Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tomi Lahren: Liberals to blame for tide pod challenge.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #81
    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post

    Maybe, depends on what you're talking about and the scenarios that can be attached.



    Never equated fairness with weakness. I said life isn't fair. It isn't. Fairness is also subjective. What might qualify as fair to you, may not be fair by someone else.



    Well, fairness is a human concept. Nature is neither good or bad. Humans, however, set the standard for humanity. So, life can be fair or unfair. Tell anyone trapped int the blood diamond trade that life is what you make of it, and they'd quickly disagree. Likely disagree.

    There is a difference between criticism and something that'd demoralize someone, well a reasonable someone. If me simply pointing out the fact that this generation is lazy and unmotivated is demoralizing, it just shows you how out of touch this generation is.



    Well, my suggestion is a tested method that has played out several times over recorded history. Sometimes you have to burn something down to get healthy growth in return. They practice this with forest and lawns as well.

    It's not a foreign concept.
    The thing is, though, "THIS GENERATION IS FUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKEEEEDDDD" (or some derivation like "they're lazy and unmotivated") is not actually new and basically just comes with the territory of old people seeing change, specifically the negative change and particularly how they see kids growing up, and then coming to the conclusion that the current generation is screwed, even if every generation had a problem that others didn't. And usually, kids are just shit in general. Basically:

    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
    Considering sum of da recent convo...I feel dis is at least slight relevant:
    Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; February 3rd, 2018, 08:40 PM.

    Originally posted by #83.6666666667
    2/3 of the population was Protestants, 1/3 was Catholic ... Therefore, the majority was Protestant and most were Catholic ...

    Comment


      #82
      Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
      The thing is, though, "THIS GENERATION IS FUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKEEEEDDDD" (or some derivation like "they're lazy and unmotivated") is not actually new and basically just comes with the territory of old people seeing change, specifically the negative change and particularly how they see kids growing up, and then coming to the conclusion that the current generation is screwed, even if every generation had a problem that others didn't. And usually, kids are just shit in general. Basically:
      We're also in a time mirrored in the late Roman Empire, where people were being taught that handouts were a good thing and to be expected. It, among other things, led up to the fall of the Empire and the fall into the dark ages where we lost, oh, ninety percent of human knowledge. It took something like five hundred years, 5th to the 10th century, for things to get back on track. So, I'm not technically looking at the modern millennial through the scope of old age and kids suck.

      Comment


        #83
        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post

        Maybe, depends on what you're talking about and the scenarios that can be attached.



        Never equated fairness with weakness. I said life isn't fair. It isn't. Fairness is also subjective. What might qualify as fair to you, may not be fair by someone else.



        Well, fairness is a human concept. Nature is neither good or bad. Humans, however, set the standard for humanity. So, life can be fair or unfair. Tell anyone trapped int the blood diamond trade that life is what you make of it, and they'd quickly disagree. Likely disagree.

        There is a difference between criticism and something that'd demoralize someone, well a reasonable someone. If me simply pointing out the fact that this generation is lazy and unmotivated is demoralizing, it just shows you how out of touch this generation is.



        Well, my suggestion is a tested method that has played out several times over recorded history. Sometimes you have to burn something down to get healthy growth in return. They practice this with forest and lawns as well.

        It's not a foreign concept.
        Well I gave an analogy already. Say, parents by and kid a football at an early age, or science equipment. The fact that they have the tools means they'll be influenced by them or be more in tune with the tool. Apposed to someone that couldn't afford a science kit or football. In sports you see the kids that have been playing since rhea were kids do far better than kids that pick up the practice in their teens.

        Do you not think safe spaces are for weak people? Because you did put those two things together.

        One could be brainwashed into not recognizing liberty or free will, but to anyone not brainwashed, even if they are in blood diamond trade, they understand they have the option of having an option. Whether they take it is up to them, hence why life is what you make of it.

        Well they might think it is unfair criticism. If they are working hard and you tell them this then it will be a detriment. If they are truly lazy and unmotivated then it is fair criticism and hopefully they learn from it.

