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, 09:40 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.

        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.

          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.




                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


                    #90
                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post

                    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.



                    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.
                    You're making the assumption that you need to be a genius to achieve great things, which is not true.

                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    That is very true, if you wear shoes that doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a shoe maker or runner. However, that isn't quite what I'm saying. Is there or is there not a distinction of having a tool vs not having one? Does using said tool at a younger age make you better at using it than someone who hadn't used it at a younger age?
                    By all means and purposes the kid using a tool at a younger age and finding value in it will have a greater advantage than someone who doesn't have it.


                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    I think I proved my point well enough.

                    You somehow attribute "justification" for one scenario but seem to use a wide brush with people who are afraid of "free" discord. This is a clear double standard.

                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    One person fighting 1 million soldiers is going to logically end with the life of the single individual, but will inspire billions. Even if you die you get to dictate your own future. We are all limited in many ways, just like a captive, the decisions we make is what determines the world we live.

                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    If you didn't notice that was a question and an example. Based on the little context you provided I made a reasonable inference.
                    I agree that if a person just doesn't want to work then they should be fired. But that's an obvious truth. They should go do what they want and are inspired by. But if the person is hardworking but incompetent then what?


                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    Can you name a major war going on right now among major nations? We're living in very peaceful times. There are economic uncertainties which are very worrying thanks the USA changing the system, global change is also a major worry, and nuclear weapons is another issue. The USA as a world leader has done a terrible job. But overall the future looks to be good. At least the Russian-American issues seem to be improving.

                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    To be honest, I don't really care about Europe, or the old world. They can settle their own problems. Yes it is true that people from undeveloped nations when in developed nations have less kids when in a developed nation, thishowever does not disprove my point. As with more people in the nation there it's more labor power.

                    And the idea that Muslims will replace Europeans is nonsense.

                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    The point is, we’ll one day share in Rome’s fate.
                    Naturally.
                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    You just named a bunch a things which made a difference in communication. Motor vehicles, steam engines, the telegraph, etc, were very important.
                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    In none of those wars was the USA in any real danger or had much to lose.
                    Most of the wars the USA have been in have been slaughters because they go against weak opponents. Meanwhile Rome has had armies in their doorsteps with their main army defeated.
                    The USA has had the luck of being isolated and having no opposition. That is in part why they have managed to thrive and become the most powerful and wealthy nation to date.

                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    The claim is that during the Dark Ages there was no progression: "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 10thcentury, 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." -You.

                    The facts are that the Byzantine Empire didn't decline to a city-state until 13th century to its end in the 15th century. But the world in itself wasn't in a dark age. The Dark Ages is specifically a western European thing.

                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    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.
                    That's just not true. While there was death in China, just like we do today, doesn't mean they were as bad off as western Europe. The plague from Europe did reach China because of the Silk Road but that didn't stop them.

                    Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                    I wouldn’t claim they surpassed the old world. They also lacked the wheel and concrete.
                    They did. And they had less time to develop. They had the wheel but no animal to exploit it. They also had concrete.

                    Comment


                      #91
                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      You're making the assumption that you need to be a genius to achieve great things, which is not true
                      Well, just mentally riffling through great achievements throughout history, I can't think of one that wasn't preformed by someone with a gift in some department or another. Even if that realization wasn't made until post mortem.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      That is very true, if you wear shoes that doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a shoe maker or runner. However, that isn't quite what I'm saying. Is there or is there not a distinction of having a tool vs not having one? Does using said tool at a younger age make you better at using it than someone who hadn't used it at a younger age?
                      By all means and purposes the kid using a tool at a younger age and finding value in it will have a greater advantage than someone who doesn't have it.
                      Of course, there is a thing called a learning curve. I'm simply saying that using a tool isn't going to make you Nikola Tesla.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      I think I proved my point well enough.

                      You somehow attribute "justification" for one scenario but seem to use a wide brush with people who are afraid of "free" discord. This is a clear double standard.
                      My thoughts on a panic room for safety is logical. You giving credence to a destructive train of thought, isn't.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      One person fighting 1 million soldiers is going to logically end with the life of the single individual, but will inspire billions
                      No, not necessarily. Especially if that single death is never spoken of. You don't sow seeds of rebellion.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      Even if you die you get to dictate your own future.
                      It's not much of a dictate if there is only a single outcome.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      We are all limited in many ways, just like a captive, the decisions we make is what determines the world we live.
                      Enjoy your rose tinted glasses.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      If you didn't notice that was a question and an example. Based on the little context you provided I made a reasonable inference.
                      I agree that if a person just doesn't want to work then they should be fired. But that's an obvious truth. They should go do what they want and are inspired by. But if the person is hardworking but incompetent then what?
                      True enough I suppose, I should have ruled out the handicapped.

