I just realised I misread something you said earlier, Jayb.

<<Back to the 16th Century theories. They were good enough for people then, they are good enough for people now.>>

I missed the “for”s and thought you were saying that people in general were good enough back in those times [without sociological research], just as they would be today [without it].

But on re-reading it, I can see that you were actually being sarcastic; as if I had suggested that 16th century theories were good enough for today; and as if any of the theories or perspectives that I’ve been referring to were actually from that long ago. I gave you too much credit in thinking that you were just being naive, but as it turns out, you were putting words in my mouth. That’s really pathetic. And you’re delusional enough to think that your credibility is still intact.

Still waiting for your response, by the way.

I’ll give you a little hint this time, though: even if the sociological perspectives WERE from that long ago, they’d still be valid; and every time you claim that they couldn’t possibly be, you demonstrate that you don’t even know what they are. You are simply making a claim that sounds like it should be logical, in the hope that it’s right, because you have no idea of what it is that you’re even referring to. The perspectives are frameworks with which to view the development, structure, and functioning of societies; they’re not theories that attempt to explain them. If they were, then you’d probably have a point.