        Would you burn down your entire home because of a squeaky door? I don't believe a rational person would. I think you're seeing this from an irrational point of view. Whatever your concern is for this generation, I do not quite know what it is but I'd urge to reflect on it and then determine if your ideas match the squeaky door.
        "tôi kratistôi"

        Comment


          #84
          Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post

          We're also in a time mirrored in the late Roman Empire, where people were being taught that handouts were a good thing and to be expected. It, among other things, led up to the fall of the Empire and the fall into the dark ages where we lost, oh, ninety percent of human knowledge. It took something like five hundred years, 5th to the 10th century, for things to get back on track. So, I'm not technically looking at the modern millennial through the scope of old age and kids suck.
          I've seen people make this claim often in right leaning circles. But to liken the USA and Rome and then conclude that they'll share the same fate is an error in interpreting history and not understanding basic facts.

          For starters the USA is far distant in terms of technology. It is easier to communicate to insure order. Then you have a secure nation with almost zero enemies. The country is fairly isolated, with a two peaceful countries on its borders. You have a stable economic and political society. You aren't constantly acquiring new territory. These differences alone separate Rome from the USA in hugely disproportionate strides.

          Correction, it was the dark ages for Europe. The Byzantine Empire kept much of their knowledge and wealth to a degree, and they were part of the Roman Empire. The middle east made great contributions to the planet and translated and preserved ancient texts. The Chinese also invented new things. In the Americas there was much progress in every field. And so forth.

          Your scope might need refocusing.
          "tôi kratistôi"

          Comment


            #85
            Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
            Well I gave an analogy already. Say, parents by and kid a football at an early age, or science equipment. The fact that they have the tools means they'll be influenced by them or be more in tune with the tool. Apposed to someone that couldn't afford a science kit or football. In sports you see the kids that have been playing since rhea were kids do far better than kids that pick up the practice in their teens.
            I doubt a football player, your choice soccer or American Football, could make the equipment they used. And just because you grew up using a microscope doesn't say you could build said microscope. Same logic applies to technology like the iDevices, just because you play with one as a kid, that doesn't denote you have the aptitude to be smarter and more creative than Steve Jobs, as you suggested when we first got started down this rabbit hole.

            Does growing up with something make you more capable with that thing? Yes. There is a caveat though, someone growing up with using a calculator and nothing else probably couldn't do long division and multiplication. There is give and take.

            Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
            Do you not think safe spaces are for weak people? Because you did put those two things together.
            A literal safe space, like a panic room? No, that is logical if you live in a area where it's necessary or have X Net Worth and you could be legitimately targeted for that wealth. A social safe space, on the other hand, is one of the dumbest things that have ever been conceptualized. If you're not mature enough for discourse you don't agree with, you don't deserve coddling when you encounter those a fore mentioned disagreeable ideals. Grow up, or fuck off. Preferably both. In those situations.

            Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
            One could be brainwashed into not recognizing liberty or free will, but to anyone not brainwashed, even if they are in blood diamond trade, they understand they have the option of having an option. Whether they take it is up to them, hence why life is what you make of it.
            The situation I outlined, with the diamond trade from the African continent, isn't one of those situations where options are, well, optimal.Usually its whole families that are in bounds and the hope of escape will get loved ones killed, if not the escapee themselves. What you suggest is death or tyranny. Sometimes, life is what people make for you, and there is little to nothing you can do about it. In the first world, you could argue better about life is what you make of because of, at this moment, opportunity of outcome.

            Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
            Well they might think it is unfair criticism. If they are working hard and you tell them this then it will be a detriment. If they are truly lazy and unmotivated then it is fair criticism and hopefully they learn from it.
            Well, the first part depends on the situation. In a job situation sometimes their best isn't good enough and it is what it is, tears or no.

            Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
            Would you burn down your entire home because of a squeaky door? I don't believe a rational person would.
            The problems in the world today far surpass a squeaky door, verging on total structural collapse. A bad economic downturn and the world will burn itself, no matches required. So, not the best analogy.

            Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
            . I think you're seeing this from an irrational point of view. Whatever your concern is for this generation, I do not quite know what it is but I'd urge to reflect on it and then determine if your ideas match the squeaky door.
            'This generation' isn't the only thing you look at though, you have to look at trends over a period of time. It's a building effect, Abe Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation
            Will be the philosophy of the government of the next"

            The problem compounds with each successful generation, and we're just looking at American government at the moment, in Germany they're not far off from validating Sharia as they haphazardly take in migrants that don't want or need to become part of the social fabric by assimilating into a populace. Then they cater to these populations at the expense of the native population. It becomes a vicious cycle. So, no. Its not a single generational problem. And, yes a good barn burner may be in order.


            Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
            I've seen people make this claim often in right leaning circles. But to liken the USA and Rome and then conclude that they'll share the same fate is an error in interpreting history and not understanding basic facts.

            For starters the USA is far distant in terms of technology. It is easier to communicate to insure order. Then you have a secure nation with almost zero enemies. The country is fairly isolated, with a two peaceful countries on its borders. You have a stable economic and political society. You aren't constantly acquiring new territory. These differences alone separate Rome from the USA in hugely disproportionate strides.

            Correction, it was the dark ages for Europe. The Byzantine Empire kept much of their knowledge and wealth to a degree, and they were part of the Roman Empire. The middle east made great contributions to the planet and translated and preserved ancient texts. The Chinese also invented new things. In the Americas there was much progress in every field. And so forth.

            Your scope might need refocusing.
            Just a note, you zero a scope in. Not focus a scope.

            Your first assertion is wrong, even if we disregard the similarities between Ancient Rome and the United State, they will still share the same fate, and not because of the adage Rome is the measuring stick of the world. Rather because all civilizations that wax, will inevitably wane as life is to death. Although, depending on religious belief there may be caveats to the whole death thing.

            Technologically speaking, there are quite a few things that Rome did then that today we cannot today. So lets not start throwing technology around like its an end all to the conversation. With the communication tools we have today, things go awry. This happens all the time with the police, military, and other organizations just because orders can be sent and received at the literal push of a button doesn't stop communication from being crossed, lost, or deliberately sabotaged. Lets also not forget that orders on the front lines in ancient times were on hand with generals on the ground with only cross empire communication taking a while.

            America is probably the most hated nation on the planet, if not then only Israel would surpass us. So, while you can argue we boarder no enemies, the United States has plenty of them. Economically we're one bad day from disaster. Inflation is on the rise and pay, while trying to balance out and rise with it, typically is on the decline. Also, do you realize just how much land and people the USA has annexed? Simply because they've not been brought into the union doesn't mean that we can't expand our boarders by doing so. Just saying there.

            The Byzantine empire also bleed territory for the better part of two centuries and almost completely self isolated. During the Eastern Roman Empires tenure general knowledge even within their boarders declined until aspiration and scarcity of resources left them little more than a large city state which later fell outright. (Yes the Holy Roman Empire was in this period as well but it more or less lived and died within two rulers) I'll also point out during this period the orient were more or less in a state of isolation as well and the middle east was waging war with the Byzantine Empire. So, yeah. The Dark Ages. I cannot attest for what was going on in the Americas, as I never been into the history of the Americas, though I do believe that this is the time of the rise of the Aztecs and Mayans. All of which can't be compared to Rome. Sure they have monolithic monuments, they however didn't have all the other technology Rome did.



            Comment


            • #83.6666666667
              #83.6666666667 commented
              Editing a comment
              I'm actually very interested in this debate but I don't know if you would like to continue it. Some people see these types of debates as tedious but i find them very entertaining, so if you'd like to continue let me know.

            #86
            Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
            I'm actually very interested in this debate but I don't know if you would like to continue it. Some people see these types of debates as tedious but i find them very entertaining, so if you'd like to continue let me know.
            I don't mind replying to what you say. So if you wish, continue.

            Comment


              #87
              Originally posted by EnemyOfDaState View Post

              Because he is an infant and shouldn't get used to playing with a phone at such a young age.
              Not to mention how dangerous it is to expose somebody that young to radiation.

              Comment


                #88
                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post

                I doubt a football player, your choice soccer or American Football, could make the equipment they used. And just because you grew up using a microscope doesn't say you could build said microscope. Same logic applies to technology like the iDevices, just because you play with one as a kid, that doesn't denote you have the aptitude to be smarter and more creative than Steve Jobs, as you suggested when we first got started down this rabbit hole.

                Does growing up with something make you more capable with that thing? Yes. There is a caveat though, someone growing up with using a calculator and nothing else probably couldn't do long division and multiplication. There is give and take.