                      Depends on the employer I suppose.

                      In the end it goes back to life not being fair, holding down a job is even less so. If the employer valued that tenacity, perhaps they'd shift them around to something they could manage. If not, well shit happens.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      Can you name a major war going on right now among major nations? We're living in very peaceful times. There are economic uncertainties which are very worrying thanks the USA changing the system, global change is also a major worry, and nuclear weapons is another issue. The USA as a world leader has done a terrible job. But overall the future looks to be good. At least the Russian-American issues seem to be improving.
                      Major conflict? None at the moment, but that doesn't mean that some little conflict like in my Israel example blooming into a major war. Major conflicts don't start that way.


                      The system, as it were, is always changing.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      To be honest, I don't really care about Europe, or the old world. They can settle their own problems. Yes it is true that people from undeveloped nations when in developed nations have less kids when in a developed nation, thishowever does not disprove my point. As with more people in the nation there it's more labor power.

                      And the idea that Muslims will replace Europeans is nonsense.

                      Simply having more labor power won't save a nation.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      You just named a bunch a things which made a difference in communication. Motor vehicles, steam engines, the telegraph, etc, were very important.
                      I didn't say they weren't important, just that the speed that we have today wasn't commonplace even sixty odd years ago.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      In none of those wars was the USA in any real danger or had much to lose.
                      Most of the wars the USA have been in have been slaughters because they go against weak opponents. Meanwhile Rome has had armies in their doorsteps with their main army defeated.
                      The USA has had the luck of being isolated and having no opposition. That is in part why they have managed to thrive and become the most powerful and wealthy nation to date
                      Losing WWI or WWII would have major implications on the US and the world at large, especially WWII. The Vietnam War was more loss and nearly divided the nation.

                      The only time that Rome had armies on its doorsteps were three times, the first was when Caesar crossed the Rubicon and he was a hero, the other two times was when Rome was sacked. The first they recovered from, the second they didn't. Until the waning years of the empire they were pretty much able to keep the barbarian tribes pacified and at bay with only the Hun scourge playing a real threat, and if memory serves Rome was in decline then.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      The claim is that during the Dark Ages there was no progression: "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 10thcentury, 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." -You.

                      The facts are that the Byzantine Empire didn't decline to a city-state until 13th century to its end in the 15th century. But the world in itself wasn't in a dark age. The Dark Ages is specifically a western European thing.

                      I wasn't wrong either, there was no real progression through that time period, and again I wasn't wrong as I didn't give a time table.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      That's just not true. While there was death in China, just like we do today, doesn't mean they were as bad off as western Europe. The plague from Europe did reach China because of the Silk Road but that didn't stop them.

                      Doesn't disprove my point.

                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                      ey did. And they had less time to develop. They had the wheel but no animal to exploit it. They also had concrete.
                      Don't recall America, Mezo-America, or South America having concrete back then.




                      Comment


                        #92
                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post

                        Well, just mentally riffling through great achievements throughout history, I can't think of one that wasn't preformed by someone with a gift in some department or another. Even if that realization wasn't made until post mortem.
                        People that make great discoveries or steal great discoveries are treated as geniuses. But that's not particularly true, take Rene Decartes for example, I bet you'd consider him a genius but even he said that he was of average intelligence.

                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        Of course, there is a thing called a learning curve. I'm simply saying that using a tool isn't going to make you Nikola Tesla.
                        I never claimed as much. You're misunderstanding my statement.

                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        My thoughts on a panic room for safety is logical. You giving credence to a destructive train of thought, isn't.
                        Not inherently. Someone can have a zombie panic room,which is irrational. Getting verbally assault is a rational fear.
                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        No, not necessarily. Especially if that single death is never spoken of. You don't sow seeds of rebellion.
                        You took control of your future, if you die in obscurity by yourself then you would have died a free man that took his destiny into his own hands. That is fair if you chose to.

                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        It's not much of a dictate if there is only a single outcome.
                        There's never just one option, but even if you take it in your own freewill it is dictating.


                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        Enjoy your rose tinted glasses.
                        Sure.


                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        True enough I suppose, I should have ruled out the handicapped.

                        Depends on the employer I suppose.

