1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / History Rocks! / Latest Posts

RE: History Rocks!

tones — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:19:41 GMT

The correct term for "wacky" is bizarre pop-eyed lunatic... ere, just a minute....:crazy:

RE: History Rocks!

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:57:07 GMT

Yes, fries are chips, and chips are crisps and elevators are lifts and transport trucks are lorries, and so on and so forth! You British are so wacky! :w00t:

RE: History Rocks!

tones — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:46:35 GMT

The correct term for fries is "chips", so there:P

RE: History Rocks!

Comedy Dave — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:40:09 GMT

Urgh... Vegemite - yuk. The Brits also have Marmite which is a similar beast... some kind of yeast extract I think?

Fries with Mayo? That's a continental European thing. Saw that in France and Netherlands. Brits are happier with some kind of ketchup.

RE: History Rocks!

cleopatra143 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:16:50 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (9/15/2008)[/b][hr]They are also annoyed when you drink beer, or tea or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_breakfast]eat black pudding[/url], and in addition, they do not like it when you put ketchup on your French fries.

So youze guyze are duin okay on the beer, tea and black pudding, but if you'd start putting ketchup on your fries instead of that Godawfaul mayo, just imagine the possibilities . . .

I won't even mention that Awhstrayllian habit of eating mold or whatever that forsaken, salty, black, bitter "Vegemite" stuff is . . .[/quote]That must not be an American thing because I've never seen anyone eat fries with mayo. /gag

RE: History Rocks!

tones — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:00:35 GMT

[quote] won't even mention that Awhstrayllian habit of eating mold or whatever that forsaken, salty, black, bitter "Vegemite" stuff is . . .[/quote]

It's spelt "mould" and, yes, that's it.

RE: History Rocks!

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:33:38 GMT

They are also annoyed when you drink beer, or tea or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_breakfast]eat black pudding[/url], and in addition, they do not like it when you put ketchup on your French fries.

So youze guyze are duin okay on the beer, tea and black pudding, but if you'd start putting ketchup on your fries instead of that Godawfaul mayo, just imagine the possibilities . . .

I won't even mention that Awhstrayllian habit of eating mold or whatever that forsaken, salty, black, bitter "Vegemite" stuff is . . .

RE: History Rocks!

Nuclearcow — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:00:54 GMT

Spoken like a true Brit. ;)

RE: History Rocks!

tones — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:13:15 GMT

Oooo... I had no idea they were annoyed by those languages as well.

Excellent.:D

RE: History Rocks!

RabiAkiva — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:03:23 GMT

I think if you are in for infuriating the French, speaking Dutch or German will do just as fine.

RE: History Rocks!

tones — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:53:42 GMT

[quote]Infuriating the french is just too big to argue with thugh [/quote]

Yup. Who's going to argue on behalf of the French then? C'mon. speak up!

RE: History Rocks!

jerm — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:35:41 GMT

You xenophobic, nationalistic pig!:w00t: Infuriating the french is just too big to argue with thugh :P

RE: History Rocks!

Comedy Dave — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:36:47 GMT

[quote]And what's even better is that the spread of English simply infuriates the French[/quote]

LOL... so true... ;)

RE: History Rocks!

tones — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:17:24 GMT

Oh all right, I admit English is a complete hodgepodge. But it does have a peculiar ability to assimilate other language. And what's even better is that the spread of English simply infuriates the French:w00t:

RE: History Rocks!

RabiAkiva — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:01:27 GMT

[quote][b]tones (9/13/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (9/11/2008)[/b][hr][quote]I'm curious where those British learned to speak English![/quote]

From the Germans!!!!! :w00t:[/quote]

Yup, it was the Germans and the Romans, with a bit ofNorman and Scandanavian, Welsh, Pict, Angle, Saxon, Norse, and Indian, to name but a few.

The reason English is the most successful language in the world (and will continue to be so) is its capacity to hijack other languages and incorporate them so easily within its structure. It is a phenomenally clever and beautiful construct, and something you Yanks should be grateful for;)[/quote]

Yes, god forbid we would all be using a regular and concise language such as Hebrew.

