What was the highest point of civilization?

What was the highest point of civilization?
Roman Republic?
Mesopotamia?
Yuan Dynasty?
Other?

THIS IS A BLUE BOARD DELET THIS NOW OR ILL REPORT YUO

Literally right now dense fuck

Is that woman dabbing?

477BC GREECE

In terme of Scientific, cultural,economical,social, political and military avancement?
Now, we live some kind of golden age.
In terme of /pol/Leftypol/primitiviste and other degenerate, the point was never.

Europe after the Long depression and before WWI

there's nothing wrong with liking women bee

How did you manage to get banned from last month?

Janitors don't even work on weekends

op
sorry senpai you got the wrong anonymous

1960s-1980s America as a Baby Boomer.

Da fuck????

now

fuck luddites desu

really?

but why not anglo saxon present day?
no slavery?
no drugs?
bad government/military?

>pic related eternal RIP brother Rhodesia

Gothic France and Western Europe desu.

I didn't exclude them

This.

It's the last high point of civilisation, before everything went to shit. Napoleonic times were kind of promising too, but that didn't work out.

We haven't reached it yet. Not until space colonization

America, 1950s-60s. Been downhill ever since.

That's not a high point of civilisation, only a high point of material comfort.

Renaissance Italy

so what you're saying is
it was
comfy

No, it was the highest point of everything. Wages for the common pleb, technology, culture, etc. Technology has progressed at a stagnant level and culture has become degenerate ever since then.

Look at weapons systems to judge technology. We're still using guns and weapons tech that was conceptualized then. There are no revolutionary platforms.

14th August 2016AD

Anyone who says differently is an overromatic, rose tinted memefuck.

I believe it was actually the 13th of August 2016 Anno Domini

>rose-tinted
Look, another one of those underaged plebs that was born yesterday.

>apocalyptic infant mortality rate
>overwhelmingly illiterate population
>overwhelmingly dirt poor population living in absolute squalor
>frequent famine and starvation
>frequent disease outbreaks due to the two above elements
>medicine consists of praying or rubbing a magic stone on the affected body parts while draining off some of the patients blood
>no religious freedom whatsoever
>political freedom only for a select few elites

Yeah, sounds a true utopia.

but was it comfy

>what are timezones?

>the past was great and I'd be a king, A KING, if I'd been born then.

It's a perfectly complete phrase fuckwit.

>Wages for the common pleb
Yes, that's called material comfort.

>Technology has progressed at a stagnant level
lol wtf, I don't think you know what any of those words mean.

>culture has become degenerate ever since then
lmao, culture was complete shit back then. Enjoy your Elvis Presley humping the air like some kind of nigger.

>Look at weapons systems to judge technology.
Pretty sure we didn't have cruise missiles or drones back then. Also what a bizarre place to go to judge technology.

>the end of the roman empire was the best point in time for it
>earlier when the republic was functioning and people weren't getting raped by snowniggers is just rose-tinted, it wasn't actually better

But most of those are completely wrong. People were pretty well off, to the point where many peasants could dress in fine clothes like lords, and they worked far less than people do today. Anyone could become literate and a scholar if they wanted. Only medicine was kind of bad, but epidemics only started getting bad later because of high population concentration in cities and poor hygiene.

>no religious freedom whatsoever
lol proddie go home. Enjoy your "religious freedom" to burn witches, destroy art, and plunge Europe into centuries of civil war.

shitlib/10

Bronze Age tbqh, family, shakes my head

Great Britain

Going to need massive citations for all of that.

>complains about religious people doing bad things
>while also complains about having religious freedoms that mean you don't have to take part in any of that

>Pretty sure we didn't have cruise missiles or drones back then
We had missiles and we had remote operated planes. We even had computers. We even had a proto-internet. We've had wireless communication for eons. Nothing is remarkably different now on a technological level, it's just more widespread.

And that would be correct. Except it's not been another 1500 years and things are substantially better, in every regard.

Please tell me you are not comparing the western world in 2016 to the fall of the Roman empire. You wouldn't be that much of a memelord shithead would you?

>In before the word "degenerate" is used

>there are no similarities with america to the roman empire
>just a meme
Please be bait.

>you don't have to take part in any of that
>no need to burn anyone, you can just let yourself get burned at the stake by insane proddies instead

Amazing.

Japan before the collapse of the Bubble

ARPANET was created in 1969. So no we didn't have proto-internet in the 50s and 60s.

Go on then. Explain how it's similar.

>impossible mode: do so without using the word "degenerate"

1950s suburban America
t. /pol/

>he thinks religious freedom means religious fanatics can do whatever they want and not litterally the opposite

Are you actually 12 years old?

What do you think happens when you allow any lunatic to establish his own church fucktard?

Let me guess, you also think the free market means everyone gets rich.

Late 1800s, very early 1900s pre-WW1 Europe.

>1969
>not 60s

>What do you think happens when you allow any lunatic to establish his own church fucktard?

They sit around doing their own thing and become increasingly irrelevant. Occasionally some of them will go and shout some mean things are people to get themselves on the news.