                        In the end it goes back to life not being fair, holding down a job is even less so. If the employer valued that tenacity, perhaps they'd shift them around to something they could manage. If not, well shit happens.
                        I think we've gone off enough off topic on this conversation,lol.


                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        Major conflict? None at the moment, but that doesn't mean that some little conflict like in my Israel example blooming into a major war. Major conflicts don't start that way.


                        The system, as it were, is always changing.
                        I honestly doubt Israel can drag the world into a war world. Their war with other Arabic countries wasn't that big of a deal


                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        Simply having more labor power won't save a nation.
                        It will keep their economy afloat which is what they need.

                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        I didn't say they weren't important, just that the speed that we have today wasn't commonplace even sixty odd years ago.
                        Yeah but we we're talking about why Roman communication system to say 18th century communication systems.


                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        Losing WWI or WWII would have major implications on the US and the world at large, especially WWII. The Vietnam War was more loss and nearly divided the nation.

                        The only time that Rome had armies on its doorsteps were three times, the first was when Caesar crossed the Rubicon and he was a hero, the other two times was when Rome was sacked. The first they recovered from, the second they didn't. Until the waning years of the empire they were pretty much able to keep the barbarian tribes pacified and at bay with only the Hun scourge playing a real threat, and if memory serves Rome was in decline then.
                        Losing world wars for America wouldn't mean much. Europe was torn into pieces during both wars, there was no real threat to the USA.
                        The mighty Vietnam however pose no threat to the USA.

                        I was particularly referring to the Punic War (2nd).
                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...rs_and_battles

                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        I wasn't wrong either, there was no real progression through that time period, and again I wasn't wrong as I didn't give a time table.
                        No you were incorrect. You said they world was in a dark age which it wasn't.
                        And you did give a date.
                        "It took something like five hundred years, 5th to the 10thcentury, for things to get back on track."


                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        Doesn't disprove my point.
                        I don't even understand your point to be honest.


                        Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                        Don't recall America, Mezo-America, or South America having concrete back then.
                        Mayans had concrete.
                        https://leonidemartinblog.wordpress....-great-cities/

                        Comment


                          #93
                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          People that make great discoveries or steal great discoveries are treated as geniuses. But that's not particularly true, take Rene Decartes for example, I bet you'd consider him a genius but even he said that he was of average intelligence.
                          It's also a trait for people to be more critical of themselves than the people around them. So while he may thought of himself as of average intellect, the people around him thought differently.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          I never claimed as much. You're misunderstanding my statement.
                          Or you didn't clarify as I quoted you the quotes from your exchange with Enemy of the State that seemed to suggest this was your argument.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          Not inherently. Someone can have a zombie panic room,which is irrational. Getting verbally assault is a rational fear.
                          I also outlined that the room was for logical reasons, not something as farfetched as a zombie apocalypse. I also said nothing about verbal assault, I specifically outlined people that equated differing ideals to physical violence.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          You took control of your future, if you die in obscurity by yourself then you would have died a free man that took his destiny into his own hands. That is fair if you chose to.
                          Still doesn't make life fair.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          There's never just one option, but even if you take it in your own freewill it is dictating.
                          Never said it wasn't I just said it wasn't much dictating.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          I honestly doubt Israel can drag the world into a war world. Their war with other Arabic countries wasn't that big of a deal
                          You never know how the dominoes will fall, especially with the political climate in the US

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          It will keep their economy afloat which is what they need.
                          It didn't with Rome

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          Yeah but we we're talking about why Roman communication system to say 18th century communication systems.
                          Clarification, please.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          Losing world wars for America wouldn't mean much. Europe was torn into pieces during both wars, there was no real threat to the USA.
                          The mighty Vietnam however pose no threat to the USA.
                          We have evidence that Hitler was well on his way to developing long range bombers that could have struck the US. They developed the Jet in WWII. We also know that they were on the way to developing the nuclear bomb well before we did, and they dropped it for something else. That something else has never been disclosed, and probably got swept up in Project Paperclip.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          I was particularly referring to the Punic War (2nd).
                          Yeah, this is the first time I legitimately laughed during this conversation. Nice try though.

                          First I'll point out that the Hannibal wars took place during the Roman Republic, not the empire. The largest, and biggest victory for Hannibal didn't happen on Rome's doorstep. He was close to Rome, but he didn't have the forces to lay siege to the city. He wondered around the countryside laying waste to what he could til he retreated back to Africa.