RE: History Rocks!

tones — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:15:49 GMT

[quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (9/11/2008)[/b][hr][quote]I'm curious where those British learned to speak English![/quote]

From the Germans!!!!! :w00t:[/quote]

Yup, it was the Germans and the Romans, with a bit of Norman and Scandanavian, Welsh, Pict, Angle, Saxon, Norse, and Indian, to name but a few.

The reason English is the most successful language in the world (and will continue to be so) is its capacity to hijack other languages and incorporate them so easily within its structure. It is a phenomenally clever and beautiful construct, and something you Yanks should be grateful for;)

RE: History Rocks!

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:32:06 GMT

[quote]I'm curious where those British learned to speak English![/quote]

From the Germans!!!!! :w00t:

RE: History Rocks!

Nuclearcow — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:50:52 GMT

Thats the word those cheeky Brits use for 'egg plant' (or vice versa).

I'm curious where those British learned to speak English! :P

RE: History Rocks!

cleopatra143 — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:32:17 GMT

[quote][b]tones (9/10/2008)[/b][hr]Ah, I see, that's an aubergine on his head is it? Now I understand:crazy:[/quote]pretty sure its eggplant lol

RE: History Rocks!

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:28:07 GMT

[quote][b]tones (9/10/2008)[/b][hr]Ah, I see, that's an aubergine on his head is it? Now I understand:crazy:[/quote]

Yes, and his "lips" are made out of those little Italians pastries covered in powdered sugar.

RE: History Rocks!

tones — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:47:34 GMT

Ah, I see, that's an aubergine on his head is it? Now I understand:crazy:

RE: History Rocks!

Nuclearcow — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:48:41 GMT

I always figured it was because he was an egg-plant.

RE: History Rocks!

jerm — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:00:04 GMT

I always knew there was something "shifty" about you Rabi. :D

RE: History Rocks!

RabiAkiva — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:31:55 GMT

OK, if anybody thinks of calling somebody else a flip-flop, remember me.
I'll be moving yall back out of P&R , but I'l be keeping an eye on ya.

I can always move you into P&R again. Once a flip flop, always a flip flop

RE: History Rocks!

jerm — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:56:08 GMT

I don't know that it belongs here Rabi and just hear me out. Is the current discussion involving religion? I don't think so. It's certainly not devolved into a heated argument which would turn people off (at least that I can tell). Without those two factors it doesn't have to be in P&R.

It's not about religion actually at all. Through much of this thread's life, it's been about morality and in fact it still is. There is a subtext of God thrown in but God does not necessarilly equal religion. I'd also like to point out that "religion" in Politics and Religion has always appeared to me to mean a religious discussion. That is, someone argues for or against certain beliefs associated with a religion. I'm not even sure that the Soo... thread had to be in P&R except for the tone in which it reached.

As long as this discussion remains civil and doesn't go into religion specifically, why move it? There may be a time when it needs to move here but I actually think that keeping it outside the "arena" has kept the subject of religion out of the discussion. In short, it's a philosophical discussion, not a religious one IMO.

RE: History Rocks!

RabiAkiva — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:39:58 GMT

Here is a downside: it effectively excludes the members who in principle do not want to enter P&R. What a conundrum...

RE: History Rocks!

Nuclearcow — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:51:38 GMT

Yes it probably should have been here in P&R all along. :P

RE: History Rocks!

RabiAkiva — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:50:13 GMT

I have been following this thread silently. Nothing wrong, but it will just be more properly placed in P&R.
Moving....

RE: History Rocks!

jerm — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:38:21 GMT

Here is how I see it. If there is no God or (law giver) then morality is subjective. It would be essentially what you guys are saying. Morality would be in the eye of the beholder. If there was a God (at least in the form that we think of, the Judeo-Christian God), wouldn't there be a degree of absolutism? Sure there are cultural differences that I'm sure a good God would not care about in the least and perhaps there would be very few absolutes, especially if he can't (or won't) communicate with everyone equally. This is why I'm trying to limit this discussion to something we can all agree upon that is evil (and at this point, I'm honestly not trying to convince but explore).

