|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
posted March 19, 2019 04:01 AM |
|
|
for my share I certainly feel China is great, let everyone cheers of the CCP and buy the Huwaii cheers lol
____________
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 04:33 AM |
|
|
@JJ:
You have little clue what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be mean but you're just factually wrong.
People in Italy continued to build aqueducts on a smaller scale in the Middle Ages. Google.com. They're AQUEDUCTS dude, not space ships. Medieval people constructed stuff a lot more complex than what was constructed during imperial Rome. Aqueducts are not a "lost tech". You're making things up as you go. Do you know who else had aqueducts (as well as water pressure)? Incans. A civilization that technically never entered the bronze age.
A) There was little need for aqueducts since massive urban populations from imperial Rome had dispersed
B) They're expensive to build so without a strong justification to build them, people aren't going to set up a network that would cost (by today's standards) billions upon billions. Infrastructure is expensive.
C) People started using pipes to draw from local water sources because pipes are better than making giant retarded aqueducts. Aqueducts look pretty for lovers of history but from an economic standpoint, stone aqueducts are simply awful.
And that's pretty much it. Economies don't invest in stuff that they don't need. Except for the USA.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 09:40 AM |
|
|
Blizzardboy said:
@JJ:
You have little clue what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be mean but you're just factually wrong.
People in Italy continued to build aqueducts on a smaller scale in the Middle Ages. Google.com. They're AQUEDUCTS dude, not space ships. Medieval people constructed stuff a lot more complex than what was constructed during imperial Rome. Aqueducts are not a "lost tech". You're making things up as you go. Do you know who else had aqueducts (as well as water pressure)? Incans. A civilization that technically never entered the bronze age.
Not true. Link me to a medieval-built aquaeduct - there are NONE. this link tells you something about it as well. And the ability of medieval people vs. the ancients? Do you think this was something anyone in the middle ages would have UNDERSTOOD, not to mention the ability to build?
I don't want to be mean either, but what I think is, that you have superficially read a couple of things, fell in love with the idea that the middle ages were actually like a good high-fantasy setting except for the magic and decided to believe it. But fact is, that you are utterly and completely wrong.
Quote:
A) There was little need for aqueducts since massive urban populations from imperial Rome had dispersed
If you read here, you'll doubtlessly notice that they began building it in the 8. century BC - hardly a time when Rome was a big city. Rome also had indoor plumbing. More to the point, though, it's not even the big Rome who started things, no, the Minoans on Crete were highly developed in that regard, although the culture ended around 1100 BC! The highest population level of Knossos, the capital, has been estimated at 30.000 people - less than Brugge in the article above.
It's pretty interesting to note that a lot points to the Minoans being a matriarcically organized society ...
Quote:
B) They're expensive to build so without a strong justification to build them, people aren't going to set up a network that would cost (by today's standards) billions upon billions. Infrastructure is expensive.
Churches are even more expensive. They built Churches over decades and decades, but they also were content with dumping their waste on the streets.
Quote:
C) People started using pipes to draw from local water sources because pipes are better than making giant retarded aqueducts. Aqueducts look pretty for lovers of history but from an economic standpoint, stone aqueducts are simply awful.
The middle ages knew pipes made of wood (they drilled trees) in areas with a lot of water and a lot of wood, but as you can imagine those pipes were used only sparsely (not widely) and didn't last long before they affect the quality of the water transported. It was, of course, a new technology, so errors were unavoidable, but that's it. There were no PIPES in the middle ages. People went to the well to fetch water.
Aquaeducts are more or less like bridges, and it's silly to even come up with a point like this. Every growing society has to solve the water supply and the waste removal. Underground sewers/pipes are for the latter and aquaeducts/pipes for the former, and you either solve this or not. In the MA the solution was dumping waste on the streets and getting water from a well. They dug deep water wells in China 6000 years ago already.
Quote:
And that's pretty much it. Economies don't invest in stuff that they don't need. Except for the USA.
And that's pretty much the biggest nonsense ever, because in the MA there basically was no economy worth the name, but a handful of people who decided what to do, otherwise they would have never built all those churches, for example - or heaped all those debts just to be able to finance another bunch of mercenaries for another war.