                          Secondly, the majority of what we know about the second Punic War comes from the family historian of General Scipio, and its now believed that most of the accounts given were highly embellished to make him look good, as most of the people that the historian claimed to have talked to would have been well pass a living age for soldiers, for that time period. Leaving most of the accounts given as untrustworthy.

                          Any man that takes elephants across the alps is a moron in my book, and Hannibal was so soundly defeated at Carthage that he ran and flung himself off a cliff later to avoid capture.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          No you were incorrect. You said they world was in a dark age which it wasn't.
                          And you did give a date.
                          For what was going on, it was.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          "It took something like five hundred years, 5th to the 10thcentury, for things to get back on track."
                          Which was the time period for the dark ages, when it later came to our discussion with the holy roman empire I gave no dates, I stated in general what happened to them, if I wasn't clear enough I apologize.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          I don't even understand your point to be honest
                          We've been talking in circles, so I can see that.

                          Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                          Mayans had concrete.
                          Fair enough, as I said i wasn't into the histories of the Americas. So point taken.



                          Comment


                            #94
                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post

                            It's also a trait for people to be more critical of themselves than the people around them. So while he may thought of himself as of average intellect, the people around him thought differently.
                            Now you're just making up stuff. While it is true inteligente (some/most) people don't brag about their smarts, it is also true that they can gauge their own intelligence compared to their peers and school mates.

                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            Or you didn't clarify as I quoted you the quotes from your exchange with Enemy of the State that seemed to suggest this was your argument.
                            Really? From my exchange with EoS, you gathered that by me saying the kid could be better than BG by having a tool that somehow would make the kid smarter than Nicolas Tesla?


                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            I also outlined that the room was for logical reasons, not something as farfetched as a zombie apocalypse. I also said nothing about verbal assault, I specifically outlined people that equated differing ideals to physical violence.
                            Fair enough.

                            Who has ever said that? While I agree that some ideals are as dangerous or even more so than physical attacks, I've never heard anyone actually making that claim.

                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post

                            Still doesn't make life fair.
                            If a meteorite hits your home is that fair or unfair? There is no such thing as fair or unfair.


                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            Never said it wasn't I just said it wasn't much dictating.
                            In your opinion.

                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            You never know how the dominoes will fall, especially with the political climate in the US
                            Well you can make a thousand claims and say this just might trigger another war. Fact is there have been hundreds of things that could have lead to another war but didn't.


                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            It didn't with Rome
                            Rome is now comparable to modern day Germany?


                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            Clarification, please.
                            18th century communication systems were better than Roman communication systems.


                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            We have evidence that Hitler was well on his way to developing long range bombers that could have struck the US. They developed the Jet in WWII. We also know that they were on the way to developing the nuclear bomb well before we did, and they dropped it for something else. That something else has never been disclosed, and probably got swept up in Project Paperclip.
                            Hitler was pretty much done after his failed attempt to invade Russia. He hadn't conquered Europe and you really expect me to believe he could threaten the USA? This is only credible in the imagination.


                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            First I'll point out that the Hannibal wars took place during the Roman Republic, not the empire. The largest, and biggest victory for Hannibal didn't happen on Rome's doorstep. He was close to Rome, but he didn't have the forces to lay siege to the city. He wondered around the countryside laying waste to what he could til he retreated back to Africa.
                            Why does it matter if it was the Roman Republic?
                            I never said the defeat was on their door steps.
                            He did have a force to lay siege, regardless that's not the point. The point was that Rome by fighting a strong empire could have lost their own territory. The USA has never taken such a risk.

                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            Secondly, the majority of what we know about the second Punic War comes from the family historian of General Scipio, and its now believed that most of the accounts given were highly embellished to make him look good, as most of the people that the historian claimed to have talked to would have been well pass a living age for soldiers, for that time period. Leaving most of the accounts given as untrustworthy.
                            What is this supposed to proof even if true?

                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            Any man that takes elephants across the alps is a moron in my book, and Hannibal was so soundly defeated at Carthage that he ran and flung himself off a cliff later to avoid capture.
                            Elephants were formidable war machines, the tanks of the ancient world.
                            Hannibal is considered a military genius.


                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            For what was going on, it was.
                            You can literally apply the same thinking to any period of time.


                            Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                            Which was the time period for the dark ages, when it later came to our discussion with the holy roman empire I gave no dates, I stated in general what happened to them, if I wasn't clear enough I apologize.
                            Sure.

