will probably be encouraged instead of discouraged. When enough subscribers are formed, a social need for it will be demanded. It will be demanded as a social need because the subscribers will otherwise jump off a bridge if what should be dysfunctional is not catered to. It seems to be a fostered pattern of breaking down humanity.

Understanding transableism: Why do some people want to be physically disabled?

The science behind transableism

kinesismagazine.com

Indeed I've often seen a similarity between Body Integrity Identity Disorder and Gender Dysphoria. Add to that the trend of having a massive amount of tattoos and piercings.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So Christianity is more of a symptom of decline than rampant trassexualism?

The correct take away is that the history of Rome and what led to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was a number of unique historical circumstances that cannot be pinned on something like "queer people exist".

The claim that Rome fell because of "transsexualism" or any other "ism" only demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the history of Rome.

The actual reasons Rome fell was a complicated set of historical factors. Here are some of them:

The Roman Empire was from the time of Diocletian turned into a Tetrarchy. There were two Augusti and two Caesars, as pairs ruling West and East. In the initial years of the 4th century the Empire was embroiled in a civil war between the tetrarchs. Enter Constantine, who defeated Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, the famous battle where Maxentius perished, where Constantine is purported to have seen a sign which was interpreted as a sign from the Christian God and which led to Constantine becoming favorable toward the Christians. Constantine became emperor in the West, while Licinius was emperor in the East--but conflicts continued, and eventually Constantine became the sole ruler of the Empire. Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium, this was a strategic move because with Constantine having secured himself as sole ruler of Rome the biggest threat to Rome was Persia in the East.

As a result of this power shift toward the East, the West slowly lacked. At the same time as this re-shuffling of Roman power was occurring within the Empire, there was also a major event happening--the Great Migration. Germanic tribes which had always been on the outskirts of the Empire began to migrate and move around (beware the Huns), they began settling down within the border regions of the Roman Empire. Conflicts, treaties, and broken treaties with these tribes caused a lot of issues. These tribes also converted to Christianity (some became Arian, some became Nicene), but they were always regarded as barbarians by Rome, and often got the short end of the stick in diplomatic relations. These Germanic tribes also built up into larger coalitions, like the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, etc. The growing strength of these tribal nations, their migrations westward, the tense and often bad relations they had with the Roman Empire--broken promises for example, and the weakening of power in the West led to the sacking of Rome, the continued decline of Rome in the West, and eventually it's total collapse. The Western Roman Empire didn't fall in a day, but rather was weakened, it was sacked and pillaged. The final straw on the camel's back was when Odoacer took Rome, deposing the child emperor Romulus Augustus. The Ostrogothic Kingdom ruled the Italian peninsula, with the Visigoths having secured Iberia and Southern Gaul, the Vandals taking North Africa and some parts of Italy. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons would take southern Britain as well. Justinian temporarily was able to retake Rome and some parts of the Italian peninsula, but that was short-lived. And by the mid-7th century, the Rashidun Caliphate had not only taken the Arabian peninsula, but had conquered the Persians, and taken the Roman (aka "Byzantine") territories in the Levant, Egypt, and Libya. Within a century the Ummayids would further take more control of North Africa, conquer the Visigoths in the Iberian peninsula, and at that point we are now firmly in the complex historical circumstances of the Middle Ages.

This alone is still a simplified overview.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[iluvatar5150]

The correct take away is that the history of Rome and what led to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was a number of unique historical circumstances that cannot be pinned on something like "queer people exist".

The claim that Rome fell because of "transsexualism" or any other "ism" only demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the history of Rome.

The actual reasons Rome fell was a complicated set of historical factors. Here are some of them:

The Roman Empire was from the time of Diocletian turned into a Tetrarchy. There were two Augusti and two Caesars, as pairs ruling West and East. In the initial years of the 4th century the Empire was embroiled in a civil war between the tetrarchs. Enter Constantine, who defeated Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, the famous battle where Maxentius perished, where Constantine is purported to have seen a sign which was interpreted as a sign from the Christian God and which led to Constantine becoming favorable toward the Christians. Constantine became emperor in the West, while Licinius was emperor in the East--but conflicts continued, and eventually Constantine became the sole ruler of the Empire. Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium, this was a strategic move because with Constantine having secured himself as sole ruler of Rome the biggest threat to Rome was Persia in the East.