                A literal safe space, like a panic room? No, that is logical if you live in a area where it's necessary or have X Net Worth and you could be legitimately targeted for that wealth. A social safe space, on the other hand, is one of the dumbest things that have ever been conceptualized. If you're not mature enough for discourse you don't agree with, you don't deserve coddling when you encounter those a fore mentioned disagreeable ideals. Grow up, or fuck off. Preferably both. In those situations.



                The situation I outlined, with the diamond trade from the African continent, isn't one of those situations where options are, well, optimal.Usually its whole families that are in bounds and the hope of escape will get loved ones killed, if not the escapee themselves. What you suggest is death or tyranny. Sometimes, life is what people make for you, and there is little to nothing you can do about it. In the first world, you could argue better about life is what you make of because of, at this moment, opportunity of outcome.



                Well, the first part depends on the situation. In a job situation sometimes their best isn't good enough and it is what it is, tears or no.



                The problems in the world today far surpass a squeaky door, verging on total structural collapse. A bad economic downturn and the world will burn itself, no matches required. So, not the best analogy.



                'This generation' isn't the only thing you look at though, you have to look at trends over a period of time. It's a building effect, Abe Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation
                Will be the philosophy of the government of the next"

                The problem compounds with each successful generation, and we're just looking at American government at the moment, in Germany they're not far off from validating Sharia as they haphazardly take in migrants that don't want or need to become part of the social fabric by assimilating into a populace. Then they cater to these populations at the expense of the native population. It becomes a vicious cycle. So, no. Its not a single generational problem. And, yes a good barn burner may be in order.




                Just a note, you zero a scope in. Not focus a scope.

                Your first assertion is wrong, even if we disregard the similarities between Ancient Rome and the United State, they will still share the same fate, and not because of the adage Rome is the measuring stick of the world. Rather because all civilizations that wax, will inevitably wane as life is to death. Although, depending on religious belief there may be caveats to the whole death thing.

                Technologically speaking, there are quite a few things that Rome did then that today we cannot today. So lets not start throwing technology around like its an end all to the conversation. With the communication tools we have today, things go awry. This happens all the time with the police, military, and other organizations just because orders can be sent and received at the literal push of a button doesn't stop communication from being crossed, lost, or deliberately sabotaged. Lets also not forget that orders on the front lines in ancient times were on hand with generals on the ground with only cross empire communication taking a while.

                America is probably the most hated nation on the planet, if not then only Israel would surpass us. So, while you can argue we boarder no enemies, the United States has plenty of them. Economically we're one bad day from disaster. Inflation is on the rise and pay, while trying to balance out and rise with it, typically is on the decline. Also, do you realize just how much land and people the USA has annexed? Simply because they've not been brought into the union doesn't mean that we can't expand our boarders by doing so. Just saying there.

                The Byzantine empire also bleed territory for the better part of two centuries and almost completely self isolated. During the Eastern Roman Empires tenure general knowledge even within their boarders declined until aspiration and scarcity of resources left them little more than a large city state which later fell outright. (Yes the Holy Roman Empire was in this period as well but it more or less lived and died within two rulers) I'll also point out during this period the orient were more or less in a state of isolation as well and the middle east was waging war with the Byzantine Empire. So, yeah. The Dark Ages. I cannot attest for what was going on in the Americas, as I never been into the history of the Americas, though I do believe that this is the time of the rise of the Aztecs and Mayans. All of which can't be compared to Rome. Sure they have monolithic monuments, they however didn't have all the other technology Rome did.


                This is not quite a rabbit hole. As we agreed, someone that has access to a particular tool will be more adept to utilizing said tool. And it does not necessarily have to be a direct correlation to building and making devices. And you don't have to be more intelligent than Steven Jobs or the creator of something to surpass them, not saying Jobs was smart.

                But there are many more things someone with a calculator can do. As I said, you're not limited to a particular field. If you're inspired or have an aptitude for something then having it helps you exceed. For example, someone with fish pets can become obsessed with them and eventually become a biologist, if he didn't have the fish as as kid he probably wouldn't have become a scientist. And just because he has fish doesn't limit his expertise to fish or fish tanks.


                No, not a literal safe space but a figurative one.

