Italy cause they are the best and have bigger penis than all you.Yeah. But too bad that Italy sucked hard in ww2(greatest war in history). Lol escpesially in Greece in 1940. In 1942 near Stalingrad 8th italian army (Armata Italiana in Russia) shown weakness of italian armed forces - they fleed against russians even faster than bad equiped romanians!
Just-add-Turkey-and-watch-the-votes.
Well, if you dont want my nation in, Русские чертовски власть!
topic is about European nations.
Germany ofc. <3
True that. Everyone knows that Jews are the biggest Christians of them all.In fact, not everything.
In fact, not everything.
This can represent the christian god or Zeus.
And Jesus is a kind of half-god greek hero.
what difference does it make. what defines greatness, bla bla. I see us all being a fragment of what once will truly be great. Europe.Europe can't be human, it's a fucking continent.
great not by winning wars, but overcoming all the nations crap and being human.
There was no "Germany" for 150 years ago... So i had to go with England.
online nationalism is sweet is it not? :)
No Norway in the poll? Shame... it became a nation long before many of the other nations on the list (872 AD).
Discovered America long before Columbus aswell.
Great Britain is for sure the greatest on the list.
The strongest empire, industrial revolution!
Their royals today are direct decendants of the normans, norwegian viking conquerers.
Staying power....
online nationalism is sweet is it not? :)
Italy cause they are the best and have bigger penis than all you.
ofc germany i love the WHOLE history of my country (including the germanic stuff bla bla bla) next i would say is sweden and spain cool history to (well atleast for the previous centurys, like carolus rex,or the slaughtering of south america,reqonquista etc)
Sooo... It's UK vs Germany!
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Switzerland(click to show/hide)
Switzerland, always been there laughing there asses off at the silly wars people have been having around them for 500 years. Having democracy for ages, ranked 6th in the GDP per capita ranking. They are rated as the most innovative European country and have the most competitive economy, while still having relatively low income disparity. It is rated as the second country for quality of like. It's one of the most respected countries in the international scene often mediating between others and a clear advocate for human rights. They also have a completely CO2 free energy production system.
Most importantly it does not have a history of exploiting colonies, slavery or imperialism, which some of you seem to value very highly. Dickwaving does not make a country great.
the problem is if everybody would behave like switzerland in foreign politics (would always just try to profit), the world would be much different place. we'd all either speak german or russian. fuck switzerland i say and their selfish attitude.
i'm sure that if alliens would land on the earth killing all the humans, switzerland would be gladly lending them money and gold at good interest.
Switzerland, always been there laughing there asses off at the silly wars people have been having around them for 500 years. Having democracy for ages, ranked 6th in the GDP per capita ranking. They are rated as the most innovative European country and have the most competitive economy, while still having relatively low income disparity. It is rated as the second country for quality of like. It's one of the most respected countries in the international scene often mediating between others and a clear advocate for human rights. They also have a completely CO2 free energy production system.Lol, are you quoting this from the official swiss website for tourism? :D
Most importantly it does not have a history of exploiting colonies, slavery or imperialism, which some of you seem to value very highly. Dickwaving does not make a country great.
Yeah and france would leave the planet... fuck your prejudice!its not prejudice, its history.
Switzerland, always been there laughing there asses off at the silly wars people have been having around them for 500 years. Having democracy for ages,
the problem is if everybody would behave like switzerland in foreign politics (would always just try to profit), the world would be much different place. we'd all either speak german or russian. fuck switzerland i say and their selfish attitude.If every country behaved like Switzerland the Russians and Germans would've never left their own borders. 8-)
If every country behaved like Switzerland the Russians and Germans would've never left their own borders. 8-)Yes
I'm sorry, had to do it. On a more serious note and less nitpicking note. World War I was effectively caused by the 'great nations' of the time and their power politics. World War I pretty much caused World War 2, ofcourse einstein was a constant but he would've never been able to seize power like he did without World War I, World War 2 caused the Cold War. So revering the Allied countries as heroes because they 'fixed' the mess they created themselves, does not make them better than Switzerland in my book.
Noteworthy is that Soviet aggressiveness is a western interpretation of what happened, similar to the way Soviets viewed themselves defending against capitalist aggression.
If we accept that the roman empire jumpstarted civilisation in Europe, then it's Itally.Had little effect in the end as civilisation in western Europe basically went back a 1000 years after the Romans left.
Had little effect in the end as civilisation in western Europe basically went back a 1000 years after the Romans left.Some ancient roman highways still exist even up to this day, not to mention how useful those were for centuries after Romans "left". That's just the simplest example i could come up with.