>degenerate triggers me
>please respond seriously to me

So you're incapable of actually explaining your theory without using /pol/s favourite buzzword?

>the very, very end of a decade rather than the whole span of the pervious two decades.

Yeah, no, you're right, obviously.

Europe from 1815-1913

dat ho looks tight af

Obviously if you look through the lense of modern values, modern times look best.

Yeah cause that's totally what happened right.

>he keeps using a time period when there was no religious freedom, as an example of why religious freedom is bad

So when was there religious freedom according to you? Right now for example?

Yes, right now.

>he's using an example of people who don't want religious freedom, as an example of why religious freedom is bad

american 1950's

Oh well good to know everything is fucking peachy now that we have religious freedom.

>people who don't want religious freedom
What do you think people are going to preach once you give them religious freedom, fucktard?

>still using an example of religious supremacists as an example of why religious freedom is bad

Where do you live? If it's anywhere in the west, then yeah, it pretty much is peachy. When was the last time a heretic or apostate or athiest was executed by the state in your country?

Are you fucking serious? This shit happens literally every day. Yesterday a Muslim set a train carriage on fire and stabbed a dozen people.

Every religion is supremacist you stupid fucking shit. Allow religious freedom means allowing every fucktard to create his on supremacism and call for the murder of everyone else.

>a muslim terrorist
>STILL using an example of religious supremacists as an example of why religious freedom is bad

Do you even know what religious freedom actually is?

Yes, it's what allows "religious supremacists" to exist you dense faggot.

>edgy fedora memes

Yeah, that is exactly what happens in countries that have religious freedom, right? As we speak, the Archbishop of Canterbury is a frothing psychopath calling for the skulls of unbelievers to pave the new very, right?

>specifically not allowing any one religion to take control is what allows one religion to take control

United bloody States.

Right because that never fucking happened.

Pic related, an English abbey. I'd show you the hundreds of thousands of dead Catholics but there are no pictures of that.

>having to go 400 years into the past for an English example
>which was also a time when there was no religious freedom

>I don't know how to say anything without greentext and also can't stop sucking dicks

So according to you religious freedom is only when people get murdered in the name of Islam every day.

>makes a stupid statement as is now trying to backtrack by attacking perfectly accepted board culture rather than defending the stupid statement

>literally can't stop sucking dicks while praying to Luther

right now 2bh famm

Nope, religious freedom is when you can practice any religion you wish to, or none, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else or break any laws.

You know, the system that is in place is pretty much every developed country and that Islamic murderers massively disagree with?

>perfectly accepted shitposting

>litterally cannot defend their own moronic statements

Yeah, people can totally practice their religion freely in the West.

Oh unless they don't want to get FUCKING STABBED IN THE THROAT like that French priest during mass a few days ago.

Take it up with Moot or whoever our benevolent Chinese overlord is at the moment, if you don't like the board features.

>oh god why can't I stop sucking dicks and greentexting stramen

Using greentext to strawman like a memelord moron because you don't even know how to talk like a normal person anymore is not a board feature.

So, once again, you using an example of illegal religious supremacists, acting illegally, who want to force their religion on others, as an example of why NOT being able to legally force your religion on others is a bad thing?

So it's ok because it's illegal? What the fuck are you even trying to say?

The Catholic Church never went around murdering random people. The only people it ever had executed were relapsing heretics, precisely to keep them from committing the mass scale murders and massacres that always result from religious disunity.

This whole thread has been you flailing about, trying to claim that religious freedom is bad (that is to say the state is no longer able to kill or persecute you for your religion) because private individuals might decide to break the law, decide to persecute or kill people based on their religion and then be severely punished for it?

What the fuck are YOU even trying to say?

>religious freedom
I hate religious freedom. Only Christian sects should be allowed to have freedom of belief, as it was originally. Anything else is multiculturalism.

t. prottie

Religious freedom is bad because it leads to perpetual war between religious, which have historically done more damage to the West than perhaps anything else.

If there is a single state religion and every attempt at heresy is nipped in the bud, there is peace and no problem, unless you're some kind of Luther tier religious autist who spergs out over scripture interpretation, in which case just stop being a fucking autist and realise the point of religion is not for you to masturbate over, but to create social cohesion.

Oh yes, because there's religious wars just RAGING across Europe and North America right now isn't there?

In before "hurrr look at these statistically irrelevant terrorist attacks!!!1!!!!11!!!"

Literally present day.

There is a religious war waged by Muslims you blind stupid fuck.

There are no longer religious wars waged by Protestants only because Protestants are no longer religious.

He already inb4ed that.

You do know that when someone says "in before X", the general rule is to not then immediately post X, right?

>single state religion
>there is peace and no problem
But there are problems in Iran and Pakistan?

>inb4ing something magically makes it not true

Islam doesn't even have an organised clergy.

>a microscopic percentage of people carrying out terrorist attacks, while everyone else just gets on with life, is a war between religions.

Sure thing.

glorious Rome obviously, any other answer is barbaric

>a microscopic percentage of Nazis killing Jews, while everyone else just gets on with life, is a Holocaust

Sure thing.