Quote - Argue with DQ, and he'll bring up the Bible and "religion" just about every time.

Nonsense. The only other time I can recall bringing up the Bible was when others had broached the subject, somewhere in the thread, first. If you can prove otherwise, mea culpa, but whatever.

And what is your point, or objection, anyway about bringing up the Bible? Haven't I already adequately explained my purpose?

If not, let me be as specific as possible. The reason I brought it up this time was simply to make the point, in a manner, and using a source, that I thought someone on the political right might readily be able to acknowledge, i.e., that amorality -- at least as most modern folks understand it -- has always been with us, and not always, apparently, considered even important enough to condemn. So what exactly does it mean to suggest things are so much worse now? How do we even know all of what happened before, or whether now is worse or not? It was just intended to offer a little perspective for consideration.

As far as your comments on popular culture, the definition you offered did not indicate whether it was intended to apply to all times, and as far as wasting time defining terms, for people who do not come from very similar backgrounds, it is often nearly impossible to communicate otherwise. I'm sorry you don't like that, but try mentioning ol' "DQ" on "Renderosity" to someone who is completely unfamiliar with the internet, this site, etc., and let me know if you are asked to define your terms.

While the distance between our "take" on reality may not be that great, it should be amply clear by now that your terms and my terms do not always mean the same thing.

And historically, in a great many societies, what was truly popular among the masses was called subservience to authority, and basic survival. If we are speaking of ancient Roman or Greek culture, you are almost by definition (and at least in many respects) not speaking of the women, the slaves, the children, the poor, the uneducated, those considered to be racially or otherwise inferior, the common laborers and servants, or the great masses of the people. Again, if you can prove otherwise, mea culpa, I will have learned something.

Quote - Hmmmm.  This is another odd rabbit trail to go chasing down.  I'm not quite sure how we get from pointing out that civilizations of the past have consistently displayed a generalized cultural acceptance of amoral thinking during the last stages of their existence........over to questions about "amorality being reserved for the elite" vs. (I suppose) "amorality being for everyone".  Sounds like Oppression of the Masses going on to me.  How DARE the elites reserve the privilege of being amoral only to themselves?!!!!!!

That subject.......will require some Deep Thought to work out all of the implications.  In the meantime, I'll continue to read the signs of our times in the light of the times of others who've already lived it -- regardless of whether their examples were for the "elite" or for the "everyman".

Where is that head-scratching smilie when you need him...........!!!!!?????

Well, again, I regret that you don't understand, or that (perhaps) I have been unclear. The point of my questions is, because you suggested that it is the "popularization" of amorality that is the problem, whether or not you believe such things should be reserved for some elite someones other than the masses (i.e., you did not say amoral behavior was the problem; you acknowledged it is always around; what you said was that it is the popularization of amorality that is the problem; so does that imply amoraity is a-okay with you so long as it does not sift down to the masses?). It was just a question. And the follow-up was whether or not you are suggesting that such societies in which it is the case that amorality exists but is not popularized, do not also frequently collapse? See? Does any of that make any more sense?

What I am asking is, that if it is the popularization of amorality that is the problem that leads to great civilizations collapsing, doesn't that imply that societies in which such amorality has not been popularized would be markedly and provably longer lasting and more stable? And if so, can you demonstrate that with historical evidence?

I'm just trying to learn something here, and also to discover whether you actually know anything or not.