                            Comment


                              #95
                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              Now you're just making up stuff. While it is true inteligente (some/most) people don't brag about their smarts, it is also true that they can gauge their own intelligence compared to their peers and school mates.

                              It's a self destructive tenancy called being your own worst critic, people with talent or skill often hold themselves to a higher standard that their peers that watch from the outside. Whether or not your example had this tenancy is irrelevant, because it's possible they did. People whom accomplish things are seen as gifted, even if they don't.

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              Really? From my exchange with EoS, you gathered that by me saying the kid could be better than BG by having a tool that somehow would make the kid smarter than Nicolas Tesla?
                              It's in the same vein, you said that they'd be better than that old man, paraphrasing of course, you didn't at that time use the word could, you stated it as fact.

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              Who has ever said that?
                              How about the crybabies at Berkley who ban a gay man from speaking because he's outlandish? Or ban a speaker who is about as middle of the road as they come, simply because he speaks things they find offensive.

                              This has happened at other colleges too where leftist want to take the right of speech away from right leaning speakers because of feels and I don't agree with you.

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              If a meteorite hits your home is that fair or unfair? There is no such thing as fair or unfair.
                              Yeah, because my insurance won't cover it.

                              By that logic there is no such thing as fair or unfair, and I'm going to assume that is because it's a human construct and nature doesn't care, then there is also no such thing as right and wrong, murder may as well be akin to smelling the roses.

                              If humans cannot apply their constructs to all things, then why should we apply them to a few?

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              Well you can make a thousand claims and say this just might trigger another war. Fact is there have been hundreds of things that could have lead to another war but didn't.
                              Which doesn't refute the point, it's a simple skirting of the fact, as all large things (wars included) start out as a series of smaller events.

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              Rome is now comparable to modern day Germany?
                              There is a reason we compare other civilizations to Rome, modern equivalency has no bearing on the success that Rome has, the stages that Rome went through was so well defined that the rest of the world has compared their state of being to Rome, to see where they measure up.

                              You also have to realize that a numerous labor force doesn't dictate a strong economy, a strong economy on the other hand, goes hand in hand with a strong labor force.

                              To simplify, if the economy can't pay the work force, it doesn't matter how big of a workforce is had, they won't work on faith or for free. That goes hand in hand with inflation (there are other things that go into inflation, but that's not this conversation.) and stagnation as well.

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              18th century communication systems were better than Roman communication systems.
                              That can be argued, I mean mail by rail really didn't come into being until the late 1700s, hell railways really didn't boom until the 1840s in the late 19th century (also when the telegraph came about). So, foot and horseback/carriage was the main means of transport in the 1700s, just like Rome, in fact I could argue that Rome had it better, as they had roads going everywhere that of which some are still used today. This would have greatly expedited things Vs say the pony express that traveled rough terrain.

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              Hitler was pretty much done after his failed attempt to invade Russia. He hadn't conquered Europe and you really expect me to believe he could threaten the USA? This is only credible in the imagination.
                              If your ignorant on WWII history, things could have easily turned out in the Reich's favor. It was only by the grace of god that Hitler got sick and his crackpot doctor kept him high. Indeed his poor choices late in the war sealed his fate, but that was because of his insistence on being the sole man in charge, ignoring his generals, and being constantly kept on drugs that are illegal today.

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              Why does it matter if it was the Roman Republic?
                              I never said the defeat was on their door steps.
                              He did have a force to lay siege, regardless that's not the point. The point was that Rome by fighting a strong empire could have lost their own territory. The USA has never taken such a risk.
                              If he truly had a force large enough to lay siege to Rome, he would have. It was the one and only driving goal to the degree it was a religion to him. It's all he cared and spoke about. The destruction of Rome. Daddy issues or something.

                              No you said danger ate the door, which Hannibal never was, if I remember correctly, the closest he ever got to Rome was thirty or so miles.

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              What is this supposed to proof even if true?
                              It means that the greatness attributed to Hannibal was likely greatly inflated to make Scipio look better than he was. Romans were masters at public image if they were nothing else.

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              Elephants were formidable war machines, the tanks of the ancient world.
                              Hannibal is considered a military genius.

                              Yeah they were, but he lost 2/3 of his elephants crossing the Alps, and over half of his army who either froze, cause they crossed at the threshold of winter and spring, or were killed by tribes of barbarians, as the Romans called them.

                              He was, early in my lifetime. As I said, most of what we know about the second Punic War comes from a history who was a personal friend with Scipio's family, most of his information is questionable at best. Now the pedestal his greatness is being hung on is being questioned.

