Reminder, civilization makes you weak

Reminder, civilization makes you weak.

Attached: sack of rome.jpg (2000x1430, 525.47K)

>t. first worlder from his climatized apartment

>ignoring the 500+ years where the weak civilized men (literal manlets according to Caesar) routinely dunked on barbarians

I get the dude hard men create good times shit but it's a lot more complicated than Society Turns You Gay.

Attached: 1486357083303.jpg (1600x1065, 417.96K)

Robert E. Howard's "The hyborian age" has an interesting take on that. It depicts a fictional course of mankind that bascially goes round in cycles of savagery -> barbary -> civilization -> decadence.
I suppose the idea wasn't his in the first place but I don't know more.

The same way soi with a gun could off a Chad without a gun.

choosing to be a fag turns you into a fag.
technology makes us strong
yeah lets see african rock throwers take down a military drone.

>climatized
you mean air-conditionned ?
your choice of pic (Teutoburg) kinda contradicts your post

The corruption of civilization makes us weak. Civilization of strong men will be strong. Civilization ran by women and weak men will be weak.

Then why is New Zealand doing so great? WEE WOO WEE WOO INCEL ALERT

climatized, air conditioned, floor heated, it's all the same shit, how would I know anyways my room only has to walls
>t. first worlder who tough the third world was a great buisness opportunity and got rekt by two economic crises and regular mugging

That's what I mean about it being complicated. Arminius was raised in Rome for almost 30 years before he returned to Germania, and they only really won because they'd been planning the attack for years based on treachery.

Civilization and barbarism are on a sliding scale chad to fag, at times overlapping and doubling over each other.

Attached: 1505406733801.jpg (2204x1469, 919.61K)

Because we're not retarded and went into isolation faster than anyone else?

Was Rome the best time to be alive? They didn’t have the Chinese cough either.

Attached: 0A50DAB7-279D-4D86-B07D-4E90593CE364.jpg (720x960, 30.6K)

Until guns and bombs are invented and suddenly the civilized people control all

Everything I read about Rome itself sounds pretty fucking miserable honestly.

Attached: 665px-Edward_John_Poynter_-_Faithful_Unto_Death_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (665x1024, 184.52K)

Rome is the single worst thing to happen to western civilization.

They had horrendous plagues every generation

Rome was a hive of scum and degeneracy

>They didn’t have the Chinese cough either.

No one tell this guy about the horrible wasting illnesses that were constant parts of every urban settlement until the last half century.

>They didn’t have the Chinese cough either
No, they had plague

you can have collective success without remarkable individual quality, you know. The fact that an ant colony does well overall does not make it more enjoyable or impressive to be an ant. It would be far cooler to be a tarantula and everyone knows it. That's how this barbarian vs civilized allegory goes, and everyone knows that too except the willfully ignorant soicuck

Yeah it's real cool to be a tarantula until you meet a tarantula hawk

>Was Rome the best time to be alive?

Absolutely not lmao

What was it then?

that's a much better approach

the germanic and keltic barbarians had a life just as harsh as that of the average roman soldier for the majority of the time
the training was harder for the roman professional soldier, diet was definitely worse, the marching was far harder and longer for the romans and the only thing of note that the romans had that the barbarians did not was proper clothing and warmer homes back in the country and less raiding in the neighborhood.
now if you compare barbarian farmers with roman civilians then yeah the barbarians would obviously be much tougher but that's not surprising

Sort of. The argument historically/philosophically "what is the state of nature of human?" That is, you raise a human in a vacuum, how do they act?

One hand argued that the state of nature for a person is good and virtuous, and that it is society which corrupts humans. Under this view, to be your truest self is the goal in life, aka being "authentic" (the philosophical definition, not the hipster wanting mexican food defintion), and the closer to align yourself to your true desires and wants, instead of those pumped into you day in and day out by society "BROWSE THIS WEBSITE! BUY THIS MECHANICAL KEYBOARD! BUILD AN LED COMPUTER!".

The flip argument is that the state of nature of man is inherently flawed. That is, we are all selfish, greedy, and sinful at the core of it all, and it takes society to whip us all into shape. We don't steal that pack of pokemon cards, not because we'd feel bad about it, but because we don't want the punishment of being caught and the shame that everyone will look at me with. According to this, trying to act authentic/according to your true desires is actually not good, because you'll just do selfish things. Act according to what society wants, because it aligns you into a more noble/virtuous cause.

Take your pick or none at all.

>but but do you want to be a dirty starving savage user with no tv and flush toilet?!

Attached: be9c144e7238a42aec4297cac025d0c3.jpg (940x597, 121.52K)

What's your definition of "best"?
No weird general fancification, but something concrete to go by. Everyone's "best time to be alive" is different according to tastes, who you are, what you believe, etc.

it's real cool to be an ant in a colony until the colony's resourced are stretched thin and you are a mere disposable worker drone