The more bitter truth is that people don't invest into stuff they don't think they need. Rome, for example, didn't invest in street and garbage cleaning (which would have been easy enough considering the cost of slaves doing all the dirty work). In the middle ages they were content to throw their waste outta the window - or pee into a corner in your castle. They got their water from wells, mostly.
Now - if you want to have a discussion about the Middle Ages you should make a thread about it. You should also research a bit more.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 12:19 PM |
|
|
I was referring to USA in education. Regardless of how you, or I, see the level of education these days the results speak for themselves. In that light at least the access to basic education has improved in USA. As to what comes to access to advanced education it has always been limited in USA and from my uninformed view it still is.
I am quite pleased with EU actually. It has made my everyday civil life a lot easier and looked after my interests a lot better than the state of Finland could or would. There is a lot more power to be leveraged from the EU to drive my interests than from a small country like Finland. Power that is necessary against large companies that are not bound by such arbitrary lines on a map. Similarly such a thing is necessary against countries magnitudes more powerful than something as small as us. And lastly, perhaps most importantly, through EU it is possible to leverage the union power to go against the Finnish state and “fellow citizens.”
NATO is a relic from the cold war and thus from the second world war. It has served its purpose and is only a power projection tool for the United States now. It should be replaced by a more modern organisation or brought to meet the modern day standards.
World Bank has been fine for me, it works and that’s all that matters to a common person like me. It’s not exemplary but good enough.
WTO is necessary. It also operates as it is designed to. I don’t have any complaints about its operations. I don’t like many of the decisions done there but it’s better than the alternative of no WTO.
I would argue caring respecting a country is pointless, always. Country is a tool for a group of people to promote their own interests. You should hold no love or respect for a tool. People like to personify and attach emotional value to things. But holding onto a hammer when a nailgun is available for the same job is not the way forward. The only thing that leads to is pointless effort. Care and respect for the planet you live on instead. If someone erases the organisation called United States tomorrow life won’t change too much. If the continent of North America disappears you’ll be swimming for the rest of your life. Extreme example but a very fitting one.
Side-note: Nationalism is different frompatriotism, what you described was patriotism. Both are bad, nationalism is worse.
You speak of taking advantage of people by moving production from Finland to United States or from United States to Mexico or from Mexico to India. But have you wondered why they can do that? Is it not that the people in those countries want to work for them? Why would they want to work for them if they are offered such horrible conditions? The answer is very simple of course. It is better than what they had before. It is not the same I had, it is not the same you had but it is more than they had. We can argue over how much they should be offered but fact is they benefit from it. And incidentally also us if we wish to buy the product they produce for less.
I said before that who leads doesn’t matter as long as the machine behind them functions properly. Similarly it doesn’t matter to whom the machine belongs to either. As long as it properly does what it’s supposed to, I could care less who owns it, state or company or private or organisation. All the same to me, and you, as the end user. It is when it doesn’t work properly that there has to be a way to fix it, regardless of who owns it.
I can’t have an educated opinion on your example without spending time browsing the relevant laws but to me that sounds about right. Intake means all charity coming in, not profit from running the charity. They still have to pay for their workers, rents, taxes and so forth. This kind of law prevents them from organising charity events without any actual payout to the end target in case they don’t turn a profit. Considering how large the charity industry is in the United States there are probably a lot more mechanisms in place to prevent purposeful zero profit charities. Things like these are always complex and coming to a conclusion without studying the subject is a dangerous.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 12:41 PM |
|
|
Family is also a "tool" where a group of people promote their interests, so why would anyone respect or love his family, a simple tool... snow it
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 01:10 PM |
|
|
|
"Family" is an inner-societal tool that has changed its meaning in the course of societal development, and depending on how the society changes, that tool will change as well
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 01:41 PM |
|
|
|
Family composition and structure changed (if you consider the last 20 years or so, compared to solid traditions lasting for dozens of centuries before), but family goal of preserving its interests as group never changed, or if it did, show me how.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 02:02 PM |
|
|
No, not just last 20 years, the nuclear family is a relatively new thing as well, before the industrial revolution, most cultures had much bigger units as a “normal” family with aunts, uncles, grand parents all living together.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 03:08 PM |
|
|
Exactly.