As a result of this power shift toward the East, the West slowly lacked. At the same time as this re-shuffling of Roman power was occurring within the Empire, there was also a major event happening--the Great Migration. Germanic tribes which had always been on the outskirts of the Empire began to migrate and move around (beware the Huns), they began settling down within the border regions of the Roman Empire. Conflicts, treaties, and broken treaties with these tribes caused a lot of issues. These tribes also converted to Christianity (some became Arian, some became Nicene), but they were always regarded as barbarians by Rome, and often got the short end of the stick in diplomatic relations. These Germanic tribes also built up into larger coalitions, like the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, etc. The growing strength of these tribal nations, their migrations westward, the tense and often bad relations they had with the Roman Empire--broken promises for example, and the weakening of power in the West led to the sacking of Rome, the continued decline of Rome in the West, and eventually it's total collapse. The Western Roman Empire didn't fall in a day, but rather was weakened, it was sacked and pillaged. The final straw on the camel's back was when Odoacer took Rome, deposing the child emperor Romulus Augustus. The Ostrogothic Kingdom ruled the Italian peninsula, with the Visigoths having secured Iberia and Southern Gaul, the Vandals taking North Africa and some parts of Italy. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons would take southern Britain as well. Justinian temporarily was able to retake Rome and some parts of the Italian peninsula, but that was short-lived. And by the mid-7th century, the Rashidun Caliphate had not only taken the Arabian peninsula, but had conquered the Persians, and taken the Roman (aka "Byzantine") territories in the Levant, Egypt, and Libya. Within a century the Ummayids would further take more control of North Africa, conquer the Visigoths in the Iberian peninsula, and at that point we are now firmly in the complex historical circumstances of the Middle Ages.

This alone is still a simplified overview.

-CryptoLutheran

idk man. You sure it wasn’t just The Queers? Occam’s Razor and all that.

 

[Lukaris]

I believe Rome and Persia collapsed from their ongoing wars and then a plague that ravaged their empires. One may wonder if this left them vulnerable to later Islamic conquest.

Plague of Justinian - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Ceallaigh]

The correct take away is that the history of Rome and what led to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was a number of unique historical circumstances that cannot be pinned on something like "queer people exist".

The claim that Rome fell because of "transsexualism" or any other "ism" only demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the history of Rome.

I just said the trend was present at the time and was a symptom rather than a cause. I could have gone into a long list of other off topic symptoms and factors, but chose to just mention what was germane to the topic.

The actual reasons Rome fell was a complicated set of historical factors. Here are some of them:

The Roman Empire was from the time of Diocletian turned into a Tetrarchy. There were two Augusti and two Caesars, as pairs ruling West and East. In the initial years of the 4th century the Empire was embroiled in a civil war between the tetrarchs. Enter Constantine, who defeated Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, the famous battle where Maxentius perished, where Constantine is purported to have seen a sign which was interpreted as a sign from the Christian God and which led to Constantine becoming favorable toward the Christians. Constantine became emperor in the West, while Licinius was emperor in the East--but conflicts continued, and eventually Constantine became the sole ruler of the Empire. Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium, this was a strategic move because with Constantine having secured himself as sole ruler of Rome the biggest threat to Rome was Persia in the East.

As a result of this power shift toward the East, the West slowly lacked. At the same time as this re-shuffling of Roman power was occurring within the Empire, there was also a major event happening--the Great Migration. Germanic tribes which had always been on the outskirts of the Empire began to migrate and move around (beware the Huns), they began settling down within the border regions of the Roman Empire. Conflicts, treaties, and broken treaties with these tribes caused a lot of issues. These tribes also converted to Christianity (some became Arian, some became Nicene), but they were always regarded as barbarians by Rome, and often got the short end of the stick in diplomatic relations. These Germanic tribes also built up into larger coalitions, like the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, etc. The growing strength of these tribal nations, their migrations westward, the tense and often bad relations they had with the Roman Empire--broken promises for example, and the weakening of power in the West led to the sacking of Rome, the continued decline of Rome in the West, and eventually it's total collapse. The Western Roman Empire didn't fall in a day, but rather was weakened, it was sacked and pillaged. The final straw on the camel's back was when Odoacer took Rome, deposing the child emperor Romulus Augustus. The Ostrogothic Kingdom ruled the Italian peninsula, with the Visigoths having secured Iberia and Southern Gaul, the Vandals taking North Africa and some parts of Italy. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons would take southern Britain as well. Justinian temporarily was able to retake Rome and some parts of the Italian peninsula, but that was short-lived. And by the mid-7th century, the Rashidun Caliphate had not only taken the Arabian peninsula, but had conquered the Persians, and taken the Roman (aka "Byzantine") territories in the Levant, Egypt, and Libya. Within a century the Ummayids would further take more control of North Africa, conquer the Visigoths in the Iberian peninsula, and at that point we are now firmly in the complex historical circumstances of the Middle Ages.