                              I mean, how can the tactics that brought him such victories in Italy utterly fail him on the plains of Carthage where he was soundly crushed in a single campaign?

                              Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                              You can literally apply the same thinking to any period of time.
                              Not to the extent you could before the Renaissance, where even eastern culture was brought into the west.


                              Comment


                                #96
                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post


                                It's a self destructive tenancy called being your own worst critic, people with talent or skill often hold themselves to a higher standard that their peers that watch from the outside. Whether or not your example had this tenancy is irrelevant, because it's possible they did. People whom accomplish things are seen as gifted, even if they don't.
                                And there are stupid people that know their stupid, are they geniuses now?


                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                It's in the same vein, you said that they'd be better than that old man, paraphrasing of course, you didn't at that time use the word could, you stated it as fact.
                                Oh, that's right, I didn't say could. That definitely means he'll be better/smarter than Nicolas Tesla.


                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                How about the crybabies at Berkley who ban a gay man from speaking because he's outlandish? Or ban a speaker who is about as middle of the road as they come, simply because he speaks things they find offensive.

                                This has happened at other colleges too where leftist want to take the right of speech away from right leaning speakers because of feels and I don't agree with you.
                                You're changing the gol post. This has nothing to do with them finding words as being physical attacks.

                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                Yeah, because my insurance won't cover it.

                                By that logic there is no such thing as fair or unfair, and I'm going to assume that is because it's a human construct and nature doesn't care, then there is also no such thing as right and wrong, murder may as well be akin to smelling the roses.

                                If humans cannot apply their constructs to all things, then why should we apply them to a few?
                                Fair and moral are two distinct things. While they both exist as they are both conceived, morals is most likely engraved in our genes. So that exist in a more physical realm and not just in an abstract one.

                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                Which doesn't refute the point, it's a simple skirting of the fact, as all large things (wars included) start out as a series of smaller events.
                                And you still don't see how this is an invalid point...
                                You might as well convince me you'll win the lottery because people win lotteries and you're a people.

                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                There is a reason we compare other civilizations to Rome, modern equivalency has no bearing on the success that Rome has, the stages that Rome went through was so well defined that the rest of the world has compared their state of being to Rome, to see where they measure up.

                                You also have to realize that a numerous labor force doesn't dictate a strong economy, a strong economy on the other hand, goes hand in hand with a strong labor force.

                                To simplify, if the economy can't pay the work force, it doesn't matter how big of a workforce is had, they won't work on faith or for free. That goes hand in hand with inflation (there are other things that go into inflation, but that's not this conversation.) and stagnation as well.
                                Nobody does that. And there have been better and greater civilizations than Rome.

                                In a developed country like Germany it does. It's just common sense.


                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                That can be argued, I mean mail by rail really didn't come into being until the late 1700s, hell railways really didn't boom until the 1840s in the late 19th century (also when the telegraph came about). So, foot and horseback/carriage was the main means of transport in the 1700s, just like Rome, in fact I could argue that Rome had it better, as they had roads going everywhere that of which some are still used today. This would have greatly expedited things Vs say the pony express that traveled rough terrain.
                                I don't think I need to tell you that late 1700's is in the 18th century. The telegraph was a very useful tool in the French Revolution, which happened in the 18th century, not 19th.


                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                If your ignorant on WWII history, things could have easily turned out in the Reich's favor. It was only by the grace of god that Hitler got sick and his crackpot doctor kept him high. Indeed his poor choices late in the war sealed his fate, but that was because of his insistence on being the sole man in charge, ignoring his generals, and being constantly kept on drugs that are illegal today.
                                But they didn't. That is reality.


                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                If he truly had a force large enough to lay siege to Rome, he would have. It was the one and only driving goal to the degree it was a religion to him. It's all he cared and spoke about. The destruction of Rome. Daddy issues or something.

                                No you said danger ate the door, which Hannibal never was, if I remember correctly, the closest he ever got to Rome was thirty or so miles.
                                Hannibal could have laid siege to Rome, destroyed it but in the process loose many men and then have to face neighboring allies of Rome. Which he chose not to but could have and was only a days march from Rome, which is practically at their doorsteps.


                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                It means that the greatness attributed to Hannibal was likely greatly inflated to make Scipio look better than he was. Romans were masters at public image if they were nothing else.
                                With every new exchange you sound more andmore like a quack. Hannibal's strategy and the defeat and death or his enemies speak for themselves.