                This is what you said:
                " Fair? What is this, a social safe space?"

                Me: " Fair, as in being reasonable. I don't now why you'd associate being fair with being weak. It takes a lot of willpower to be fair to someone you dislike or disagree with. I'd say that's a sign of strength."

                You:" Never equated fairness with weakness. I said life isn't fair. It isn't. Fairness is also subjective. What might qualify as fair to you, may not be fair by someone else."

                Me:" Do you not think safe spaces are for weak people? Because you did put those two things together."

                You: "A literal safe space, like a panic room? No, that is logical if you live in a area where it's necessary or have X Net Worth and you could be legitimately targeted for that wealth. A social safe space, on the other hand, is one of the dumbest things that have ever been conceptualized. If you're not mature enough for discourse you don't agree with, you don't deserve coddling when you encounter those a fore mentioned disagreeable ideals. Grow up, or fuck off. Preferably both. In those situations. "

                So on one hand you said fair is akin to a safe space, but that being fair is not for weak people, even though you already said safe spaces are for the weak. So you seem to be confused in what you believe.

                That's not an excuse. Surprisingly for someone that is as macho as you, I'd expect a different answer. Throughout history people have had the option of liberty and death ("Give me liberty or give me death") and many people choose death rather than be slaves. So I don't subscribe to the idea of not being able to choose your destiny, therefore fair and unfair are decided on what you do.

                If it's in a job situation then what if the person isn't at par with others, not because they choose to be worse but because they just can't keep up? Should the handicapped people working in the grocery be substituted for better workers? Or do you spend a little more effort on them?


                Maybe in your perspective the world is an inch away from total destruction, but I honestly don't see what you do. There are no major wars going on among nations and there is peace for the most part throughout the world. A bad economic downturn like in 2008? Sure that was a hit to social, political, and economic life but the world economy bounced back. The US economy is steadily rising and is maintaining balance.

                Ah, see here we are. We're getting to the root of your concerns. Germany has elected to help others, to this we shouldn't condemn them but applaud their efforts. And Muslims becoming a majority in Germany is ridiculous. If anything young new blood will help their economic decline.

                I've heard it both ways.
                Every country is destined to fall eventually. Not sure if understand your point.

                Yes, so now imagine how much more would be lost in translation or delayed in ancient times. This is an important point.

                Yeah the USA is very hated, but hasn't fought any real opponents in centuries. While the Romans didn't stop fighting in centuries.

                No the Byzantine Empire remained important for a very long time and even acquired much of the Roman empire after it fell. Sure, it later declined and eventually fell, in part because of the Crusaders. But it was remained up until a few decades to the discovery of America.

                Sure, China was isolated. So what? China has always been isolated, with the exception of the Silk Road.

                The middle east was not waging war with the Byzantine Empire. Some groups were during specific times but not the entire middle east. Regardless they were making important discoveries and progress.

                The Dark Ages, for Europe, sure.

                The only thing the Americas lacked that the old world did have were beast of burden, more advanced metallurgy, gun powder, diseases, and Chinese people. Besides that they matched if not surpassed the old world. And you're have to take into account that they had the less time to settle down and start their civilization. And I do have to remind you that we're talking of the dark ages not Roman time.




                "tôi kratistôi"

                Comment


                  #89
                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  This is not quite a rabbit hole. As we agreed, someone that has access to a particular tool will be more adept to utilizing said tool. And it does not necessarily have to be a direct correlation to building and making devices. And you don't have to be more intelligent than Steven Jobs or the creator of something to surpass them, not saying Jobs was smart.
                  That, though, is how this whole conversation got started, was the claim that growing up with something could/would correlate to doing just that.

                  This was your conversation with EoS.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  What if he becomes the next Bill Gates? You seriously willing to risk that just because you don't want him to play with the phone? I understand if social media is your concern but learning current technology is what you need to do to stay ahead of the curve.
                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  Then he'll be better than that old ass nerd.



                  So it was the case you were trying to make, and if it wasn’t. Then you didn’t make it clear enough to not be misconstrued as such.