Oh well, Sweden should be in the poll
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Some ancient roman highways still exist even up to this day, not to mention how useful those were for centuries after Romans "left". That's just the simplest example i could come up with.The point I responded to was
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "had little effect in the end", but i hope you can very carefully elaborate on that point.
If we accept that the roman empire jumpstarted civilisation in Europe, then it's Itally.When saying that the Romans jumpstarted civilization in Europe, that implies that their civilisation was preserved and expanded upon. That is not what happened at all though. When the Roman Empire fell, the invading tribes were not able to continue at a similar civilizational level. In fact the entire Roman legacy was pretty much lost and Europe got plunged back into tribal society. It took Western Europe almost a thousand years to get architecture, trading, law, manufacturing, literacy and science to a level beyond what they were in Roman times.
The point I responded to wasWhen saying that the Romans jumpstarted civilization in Europe, that implies that their civilisation was preserved and expanded upon. That is not what happened at all though. When the Roman Empire fell, the invading tribes were not able to continue at a similar civilizational level. In fact the entire Roman legacy was pretty much lost and Europe got plunged back into tribal society. It took Western Europe almost a thousand years to get architecture, trading, law, manufacturing, literacy and science to a level beyond what they were in Roman times.
So the jumpstart had little effect, because all progress was lost for a long time, atleast until the Carolingian Renaissance. Sure highways remained and proved useful, but that is not really a continuation of the same level of cilivisation, cause they were not able to recreate them or even maintain them.
The dark ages weren't that dark..
GermanyGermany defeat ottomans? when?
Since 2000 years we destroyed all european empires ..
German(y) defeat the most powerfull nations in History
Romans
Ottomans
France
"Great" Britain
And if German(y) attack their neighbors the World collapse ..
Uhh "Great Britain" first ..
Great Britain overunning native people with european steel and gunpowder .. thats not great but clever :-)
If they fight against continental europe, they swim back to their island or call big brother ..or conquer third world countrys ..
Iceland. Lives in peace and has a good democracy.
What a silly thread. Kinda old-fashioned to rate the greatest nations by their former miltary power, like many do.
That is because as an Icelander, you have never and will never experience true greatness with your nation or people.
Germany defeat ottomans? when?
This thread is silly, everybody gather at my asian thread!
Germany
Since 2000 years we destroyed all european empires ..
German(y) defeat the most powerfull nations in History
Romans
Ottomans
France
"Great" Britain
And if German(y) attack their neighbors the World collapse ..
Uhh "Great Britain" first ..
Great Britain overunning native people with european steel and gunpowder .. thats not great but clever :-)
If they fight against continental europe, they swim back to their island or call big brother ..or conquer third world countrys ..
we fight for the very soil that lies beneath our feet because we don't have land on mainland Europe... i rest my case :DGibraltar.
Gibraltar.
You say The British would just swim back to their island... well follow them. That is why we had the greatest navy, so nobody could invade us. But yes i see your point. And you say we use European gunpowder and steel, we are part of Europe, we invented printing press, iron cannon, we supplied romans with iron for gladius, we invented the English longbow, one of the most powerful weapons on the battle field, last time we were invaded was 1066, you were invaded in the 20th century, we do not go back to "our island" because of cowardice, we go there because it is our home, we fight for the very soil that lies beneath our feet because we don't have land on mainland Europe... i rest my case :D
Ah dude, i dont give a fuck about nations, but the Word press (guess thats printing press?) Was invented in germany
Technically there was also one in Germany built a few years before by some guy by the name of: Johannes Gutenberg but the name printing press and the first public printing press both came from William Caxton, so you could say they were invented in both countriesBullshit, Caxton travelled to Germany, witnessed their printing and was impressed. Brought it to Britain and was the first English printer. Johannes Gutenberg, invented book printing, simple as that. Regardless you seem to be a nationalistic retard so far, so I'm probably wasting time.
No Caxton did not copy Germany, he was not around at the time, he was in Asia collecting the materials for the plans for the printing press he had already prepared
You say The British would just swim back to their island... well follow them. That is why we had the greatest navy, so nobody could invade us. But yes i see your point. And you say we use European gunpowder and steel, we are part of Europe, we invented printing press, iron cannon, we supplied romans with iron for gladius, we invented the English longbow, one of the most powerful weapons on the battle field, last time we were invaded was 1066, you were invaded in the 20th century, we do not go back to "our island" because of cowardice, we go there because it is our home, we fight for the very soil that lies beneath our feet because we don't have land on mainland Europe... i rest my case :DI can be a nationalistic retard too. All your flagships are belong to us.