                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                Yeah they were, but he lost 2/3 of his elephants crossing the Alps, and over half of his army who either froze, cause they crossed at the threshold of winter and spring, or were killed by tribes of barbarians, as the Romans called them.

                                He was, early in my lifetime. As I said, most of what we know about the second Punic War comes from a history who was a personal friend with Scipio's family, most of his information is questionable at best. Now the pedestal his greatness is being hung on is being questioned.

                                I mean, how can the tactics that brought him such victories in Italy utterly fail him on the plains of Carthage where he was soundly crushed in a single campaign?
                                Which comes with the territory of armies marching to distant lands.

                                Doesn't matter, he is still regarded as one the best generals in history.

                                Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post
                                Not to the extent you could before the Renaissance, where even eastern culture was brought into the west.
                                Elaborate.

                                Comment


                                  #97
                                  Whats a liberal?

                                  Comment


                                    #98
                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    And there are stupid people that know their stupid, are they geniuses now?
                                    It means they're self aware. The thing is, even if someone says they're not a genius if the rest of the world says they are, then the general consensus is what is gone with. If some nobody thinks that they're stupid, that inconsequential.

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    Oh, that's right, I didn't say could. That definitely means he'll be better/smarter than Nicolas Tesla.
                                    Well, you were referring to Bill Gates, Tesla is an equivalent, if not smarter and simply the first name that came to mind at that point.

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    You're changing the gol post. This has nothing to do with them finding words as being physical attacks.
                                    No, I'm not shifting the goal posts, those students are among those that claim words can be violent acts

                                    https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...olence/533970/

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    Fair and moral are two distinct things. While they both exist as they are both conceived, morals is most likely engraved in our genes. So that exist in a more physical realm and not just in an abstract one.
                                    They are still both human constructs.

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    And you still don't see how this is an invalid point...
                                    You might as well convince me you'll win the lottery because people win lotteries and you're a people
                                    If I gambled, yes I'd have the same chances as anyone else buying a scratch off.

                                    WWI was sparked by an assassination plot and execution.WWII happened because a solider who claimed he could have killed Hitler, didn't.

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    Nobody does that. And there have been better and greater civilizations than Rome.
                                    Plenty of civilizations have compared themselves to Rome, the United States among them.

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    In a developed country like Germany it does. It's just common sense.
                                    Alright, lets flood the same amount of immigrants into your home country of Venezuela, that should put your economy back on top, yes?

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    I don't think I need to tell you that late 1700's is in the 18th century. The telegraph was a very useful tool in the French Revolution, which happened in the 18th century, not 19th.
                                    vgo6tt.jpg

                                    Do you even calendar?

                                    Okay, its the year 2018, we are in the 21st Century. Not the 20th. Thus the 1840s would be in the 19th Century, not the 18th

                                    Here is how it works, in case you don't know.


                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    But they didn't. That is reality.
                                    I ne'er said they did, I said the the Axis Powers (Germany specifically) was a major threat to the US, you disagreed.

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    Hannibal could have laid siege to Rome, destroyed it but in the process loose many men and then have to face neighboring allies of Rome. Which he chose not to but could have and was only a days march from Rome, which is practically at their doorsteps.
                                    If he could have, he would have. It was his goal, his only aspiration in life. A promise he made a dying father. He was on record killing his own men if they disagreed or suggested to do otherwise.

                                    No, Hannibal didn't march on Rome because he, despite allying with some cities in Italy, wasn't strong enough to take on Rome and the other cities around Rome that remained loyal.

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    With every new exchange you sound more andmore like a quack. Hannibal's strategy and the defeat and death or his enemies speak for themselves.

                                    I never said he didn't accomplish anything, I said that the Romans embellished his image to make themselves look better. All the strategy that served him 'so well' in Italy fell apart when Rome came a knocking in Africa, why is that?

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    Which comes with the territory of armies marching to distant lands.
                                    Rome marched on plenty of foreign soils, never lost as much as he did in one go.

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    Doesn't matter, he is still regarded as one the best generals in history.
                                    I'm glad he is, makes Scipio (Africanus) all the better looking for totally destroying him, then a second Scipio (Aemilianus) utterly laid ruin to Carthage in 146 BC

                                    So, yeah he is considered one of the best, but he also made some of the dumbest choices in history.