This alone is still a simplified overview.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ceallaigh]

idk man. You sure it wasn’t just The Queers? Occam’s Razor and all that.

Was my post really that difficult to understand?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Was my post really that difficult to understand?

If it was merely a correlation and not causative, why even mention it?

 

[Ceallaigh]

If it was merely a correlation and not causative, why even mention it?

What's wrong with mentioning correlations?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Anyone can redefine words and demand others to think and speak by their redefinitions.
People have ears. Cows have ears. Therefore, cows are people. Cows have calves. Therefore, all people can have calves. If you disagree, then you are intolerant and a hater.
This is the idiocracy we are dealing with. You are not brilliant. You are not "woke." You are deceived and ignorant. Biological men cannot and will never have babies.

Biological women who think they're men can have babies. But for some reason wording it factually and honestly like that, supposedly isn't acceptable.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I just said the trend was present at the time and was a symptom rather than a cause. I could have gone into a long list of other off topic symptoms and factors, but chose to just mention what was germane to the topic.

So your position is that "transsecualism" was a symptom of a lack of strong political power in the West and the political turmoil between the Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire?

Can you even back up the claim that "transsexualism" was a thing in the transitional period between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages in the Western Roman Empire?

Because neither claim comes across to me as having merit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ceallaigh]

So your position is that "transsecualism" was a symptom of a lack of strong political power in the West and the political turmoil between the Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire?

Can you even back up the claim that "transsexualism" was a thing in the transitional period between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages in the Western Roman Empire?

Because neither claim comes across to me as having merit.

-CryptoLutheran

Many often cite Rome's decline in morals and values as a major reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Many historians note that the final years of the Empire were especially excessive in declining morals and values as witnessed through decreasing safety, promiscuity, lavish overindulgent parties, and violence.

08.03.07: Why Rome Fell and Is the United States Next?

The Yale National Initiative to Strengthen Teaching in Public Schools, which builds upon the success of a four-year National Demonstration Project, promotes the establishment of new Teachers Institutes that adopt the approach to professional development that has been followed for more than...

teachers.yale.edu

 

[ViaCrucis]

Many often cite Rome's decline in morals and values as a major reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Many historians note that the final years of the Empire were especially excessive in declining morals and values as witnessed through decreasing safety, promiscuity, lavish overindulgent parties, and violence.

08.03.07: Why Rome Fell and Is the United States Next?

The Yale National Initiative to Strengthen Teaching in Public Schools, which builds upon the success of a four-year National Demonstration Project, promotes the establishment of new Teachers Institutes that adopt the approach to professional development that has been followed for more than...

teachers.yale.edu

You should have kept reading that paragraph.

"Many often cite Rome's decline in morals and values as a major reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Many historians note that the final years of the Empire were especially excessive in declining morals and values as witnessed through decreasing safety, promiscuity, lavish overindulgent parties, and violence. During this time the Empire's larger cities were very unsafe because violent crimes were rampant in their streets. Roman historians recount that "there were 32,000 prostitutes in Rome during the reign of Trajan. Emperors like Nero and Caligula became infamous for wasting money on lavish parties, where guests ate and drank until they became ill" (Bower et al 1993). Some believe that the most alarming trend during this time was the rise in Roman passion for cruelty. Gladiatorial combats, which brought together the rich, the poor, and often the emperor himself, became the most popular form of entertainment. The audience would shout out cries and curses as the gladiators fought and multiple contests took place on the same stage daily. "Should the ground of the arena become too soaked with blood, it was covered over with a fresh layer of sand, and the revolting performances went on" (Bower et al 1993). These are just a few of many examples that historians often cite when arguing that the overall decline in Roman morals and values was one of the major reasons why Rome eventually fell."

Did you notice the time frame being spoken of here? It mentions Caligula, Nero, and Trajan. It mentions the gladiatorial games. The gladiatorial games ended when Constantine made them illegal.