So, following this line of reasoning, it doesn't matter what the perpetrator thinks if there is a God governing the universe and who laid down a law to humanity. If the suicide bomber is wrong, he's also evil, or at least the act itself is evil. If he's right, then he's not. So, the question I am asking is, if there is no god, can morality in any way be absolute? So far, I'm getting that it's 'no'. Am I wrong?

RE: History Rocks!

Nuclearcow — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:15:35 GMT

Jerm, do you think the suicide bomber (homicide bomber) thinks he is doing evil? If not, then its subjective, isn't it? Unless you're talking about from God's perspective, if there is such a thing, or a divine perspective, etc, then everything is subjective from a human point of view.

Let me take this another direction. Remember my earlier example about the super wealthy lady's "suffering" because she doesn't know how to cook or buy food, etc, etc and is it less suffering to her experiencing it than something "bigger" (subjective) to you or I? These are judgments, aren't they? If she believes she is suffering, she is. Right? If you lose your job and you don't stress, don't worry, thats a judgment you have made and accepted, correct? Same as a person who loses his/her job in the exact same circumstances as you, but this person freaks out. Thats a judgment/opinion that they accept as reality.

Do you agree?

If so, what if no one judged? Ever. Is that either closer to Utopia or to an emotionless Vulcan-like society? Which one? :P

RE: History Rocks!

-M- — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:46:22 GMT

Jerm

No absolutes exist. Humanity as a biological system constantly evolves and takes new shapes. It is only logical that or norms and perceptions follow the same path. So no, there isn't an act/instance that can be pointed at as representing absolute universal evel.

What does exist though, are taught values/perceptions and the latest "in things to do".

RE: History Rocks!

jerm — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:06:47 GMT

Of course intent is part of the equation... in fact it's pretty big. If the bus which was shot up by the gangsters had fallen off a cliff instead and killed every person, it would be a tragedy, not an evil. If Lenny smothers a girl it's a tragedy not an evil. Yes the end result is the same but the intent is of course the difference.

Now for a more gray area. If a man goes to a plaza or pizza parlour which he knows is packed full of innocent people and blows himself up for Allah, is this act evil? He believes [presumably] that he is doing good yet is that act in fact evil? Us westerners certainly think it is but the people he is doing it for think it's actually good. Who's right? Is nobody "right" and it's just subjective? If one of us is in fact right, then the "evil" must be universal... right?

RE: History Rocks!

Nuclearcow — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:31:21 GMT

Its okay, Lenny. Someday we'll have our own farm and live off the land and have bunnies. LOTS of bunnies to pet!

Great book, LC. Thanks for that memory. :P

RE: History Rocks!

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:15:16 GMT

[quote]Lets say there is a gigantic man with an IQ of 10 (or whatever). If he hugs someone he loves and as he is trying to show them how much he loves them, and while he is hugging hard, he accidentally smothers him/her or breaks a neck, etc.[/quote]

[i]What did I do, George, What did I do?[/i]

:w00t:

RE: History Rocks!

Nuclearcow — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:08:19 GMT

Back to my earlier example where my brother spilled red Koolaid on my mom's new white carpet and I did it as well, but mine was on purpose and was done out of being vindictive. Do you find fault/sin/bad-karma/whatever on my hypothetical act? I do. What about my brother's clumsiness? I don't. Do you agree on this?

As you stated (Jerm), both end results are the same, so the only real difference is whether or not it was done on purpose, or as I mentioned earlier, one's intent.

Lets say there is a gigantic man with an IQ of 10 (or whatever). If he hugs someone he loves and as he is trying to show them how much he loves them, and while he is hugging hard, he accidentally smothers him/her or breaks a neck, etc. Contrast that to a serial killer who smothers or breaks a neck on purpose. Again, the end result is the same, so is the "sin" the same? I would imagine most people would say its not the same. If that is the case, then it was the intent that makes those acts different.

IF there is a God who judges, in your beliefs, would God judge them both the same?