                  I also used Jobs as an example, what you think about his methods and the accusations against him is irrelevant to this conversation as he is applauded as a visionary beyond his time.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  But there are many more things someone with a calculator can do. As I said, you're not limited to a particular field. If you're inspired or have an aptitude for something then having it helps you exceed. For example, someone with fish pets can become obsessed with them and eventually become a biologist, if he didn't have the fish as as kid he probably wouldn't have become a scientist. And just because he has fish doesn't limit his expertise to fish or fish tanks.
                  One could also just have a fish and learn nothing about them, losing more than they kept alive. The shoe could fit either foot in that case, TV and books can inspire such things as well, with a whole generation of scientist being inspired by Star Trek to go and make those things a reality that they saw in the show. With that being said, however, there is more people out there that wasn’t inspired to become scientist or what ever else that Star Trek can be linked to inspiring.

                  Correlation doesn’t imply causation.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  No, not a literal safe space but a figurative one.
                  This is what you said:
                  " Fair? What is this, a social safe space?"

                  Me: " Fair, as in being reasonable. I don't now why you'd associate being fair with being weak. It takes a lot of willpower to be fair to someone you dislike or disagree with. I'd say that's a sign of strength."

                  You:" Never equated fairness with weakness. I said life isn't fair. It isn't. Fairness is also subjective. What might qualify as fair to you, may not be fair by someone else."

                  Me:" Do you not think safe spaces are for weak people? Because you did put those two things together."

                  You: "A literal safe space, like a panic room? No, that is logical if you live in a area where it's necessary or have X Net Worth and you could be legitimately targeted for that wealth. A social safe space, on the other hand, is one of the dumbest things that have ever been conceptualized. If you're not mature enough for discourse you don't agree with, you don't deserve coddling when you encounter those a fore mentioned disagreeable ideals. Grow up, or fuck off. Preferably both. In those situations. "

                  So on one hand you said fair is akin to a safe space, but that being fair is not for weak people, even though you already said safe spaces are for the weak. So you seem to be confused in what you believe.
                  You also failed to specify, I stated social safe space, your reply only mentioned safe spaces, which is why I wanted a clarification.

                  I also don’t recall equating fairness and safe spaces, I said a panic room is reasonable if scenarios can be applied to justify one. On the other hand, if someone is afraid of free discourse, and cry that words are violent or violence then yes, they are weak and deserve any shaming they come across. Fuck them, humanity would be better off without them.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  That's not an excuse. Surprisingly for someone that is as macho as you, I'd expect a different answer. Throughout history people have had the option of liberty and death ("Give me liberty or give me death") and many people choose death rather than be slaves. So I don't subscribe to the idea of not being able to choose your destiny, therefore fair and unfair are decided on what you do.
                  Patrick Henry was also rallying people to a cause when he allegedly stated: “Give me liberty, or give me death.” Different scenarios call for different action. In the case of the Revolutionary War, the people had the ability to fight back, so death was a gamble worth taking. Looking though history, the people that risked death had the ability to fight back and win. Those that didn’t usually remained in the situations they were in. With the few that chose death also having representation. So, yes. It can be argued life is what you make of it, but it’s equally true that life isn’t fair nor does have to cater to what people want from it.

                  Its not about being macho, it’s about looking at life as it is, not it’s idealized to be.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  If it's in a job situation then what if the person isn't at par with others, not because they choose to be worse but because they just can't keep up? Should the handicapped people working in the grocery be substituted for better workers? Or do you spend a little more effort on them?
                  There is a difference between laziness and being handicapped. If a person with a handicap is hired, the person doing the hiring probably took the issue the person has into consideration and it wouldn’t come up on performance evaluations.

                  Nice attempt at a strawman though, I stand by my statement.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  Maybe in your perspective the world is an inch away from total destruction,
                  The world will be fine, save cosmic catastrophe.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  but I honestly don't see what you do. There are no major wars going on among nations and there is peace for the most part throughout the world. A bad economic downturn like in 2008? Sure that was a hit to social, political, and economic life but the world economy bounced back. The US economy is steadily rising and is maintaining balance.
                  You do realize, that conflict is always brewing right? At this moment Israel is verging on all out war, if the news is to be believed. The Doomsday Clock is also setting at two and a half minutes to midnight. So even acidemia to some degree say we’re verging on annihilation.

