Top products from r/ModelUSGov

We found 2 product mentions on r/ModelUSGov. We ranked the 2 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/ModelUSGov:

u/Smitty9913 · 2 pointsr/ModelUSGov

I hope this helps you out, its called the [little ice age] (http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html) it was when temperatures changed drastically for many years. The change as similar to what is is today. This is natural you are simply denying the facts. You ignored the evidence that he showed you, open your eyes.

More evidence for you:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/344106/Little-Ice-Age-LIA

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Ice-Age-1300-1850/dp/0465022723

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/lessons-from-the-little-ice-age.html?_r=0


u/Autarch_Severian · 1 pointr/ModelUSGov

>The group makes up 3% of the population but 43% of Child Molesters

First off, I'd like a source for any statistics we bring into this discussion.

>the group contributes heavily to drug and alcohol abuse in the country.

You're saying gay people abuse alcohol more than straight people? Alcohol abuse has nothing to do with who you like to screw. I think you're confusing homosexuality with raging parties and such, which is not necessarily the case. Gay people can be just as quiet, just as mentally sound, or just as messed up as anyone else. It literally has nothing to do with anything else.

>hypersexualized culture that is extremely toxic.

So you're saying beer commercials showing half-naked women practically humping a pickup truck isn't hypersexualized? I mean, I personally have no problem with other people engaging in lewd pursuits so long as everyone involved has consent and such, but if you're going to blame open sexuality for all our country's problems, you at least have to recognize it's not exclusive to gays.

>look at Rome and what happened with its sexual revolution, it didn't end well, it ended with Rome falling to barbarians.

Yes, there were gay people in Rome. No, the Romans did not encourage homosexuality. They were considered rather prudish, in fact, by their Greek neighbors. In fact, the Romans were a Christian Empire at the time of their fall, and much of the modern conception of Roman sexual liberality comes from Christian polemics attacking paganism for it's un-Roman bawdiness.

Either way, whether the Romans were more open with such things than modern Americans, it doesn't particularly matter. To suggest that same-sex intercourse had anything to do with Rome's fall is absolutely preposterous considering the milieu of different theses out there on the subject. You seem to make the age-old assumption that the "Romans" ever at one time possessed some sort of insectoid cultural character or single consciousness, something I believe has never existed, and will never exist, in the history of the human species. The Roman Empire was a polygot combination of hundreds of languages and ethnicities. Even within the typical modern definition of "ethnicity", no such definition, I would argue, has ever actually had any claims to objectivity. People are individuals. They're influenced by what they're taught, and occasionally by our species's collective reactions to stimuli which get passed down in the more basic structures of the body. We're individuals.

Now back to Rome. I do suppose I was getting a bit off-track there. But anyway. The thesis regarding Rome's fall I tend to agree with most, though there really are hundreds of them, is that it was a change in political mentality. Certain generals realized it was quite profitable for them to act outside the bounds of Roman convention, or typical Roman political thought, which placed the Empire in some sort of state of immortality, to further their regional or personal agendas. They were willing to destroy the Roman Empire in order to advance within it's order. Sound familiar?

Actually if you're looking to read more on this-- and I genuinely recommend you do because it's a fascinating subject-- I've got two contrasting views for you. I'll link these below because I'm sure you'd rather research this outside the context of a political discussion.

In any case. Point is: we form relationships as individuals, and from the stimuli we receive. A certain sexual practice has really no influence on any other part of behavior, and it's pervasiveness can't really alter society, because society in itself is just a patchwork of individual decisions, which have no relation to the whole outside of the causal. I find it incredibly strange that you'd draw these illusory connections between recent current events (which in the course of history really aren't that extraordinary) and this random practice of homosexuality.

(Also, when it comes to ancient history: I'm not entirely sure what you think of the Spartan's, but there's reasonably good evidence to suggest that they actively encouraged homosexuality as a means by which to bind their regiments together. Yes, gays serving in the military actually made their army stronger).

Ah. Right. Those recommendations. These two are contrasting, and I'm sorry if one is a Youtube video where the author is a tad vague, because the monograph in question hasn't been published yet and the conference I really wanted you to see isn't available online. But he makes his point. The second is one of the most epic books on the Later Roman Empire I've ever read. It attributes Rome's fall to "the barbarians", but mainly to the fact that there were quite a lot of Huns coming Rome's way, and they displaced quite a lot of people who had nowhere to go, at which point they all sort of converged on Rome (And Rome's attempts to close down the border arguably made it quite a bit worse).

  1. The Fall of the Roman Empire: a New History of Rome and the Barbarians, by Peter Heather

  2. Michael Kulikowski on Roman Political Psychology