Go Back   3D Realms Forums > Members List
Blogs FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read


Daveman Daveman is offline

Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 11 to 20 of 36
  1. Blue Lightning
    11-15-2008 06:56 PM
    Blue Lightning
    no connection between language and ethnicity.
  2. Blue Lightning
    11-15-2008 05:33 PM
    Blue Lightning
    What does their language have to do with race? Again, you brought up race, not me.

    Again, I dont care if they are blue eyed and blonde hair and they are coming on from Germany, I still want the border protected.
  3. Blue Lightning
    11-15-2008 04:04 PM
    Blue Lightning
    Let me tell you something right now, Citizens who want their country protected ARE NOT BIGOTS. But I would say you might be, since your so quick to bring it up.

    I could care less what race is coming over the border...they can be German for all I care. But I want the border protected, it it gets damn tiresome listening to weak liberals playing the race card on a constant basis. It is a tired method.
  4. Blue Lightning
    11-15-2008 03:20 PM
    Blue Lightning
    Weak liberal.
  5. Mikko Sandt
    11-04-2008 06:32 PM
    Mikko Sandt
    Since when we've been limited to 1000 letters per post?

    I really don't see how you've come to the conclusion that cultures cannot be ranked. Can you not say that a cultural trait that allows female genital mutilation is worse than a cultural trait that protects individuals from such violence? Or is western health care, a result of western rationalism, not better than eastern "health care" which is based on mysticism and superstition? We make value judgements all the time. If you're ready to condemn someone for mutilating a child (I'm sure you are) I see no logical reason why you should not be just as ready to condemn cultural traits that advocate mutilating children.
  6. Mikko Sandt
    11-04-2008 06:30 PM
    Mikko Sandt
    I never stated that the western culture is perfect. I simply stated that it is vastly better than other cultures. I never claimed cultures are static: I've for long acknowledged the evolutionary nature of cultures, now recognized as "memetic evolution". Cultures can adopt different traits from other cultures, such as Asians, traditionally collective, adopting western values via capitalism. This makes them more successful, just look at Japan or China which are both doing much better than without western influences.
  7. Mikko Sandt
    11-04-2008 06:23 PM
    Mikko Sandt
    I'm obviously not trying to cite Wikipedia in any school related work. I'm also not saying that if Wikipedia fails to mention something that something never happened. However, it's reasonable to assume that Wikipedia articles provide some kind of a consensus especially on major historical events. After all, it's constantly being checked by historians and such.

    Also, I never stated that imperial motives have never been materialistic, I was merely arguing against your claim that they always are. I also happen to study history (although with emphasis on contemporary history) and this is the view I have formed. I see no consensus supporting the idea that materialism per se has been the engine of imperialism. In some cases it has been, in some cases intangibles seem to have counted more.
  8. Paroxysm
    10-09-2008 01:11 AM
    Hey man. Yes I saw the original release of Kingdom of Heaven and didn't think much of it (although I haven't thought much of Ridley post Thelma & Louise ) I do hear the directors Cut is quite a different beast though. I'll check it out sometime and let you know what I though.
  9. Mikko Sandt
    10-08-2008 03:26 PM
    Mikko Sandt
    You're simply assuming that motives are always materialistic. I don't believe it was material gain per se that drove European rulers to imperialism. It was more likely national glory or some other collectivist purpose. National glory is, of course, pretty much always defined in terms of material wealth. (Not that there's anything wrong with that since the pursuit of wealth is perfectly in line with darwinism.) Cost-benefit analyzis (misguided or not) rarely drove European actors. It's not like things like national glory are tangible benefits.

    Wikipedia is a good reference and an aggregator and I'm sure if there was significant scholar research backing up your claim of a wide-spread, intentional smallpox campaign it'd say so in the article.

    Europe's resources and geography would have been meaningless without the new advent of western ideas about individual liberty and reason. China was a world leader in many ways and had great potential but it turned inward and collectivist. Geography means shit if you're driven by wrong ideas. Europe was able to break free of its eastern past. The Hellenic ideas that resurfaced during the Enlightenment were originally European. Europe was able to rediscover herself. The same can't be said of other cultures since their pasts never had significant "Hellenic" periods.

    This is also why it could have taken centuries or even millennia for some backward regions (like America) to reach our stage of development had they been left alone. Europe is not to be blamed for the problems third world countries are facing today. After the second world war Europe abandoned collectivism relatively quickly and rebuilt the continent. We only had to look across the Atlantic for a model, a model Europeans first created and then abandoned.

    Despite opposition to the west in the developing world at least there exists a successful system that puts the individual and reason, not superstition, first. When they want they can simply just adopt the system instead of going through hundreds of years of crap trying to figure it all out by themselves.

    As for the HRE, it doesn't really matter what was the source of collectivism. If you go back to the message where I first mentioned the HRE you'll see the point was merely that the HRE was an entity that was governed by collectivist laws. Pretty much any country in Europe throughout the Medieval period was ruled by collectivist laws, mostly religious, not because of the fact that kings gave religious actors authority but because religion also provided legitimacy to kings. The point was that Europe was not governed by western ideals during the Medieval period any more than the Third Reich or the USSR was governed by western ideals.
  10. Mikko Sandt
    09-27-2008 03:50 PM
    Mikko Sandt
    You missed the point about the HRE. It was merely an example of a union where individuals were governed by religious laws that didn't recognize individual rights. I could have picked any "country" where religion was the highest authority. By western culture I don't refer to religious entities of the Medieval period but to the Hellenic past and the Enlightenment period. Hellenic and Enlightenment ideals found a refuge in the US early and in Europe after the Second World War. Communism and Nazism were anti-western, anti-individualistic ideals that wrecked Europe while western, individualistic culture flourished in the US. Fascist ideas were merely a continuation of the Medieval trend. Backward, religious and barbaric collectivism of today should not be tolerated any more than European (or Japanese) collectivisim was tolerated during the 20th century.

    As for smallpox, at least this Wikipedia article doesn't support your claim that infecting natives with smallpox was more than just a few isolated cases. And, as I said, there was no need for a large-scale deliberate attempt since smallpox wouldd have wiped the natives out anyway.

    Also, you're ignoring the enormous costs imperialism imposed on European nations. Concentrating on material wealth alone as the point of imperialism smells of a Marxist worldview where everything is due to class struggle, means of production or money. Imperialism was costly, far more costly than open trade with 3rd world countries. The fact is that 3rd world countries have never been even nearly as much important to the West as the West has been to them.

    Your obsession with Marxism also explains why you seem to think that everything is due to personal greed. Many nations were driven by collectivist, especially nationalist, ideals and many did pursue campaigns in colonies that sought to better the lives of native populations. Late 20th century British colonialism was different from Portuguese or Dutch colonialism. Idealist fervor rather than personal greed turned intellectual climate in Europe toward collectivist ideas such as viewing nations as organic entities where very individual has some common purpose. Professors, thinkers and teachers had little to gain from imperialism.

About Me

  • About Daveman
    PSN Network Name
  • Signature
    it's a little known fact that most things are not a bomb. -Paroxysm

    SSBB: 0087-2275-1699
    PSN ID: DavishBliff


Total Posts
Visitor Messages
General Information
  • Last Activity: 11-23-2010 09:40 PM
  • Join Date: 11-27-2003


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:12 PM.

Page generated in 0.15899897 seconds (100.00% PHP - 0% MySQL) with 27 queries

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Website is 1987-2014 Apogee Software, Ltd.
Ideas and messages posted here become property of Apogee Software Ltd.