 |
|  |
 |
|
roalan
|
|
Newton,Ma.U.S.A.
Nov 2000 time: 00:22
|
|
It is left but it is on the Ecomony not Auth. I am for the enviremenmt and the worker I think CEO's are the second most stupid and first most overpaid group in the world. #1 goes to reporters they are the largest group of morons in the world. I delt with the idiots for many years and NEVER even ONCE was something they printed 100% accurate. There was always at least one small mistake to major mistake. The old saying believe NOTHING of what you read and only half of what you see is very true. As far as the Auth/Lib I am a + strong military-Death Pen. etc. I do not see my self as a liberial except when it come to the economy.
I suppose it is foolish for poorer countries to give to richer one but what I ment is if they take our aid they should not bit the hand that feeds them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chemical Ollie
|
 |
Bored of this board
Jan 2002 time: 06:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ozymandias
To us all, and moderators perhaps especially! --
There is a genuinely unique aspect to this thread, which comprises many (granted, by no means all) of its digressions and rants.
For ALL of our lifetimes until 9/11, the clash of arms was between ideological blocks (often very artifically constructed) or between nations, often within the same "civilization" (almost all of Europe's 20th Century wars).
...
In these forums, I am ALWAYS asking, "what is a civilization", knowing full well that there is no comprehensive answer, but even our OT rants have served to ask/question --
1. Is there an "Islamic" Civ vs. a "Juedeo-Christian" civ?
2. Is either really a single Civ?
3. Do America and Europe make up one cultural Civ or not -- for that matter, does EITHER Europe or America make up a single Civ?
The thread's initial, well-posed question, about some opposition to an Arab Civ, has led to this, as we are forced to examine, up close and ugly, the first titanic rift between what have historically been different Civs, in our lifetimes -- and it has a 1300 year pedigree, to boot.
So you see it's all very, very much on-topic, for we are all questioning what a "Civilization" is, in a non-academic manner, for the very first time.
So kudos to everyone who has thoughtfully participated, no matter what his or her opinion.
Peace, Salaam, Shalom,
Ozymandias |
I think the thread topic was which tribes should belong in CIV3 and not, with the cultural links between Arabs-Babylonians and Americans-English as initial examples. Now that the game is out there, the discussion is of less value for the vanilla game, but it might inspire people to some interesting mods.
I do not understand how the 9/11 or other very recent events should have any connection to which tribes should be in a computer game stretching over 6000 years of human history, neither why US foreign aid, Noam Chomsky or the political compass should belong to this discussion.
The term "civilisations" is very vaguely defined as you point out. I prefer to call them "tribes" instead, as that is a term that in my opinion better fits the actual game feature. The definition of a tribe is a group of people who share the same or at least the similar language, religion and race. Over history, there has been a great mix and regional movement of the original tribes, which in some cases have merged into completely new tribes. The English is a good example, made up of mostly Celts, Vikings, Anglons, Saxons and Normands, which over 1000 years has unified and become a quite uniform and unique tribe of its own.
The Americans are an exception to the "tribe" definition, as they have no common language, religion or race. It obviously takes longer than 200 years to unify all etnic groups, especially those who resist assimilation. I still think they belong in game though, for numerous reasons.
People following a certain religion is normally not a tribe, except in a few cases. Islam or Christianity are not tribes but Arabs and Germans are. One exception might be the Jews, who are more or less the Hebrew tribe. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23
I guess share the wealth would be too radical a thing to say on this thread, but I would expect it. 
|
Sharing the wealth is up to the individual. Why should one be forced to give up money if he/she doesn't want to? It's not the govt.'s choice to take money I earned and redistribute it. Sure, selfish people will pay for their actions when they face God, but that's for God to judge. I am absolutely, 100% opposed to socialism. Robin Hood tactics only work in the movies.
Perhaps the govt. should borrow a page from Powell and start implementing mandatory volunteerism programs. Maybe then people would choose to be more giving.
Now the one caveat I have is when people lie, cheat, and steal money to become wealthy, like many CEOs. That's a whole different ballgame.
quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23
if Roalan is left-wing and Traelin is centre what does that mean for the US. |
Hehe I know we don't see eye to eye on many things gs, but I find that just about every position of mine on political issues is the same position that McCain has. And I think he would have been great for this country as Pres. I think I can best be summed up as one who believes in personal responsibility. I'm very individualist and think that people should stop looking for handouts and placing blame on anyone but themselves.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23
You skipped my most important point. I asked why are we suprised that France doesn't give money to the richest country in the world? or that we give more money in international support then any other country(I'm not sure you could say per capita, can anyone find figures for this?)? We ARE the RICHEST country in the world. I simply don't see the significance of saying we give the most money so we deserve to be tre... I should HOPE we give the most money since we HAVE the most. |
Again, I don't believe in redistributing the wealth. People need to CHOOSE to do so. I they want to be selfish and greedy, that's fine by me. God will take care of it later, but I'll be darned if I will support any laws that require people to give to the needy. If nothing else, it'll create resentment among the wealthy and defeat the whole purpose of trying to "show them the light". And they'll end up being even more selfish.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
I think the thread topic was which tribes should belong in CIV3 and not, with the cultural links between Arabs-Babylonians and Americans-English as initial examples. Now that the game is out there, the discussion is of less value for the vanilla game, but it might inspire people to some interesting mods.
I do not understand how the 9/11 or other very recent events should have any connection to which tribes should be in a computer game stretching over 6000 years of human history, neither why US foreign aid, Noam Chomsky or the political compass should belong to this discussion.
The term "civilisations" is very vaguely defined as you point out. I prefer to call them "tribes" instead, as that is a term that in my opinion better fits the actual game feature. The definition of a tribe is a group of people who share the same or at least the similar language, religion and race. Over history, there has been a great mix and regional movement of the original tribes, which in some cases have merged into completely new tribes. The English is a good example, made up of mostly Celts, Vikings, Anglons, Saxons and Normands, which over 1000 years has unified and become a quite uniform and unique tribe of its own.
The Americans are an exception to the "tribe" definition, as they have no common language, religion or race. It obviously takes longer than 200 years to unify all etnic groups, especially those who resist assimilation. I still think they belong in game though, for numerous reasons.
People following a certain religion is normally not a tribe, except in a few cases. Islam or Christianity are not tribes but Arabs and Germans are. One exception might be the Jews, who are more or less the Hebrew tribe. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
Granted, we have all digressed at certain points in this thread. But somehow we have always found a way to get back on-topic. Sometimes it just takes longer to do it. Plus when you think about it, how many on-topic comments can you really have on any thread? It's bound to go slightly OT, and there's really nothing wrong with that if people show interest.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
shoot, double post
|
|
|  |
 |
|
roalan
|
|
Newton,Ma.U.S.A.
Nov 2000 time: 00:22
|
|
Lay off Israel already.enough id enough.Plenty of people don't like the Irish or British etc. either.I like Sgaron and the guy coming after him could be even better.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
sabrewolf

|
 |
turicum, helvetistan
Jun 2002 time: 06:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Thanks!
Saddam should actually replace Hamurabi. And if you really want to piss people off, the Arab leader should be Usama. After all, he is (or was?) from Saudi Arabia.
And Why not King Herod for the Hebrews? But perhaps Sharon would fit both the Sionists and anti-semites better? It's their own choice if they play the good guy or the bad, with the same leader. |
hehe 
how about a "often hated leader mod" ...
hitler, stalin, saddam, ghadhafi, mobutu, ashcroft, sharon, castro, berlusconi, haider, etc. etc. etc.
NOTE: i don't dislike all of them the same much 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|