So in a long winded way to answer your question, Jerm, I believe that in my example up top, I committed evil and my brother did not. I believe the serial killer committed evil and the man with a low IQ did not. So perhaps knowledge is part of the equation, and perhaps if there is a spiritual reason for that little small voice we have in us (conscience, holy spirit, spirit guides, insert whatever belief here) helping us to know that something is wrong... perhaps that is another key part of the equation, but I stand by "intent" being the ultimate key to whether or not a deed was good or evil or neutral.

With my reasons above, belief in a Creator isn't necessary to fulfill that criteria.

RE: History Rocks!

jerm — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:36:01 GMT

Sorry I've been too busy to put together a coherrent sentence so I'm not so sure where I'm going either :P. I'm short on time so I'll get back to wherever I was going before, later... :w00t: but I'll just respond to this:

[quote]Did the gang members think they were committing evil? If not, then there is subjectivity, isn't there? There is a chance that they (one, or two of them) thought it was "evil" but did it anyways, but in all likelihood, they might not have, correct? If that's the case, then there is subjectivity, even if most people would consider it evil.[/quote]

So essentially, you are taking the view that there is no universal morality. I am realizing I shouldn't have used the word objective but absolute. Is there such thing as an absolute morality or is morality just something which we humans make up? If in fact morality is in the eye of the beholder, it cannot be absolute. I personally have a problem with the act commited above to be anything but evil, regardless of what those who commited the act thought. (and here's my question) Can one have such a view without a belief in a supreme law giver (in this case, thou shalt not murder)?

RE: History Rocks!

Nuclearcow — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:10:13 GMT

I'm still not 100% sure of where you're going with this. :P

Did the gang members think they were committing evil? If not, then there is subjectivity, isn't there? There is a chance that they (one, or two of them) thought it was "evil" but did it anyways, but in all likelihood, they might not have, correct? If thats the case, then there is subjectivity, even if most people would consider it evil.

As far as needing a belief in God to form these beliefs, I still think thats not necessary. I'm sure Roadkill and 99% of atheists would call this "evil" as well.

RE: History Rocks!

jerm — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:51:16 GMT

Nuke, while some societies can have moral variables, are there some things which are in fact universally moral or immoral. For example, in some cultures, it is part of that culture to in fact share everything. You can just come in and take something you need and nobody's gonna care. In other societies, this is considered stealing. Okay, I get that. On the other side, perhaps an extreme example will help illustrate what I'm saying.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4124133.stm]Gang linked to Honduras massacre[/url]

[quote]The bus was driving through a busy neighbourhood when it was surrounded by gunmen and sprayed with automatic fire.

President Ricardo Maduro called the massacre a "barbaric and cowardly act".

The shooting happened 200km (125 miles) north of the capital, Tegucigalpa.

Deputy Commissioner Wilmer Torres said the bus was forced to the side of the road at 1940 local time (0140 GMT) by cars that pulled up at its front and back.

The attackers got out of the cars and sprayed the bus with bullets from AK-47 rifles.

Mr Torres said 16 passengers died on board the bus and the others died after being taken to hospital in nearby San Pedro Sula city.

Local media reports said six of the dead were children, 16 were women and six were men. [/quote]

Okay, so is there any way in which one can argue that such an act is not evil and that the people involved were not evil? Shouldn't this act be universally evil, meaning that no matter how you dice it, it's just plain evil? Is there any room for relativity here?

RE: History Rocks!

-M- — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:25:14 GMT

Animal analogy is there to provide an unexpected (may be humorous) look at a problem. If two minds are better than one and councils and conventions can solve problems better... and all the involved have genuine interests, then it pays to entertain all views.

RE: History Rocks!

Nuclearcow — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:22:31 GMT

Jerm, if you look at things from a purely logical perspective... (like a Vulcan, you Trekkie!) and realize its not logical to ruin your own environment, thats not based on morals or subjectivity. Thats like saying that someone deciding he doesn't want to physically hurt himself is based on a moral judgment rather than self-preservation (or realizing that pain sucks).

What is up with the weird animal analogies anyways?