And which interests as a family are to be preserved? Against whom?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 03:43 PM |
|
|
And how is all this related to what I was saying: if you deny the attachment to your nation/culture and you call it bad and unworthy of respect, then the same logic applies to family, which is the lesser social cell and it functions on same principles: seek for better deals, protection and opportunities, based on belonging to a group.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 04:16 PM |
|
|
"Family" is based on biological ties.
There are other social constructs that are based on geography or region, on language, religion or "culture" and on politics.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 19, 2019 05:44 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:45, 19 Mar 2019.
|
@Sal
Well, unlike family and culture, nation is a pretty vague social construct, I mean, after the period of nation-states, you can say it realized (as in turned into reality) to some degree since you then had people having the same central education, learning the same dialect of one language, watching the same national broadcast, listening to same radio in the car etc but there was still a pretty wide variety of cultures and languages and historic folklore within any “single nation.” So what makes it a unified culture, official borders? In the age of internet communication, it’s much easier for people to reach beyond their own borders interactively almost about anything, so such local bonds become less significant. Doesnt mean people hate the culture they are born into.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 20, 2019 11:12 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Family is also a "tool" where a group of people promote their interests, so why would anyone respect or love his family, a simple tool... snow it
lol
Many seem to not understand a typical Family requires hmmm a "Tool". 
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 26, 2019 12:33 PM |
|
|
This quick clip would be much more funny if it was not so serious of a hmmmmmmmm? obvious over-reach by the GMSM.
None
Back in the days of public cinema, the name of the device that transferred the packaged-visual & audio images called a movie-film to the Big-Screen was/is called...a Projector.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted May 26, 2019 02:44 PM |
|
|
For the people...all people.
link
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted October 09, 2019 04:53 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 16:54, 09 Oct 2019.
|
Cool allies Hamericans! When will you sell us to Russia, like you did with Kurds to Turkey and co?
Oh wait you're already bought out by China...
China when will you sell us!?
|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
|
posted October 09, 2019 06:10 PM |
|
|
blob2 said:
Cool allies Hamericans! When will you sell us to Russia, like you did with Kurds to Turkey and co?
Oh wait you're already bought out by China...
China when will you sell us!?
to be fair, what did you expect when mass population is wise to elect Eric Cartman, Family Guy and Dick Dastardly lol
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2019 12:11 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 12:12, 10 Oct 2019.
|
Oh please, Trump was very clear why America is not helping the Kurds anymore. "They didn't help us in World War 2 - they didn't help us is Normandy"
I assume literally everyone here knows about the position of Kurds more than Trump does so let the idea of Kurds, who don't even have a country, being at fault for not being involved in Normandy sink in. 
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted October 10, 2019 12:54 PM |
|
|
To be fair, no one obliges the US to act as the policeman of the world, it is the neighbouring countries that should be the first to offer and give aid, besides, the Syrians have an ally, Russia, so why shouldn't we let their allies help them?
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to first blame the US for destabilizing the region with their nation building efforts, their military campaigns and outright obstructionism of other military forces officially acting as peacekeepers and then blame the US for sending their troops home?
The Kurdish question should have been settled long ago, but the same idealists that love them so much only reserve harsh words for those who oppress them, and never lift a finger on the major problem, Turkey.
Because they fear losing Anatolia in their web of trenches against Russia they never act against the Turks, even though they currently occupy an EU member's land (through a proxy state that coincidentally is only recognized by them), have engaged in shady tactics in the middle east, collaborate with the "enemy", and have been criticized for their undemocratic ways.
So why aren't we giving them the same treatment as Russia?
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2019 02:17 PM |
|
|
United States can of course use Kurds to fight ISIS for as long as they want, and then toss them to the bin after they are no longer usefull. I am not saying they can't do that. They do that at the cost of losing some faith in them for sure, but they are not obliged to help allies.
But please respond to the topic of Kurds and Normandy. Which was my ONLY point in the previous post.
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