This ignores the transformation of the Roman Empire in the 4th century from the fracturing empire of the 3rd century, into a new kind of structural power under Constantine and subsequent emperors--who reigned in the East rather than the West. And that endured for another thousand years until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottomans.

Perhaps the historians in question here provide better examples, or better arguments than those merely mentioned here. But this is clearly the weakest, or one of the weakest arguments presented in the curriculum.

I'm not sure why you chose this Yale article, which is talking about a Middle School curriculum, which is intended to present--without discrediting or following any theory--different positions which have been put forward for the decline of Rome in the West. The goal is to provide diverse opinions and give students the opportunity to engage, think critically, and give students a way to form their own thoughts and take-away.

"When presenting these theories to students it is important to stress that this list does not contain the only theories for Rome's fall, ending our discussion here. Rather, this list merely reflects ten of the most popular theories in this area and that whether or not they think one theory in particular, a few, or all are sound, or if they think none weigh valid, they are entitled to their opinion as long as they can show evidence that they are thinking and basing their views on history. In this way, this list of ten theories becomes an entry point for students into this long-contested dialogue among historians, which now, they too, will be equipped to participate in."

And most importantly here, you have not backed up what you were claiming. You haven't even come close to backing up your claim. You've chosen to provide a Yale overview of a Middle School curriculum discussing multiple theories, and latched on to a single sentence which discussed the decadence and corruption in Rome hundreds of years before the West fell.

How does the presence of prostitutes in Rome in 100 AD during the time of Trajan connect with events 300+ years later?

And most of all: What does any of this have to do with "transsexualism"?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ceallaigh]

You should have kept reading that paragraph.

"Many often cite Rome's decline in morals and values as a major reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Many historians note that the final years of the Empire were especially excessive in declining morals and values as witnessed through decreasing safety, promiscuity, lavish overindulgent parties, and violence. During this time the Empire's larger cities were very unsafe because violent crimes were rampant in their streets. Roman historians recount that "there were 32,000 prostitutes in Rome during the reign of Trajan. Emperors like Nero and Caligula became infamous for wasting money on lavish parties, where guests ate and drank until they became ill" (Bower et al 1993). Some believe that the most alarming trend during this time was the rise in Roman passion for cruelty. Gladiatorial combats, which brought together the rich, the poor, and often the emperor himself, became the most popular form of entertainment. The audience would shout out cries and curses as the gladiators fought and multiple contests took place on the same stage daily. "Should the ground of the arena become too soaked with blood, it was covered over with a fresh layer of sand, and the revolting performances went on" (Bower et al 1993). These are just a few of many examples that historians often cite when arguing that the overall decline in Roman morals and values was one of the major reasons why Rome eventually fell."

Did you notice the time frame being spoken of here? It mentions Caligula, Nero, and Trajan. It mentions the gladiatorial games. The gladiatorial games ended when Constantine made them illegal.

This ignores the transformation of the Roman Empire in the 4th century from the fracturing empire of the 3rd century, into a new kind of structural power under Constantine and subsequent emperors--who reigned in the East rather than the West. And that endured for another thousand years until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottomans.

Perhaps the historians in question here provide better examples, or better arguments than those merely mentioned here. But this is clearly the weakest, or one of the weakest arguments presented in the curriculum.

I'm not sure why you chose this Yale article, which is talking about a Middle School curriculum, which is intended to present--without discrediting or following any theory--different positions which have been put forward for the decline of Rome in the West. The goal is to provide diverse opinions and give students the opportunity to engage, think critically, and give students a way to form their own thoughts and take-away.

"When presenting these theories to students it is important to stress that this list does not contain the only theories for Rome's fall, ending our discussion here. Rather, this list merely reflects ten of the most popular theories in this area and that whether or not they think one theory in particular, a few, or all are sound, or if they think none weigh valid, they are entitled to their opinion as long as they can show evidence that they are thinking and basing their views on history. In this way, this list of ten theories becomes an entry point for students into this long-contested dialogue among historians, which now, they too, will be equipped to participate in."

And most importantly here, you have not backed up what you were claiming. You haven't even come close to backing up your claim. You've chosen to provide a Yale overview of a Middle School curriculum discussing multiple theories, and latched on to a single sentence which discussed the decadence and corruption in Rome hundreds of years before the West fell.

How does the presence of prostitutes in Rome in 100 AD during the time of Trajan connect with events 300+ years later?

And most of all: What does any of this have to do with "transsexualism"?

-CryptoLutheran

Looks like you vanquished me. Merry Christmas.