                                    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                                    Elaborate
                                    What is there to elaborate on? The squalor they lived in? The plummeting education levels of that time period? The rise of lords and surfs? The shortened life spans? There is a myriad of things that happened in what we call the dark ages, that happened all across the old world. These conditions did get better during the Renaissance, where you had people starting to learn again. The silk road prospered even more greatly and oriental culture started to spread.

                                    Comment


                                      #99
                                      Originally posted by Chaos Theory View Post

                                      It means they're self aware. The thing is, even if someone says they're not a genius if the rest of the world says they are, then the general consensus is what is gone with. If some nobody thinks that they're stupid, that inconsequential.



                                      Well, you were referring to Bill Gates, Tesla is an equivalent, if not smarter and simply the first name that came to mind at that point.



                                      No, I'm not shifting the goal posts, those students are among those that claim words can be violent acts

                                      https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...olence/533970/



                                      They are still both human constructs.



                                      If I gambled, yes I'd have the same chances as anyone else buying a scratch off.

                                      WWI was sparked by an assassination plot and execution.WWII happened because a solider who claimed he could have killed Hitler, didn't.



                                      Plenty of civilizations have compared themselves to Rome, the United States among them.



                                      Alright, lets flood the same amount of immigrants into your home country of Venezuela, that should put your economy back on top, yes?



                                      vgo6tt.jpg

                                      Do you even calendar?

                                      Okay, its the year 2018, we are in the 21st Century. Not the 20th. Thus the 1840s would be in the 19th Century, not the 18th

                                      Here is how it works, in case you don't know.




                                      I ne'er said they did, I said the the Axis Powers (Germany specifically) was a major threat to the US, you disagreed.



                                      If he could have, he would have. It was his goal, his only aspiration in life. A promise he made a dying father. He was on record killing his own men if they disagreed or suggested to do otherwise.

                                      No, Hannibal didn't march on Rome because he, despite allying with some cities in Italy, wasn't strong enough to take on Rome and the other cities around Rome that remained loyal.




                                      I never said he didn't accomplish anything, I said that the Romans embellished his image to make themselves look better. All the strategy that served him 'so well' in Italy fell apart when Rome came a knocking in Africa, why is that?



                                      Rome marched on plenty of foreign soils, never lost as much as he did in one go.



                                      I'm glad he is, makes Scipio (Africanus) all the better looking for totally destroying him, then a second Scipio (Aemilianus) utterly laid ruin to Carthage in 146 BC

                                      So, yeah he is considered one of the best, but he also made some of the dumbest choices in history.



                                      What is there to elaborate on? The squalor they lived in? The plummeting education levels of that time period? The rise of lords and surfs? The shortened life spans? There is a myriad of things that happened in what we call the dark ages, that happened all across the old world. These conditions did get better during the Renaissance, where you had people starting to learn again. The silk road prospered even more greatly and oriental culture started to spread.
                                      I don't believe I have to point to out the double standard, do I?

                                      Bill Gates will never be as smart as Nikola Tesla. I don't know if you've ever seen any interviews with Bill but he isn't very smart. Calling him a genius for being rich is like calling Donald Trump a genius for being rich. You really have to make distinctions and properly analyze each person.

                                      Seems like an interesting article and I will read it later, but based on the beginning it had no indication of what you claimed. Plus you didn't quote anything.

                                      Morals might be like culture and language, so they are endowed in our very being.

                                      That's a very poor understanding of history. And winning the lottery isn't just about chance, it also has to do with distribution and many more factors but this is besides the point.

                                      I'd like to know of any. The US doesn't compare itself to Rome it tries to imitate Rome and ancient Greece, but those are different things.

                                      Is Venezuela a developed country?

                                      I think you should reread what I wrote. You seem confused on this. I never said the 1840's was the 18th century.

                                      Only difference is that you don't seem to understand how hard it would be for Germany to wage war across an entire ocean. To add a point the US had/has the best warships and control over the seas. It completely obliterated Japan (an actual threat in water).

                                      Well like I said, he could have but didn't because of Roman allies.

                                      Superior numbers and the Romans weren't bad themselves.

                                      There's different kinds of terrain and difficulties. Desserts for example have been notoriously brutal, or more recently, take Napoleon and Hitler in Russia during winter.

                                      He took great chances, which sometimes paidoff and sometimes got him killed. As a general facing a larger force you need to risk.

                                      You're making generalized comments. Do you know why they call it the dark ages? Because western Europe didn't even write at the time (not enough to keep much alive), that's how destabilized and bad off they were. Everyone else did have their own progress and stability.

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X