                  Currency on faith is always susceptible to the ebbs and flows of the global economy. It’s just a byproduct of stupidly giving up collateral to back money.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  Ah, see here we are. We're getting to the root of your concerns. Germany has elected to help others, to this we shouldn't condemn them but applaud their efforts. And Muslims becoming a majority in Germany is ridiculous. If anything young new blood will help their economic decline
                  Germany should be concerned with its native populace, not taking in more alleged refugees than their system can handle. I’ll applaud them when they do right by their people. There isn’t much evidence to show that last part of your statement, in fact trends tend to point in the other direction. Mass population migration from poorer/ third world countries tend to have rapid reproduction as death is prominent in those parts of the world. In the industrialized world, death is balanced thus population verge on decline and balanced as rapid birth rates aren’t called for.

                  There are census reports from Britain, I believe, that show the native population on the decline and immigrant population on the rise. To just show that this trend is a thing, countries typically have a set number of immigrants they take in yearly.

                  Immigration has been a problem in Europe since WWII though, and they haven’t learned from their mistake.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  I've heard it both ways.
                  Every country is destined to fall eventually. Not sure if understand your point.
                  The point is, we’ll one day share in Rome’s fate.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  Yes, so now imagine how much more would be lost in translation or delayed in ancient times. This is an important point.
                  You do realize up til about fifty years ago, snail mail hadn’t really changed all that much from ancient times even with the advent of motorize vehicles and flight mail got to where it got to, when it did. Phones weren’t common place for a long time and it took specialized skills to use the telegraph system. Peering through the lens of modern electronic communication skews your perception.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  Yeah the USA is very hated, but hasn't fought any real opponents in centuries. While the Romans didn't stop fighting in centuries.
                  WWI – Ended 1918
                  WWII – Ended 1945
                  Vietnam – Ended 1975

                  Not to mention the wars we had in the middle east in the 90s

                  I’d have to go back and look, haven’t looked over Roman history in years, but I’m sure there were stints of peace within the Empire, it wouldn’t have lasted as long as it did if it was in constant conflict. Outside his fight for power with Mark Anthony, I believe Augustus’ reign was fairly peaceful. Again, I’d have to check.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  No the Byzantine Empire remained important for a very long time and even acquired much of the Roman empire after it fell. Sure, it later declined and eventually fell, in part because of the Crusaders. But it was remained up until a few decades to the discovery of America
                  That doesn’t disprove what I stated, I said it shrank which is what happened. To the point it was a glorified city state, which it was and that it eventually fell which it did. I didn’t put any other information in there. Just what happened, and yes the Empire did on two maybe three occasions expand its boarders, they never got back to the size of the Roman Empire. It was, if I recall correctly, under Justinian 1st that they got back to the Mediterranean. They didn’t keep the territory long though, like the other times they were pushed back to their initial boarders after the fall of Rome.

                  It was the Ottomans that conquered it, not crusaders thus the name Istanbul is what it became. I suppose that participation in the Crusades lead to further weakening the Empire, but again by that time there were pretty much limited to Constantinople.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  Sure, China was isolated. So what? China has always been isolated, with the exception of the Silk Road.

                  The middle east was not waging war with the Byzantine Empire. Some groups were during specific times but not the entire middle east. Regardless they were making important discoveries and progress.

                  The Dark Ages, for Europe, sure.
                  It was pretty dark times for the whole continent, the people in China were in about the same situation as the people of Europe, death hung around every corner. Literacy and quality of life was reserved for the wealthy for the most part with monks being literate only to preserve histories and teach those with influence. Overall, the life for the masses were at their worst in this time, and I don’t recall any real big discoveries or progress during the Dark Ages. Sure during the renaissance, but not really anything of note during the 5th-10th centuries that I can recall.

                  Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                  The only thing the Americas lacked that the old world did have were beast of burden, more advanced metallurgy, gun powder, diseases, and Chinese people. Besides that they matched if not surpassed the old world. And you're have to take into account that they had the less time to settle down and start their civilization. And I do have to remind you that we're talking of the dark ages not Roman time.
                  I wouldn’t claim they surpassed the old world. They also lacked the wheel and concrete.




                  Comment

                  Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                  Auto-Saved
                  x
                  Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                  x

                  Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image below.

                  Registration Image Refresh Image
                  Working...
                  X