Italy cause they are the best and have bigger penis than all you.
Bullshit, Caxton travelled to Germany, witnessed their printing and was impressed. Brought it to Britain and was the first English printer. Johannes Gutenberg, invented book printing, simple as that.
I can be a nationalistic retard too. All your flagships are belong to us.
Are you sure about that, the greatest naval vessel that ever lived is in Portsmouth historic dockyard right now?
And nice wikipedia article, the Dutch beat us in a battle, yet somehow the British retained naval dominance and had the worlds largest empire.Completely wrong, before the battle of Medway the Dutch were the greatest naval power, that war of which that battle was a part, was fought to end the Dutch naval dominance and failed. Dutch naval dominance lasted for another 80 years after that war. The British did not have the largest empire at all at that time.
Are you sure about that, the greatest naval vessel that ever lived is in Portsmouth historic dockyard right now?Irrelevant you are talking about the flagship of a completely different time. The Dutch took the flagship of the British empire right out of their own harbour, which is pretty humiliating for a maritime power. Besides, the greatest naval vessel ever is probably this
Russia saved Europe and whole world from chocolate chip cookies slavery, nailed einstein in his lair! Nothing can compare with this!Only to replace it with their own, and only because they were forced to.
Only to replace it with their own, and only because they were forced to.Well no matter if Russia was forced to defend, matter that Russia broke neck chocolate chip cookie Germany - most powerful empire in Europe and probably in whole world, saved Europe from brown terror, from concentration camps, from slavery. That was last stand battle - human civilization vs chordes of chaos and destruction. Noone knows where could be human race if einstein would win!
And you can't compare chocolate chip cookie Germany terror with Soviet Union. Don't let western stupid propaganda wash your brain about that shit! :)Are... are you serious about that? :|
Are... are you serious about that? :|Yes i am. Nothing more than usa propaganda makes people's opinion about Russia.
Yes i am. Nothing more than usa propaganda makes people's opinion about Russia.
...
Yes i am. Nothing more than usa propaganda makes people's opinion about Russia.
You are quite brainwashed... probably also too young to have at least remotelessly what wenn on. Same nostalgic ignorance is going on in germany about the DDRI am sure that "nostalgic ignorance about DDR" is better that "nostalgic stupidy about Third Reich" that have place in european countries in Germany and Baltic countries aswell.
1)"Due in part to anti-Soviet sentiment and the high casualties among children because of this mine, there are widespread rumors in Afghanistan that the mine was deliberately designed to attract children; in reality, the mine's shape was dictated by aerodynamics." (c) Wikipedia
So I suppose dropping booby-trapped children's toys in Afghanistan is just propaganda and not at all a war crime far above what other nations usually commit, nor is replacing the majority of the Eastern Orthodox church with KGB agents a particularly bad move (clever, since people confess), not even counting all of those purges while 'consolidating' the USSR? :| Even reading the Warsaw Pact articles you can see that it (Russia) is pretty draconian towards a few countries like Poland.
"nostalgic stupidy about Third Reich" that have place in european countries in Germany and Baltic countries aswell.
I am sure that "nostalgic ignorance about DDR" is better that "nostalgic stupidy about Third Reich" that have place in european countries in Germany and Baltic countries aswell."Russian March" in Moscow, 04.11.12(few weeks ago)
Probably only true thing you've said so far in this thread.Nah, its just only thing you agree with, doesn't mean that other things are not true! :)
Russia was biggest Empire in Europe, noone could capture it no matter how they've tried. Russia saved Europe and whole world from chocolate chip cookies slavery, nailed einstein in his lair! Nothing can compare with this!
My vote for Mother Russia.
that is pretty dumb thing to say. firstly the russians murdered millions of their own people and secondly without America russia would of been creampied! if einstein did not have to battle americans his entire military would of swallowed russia with ease.
that is pretty dumb thing to say. firstly the russians murdered millions of their own people and secondly without America russia would of been creampied! if einstein did not have to battle americans his entire military would of swallowed russia with ease.Learn history boy, not propaganda shit about America saved the world again. Whole war was decided in Russia, before Stalingrad noone could beat whermacht, number of divisions and armies fought in Russia was more than on other fronts all together. In one Stalingrad battle was fallen about 2 million soldiers, german warmachine was broken and had to flee back to west. Its morale was broken too. Italians, romanians, croatians and many others after that battle left einstein, those battles (Stalingrad, Kursk battle) was decided by russian soldier not americans so dont say shit. Just look at nembers of units fought in west and east, look at casualties, look at result of battles and if you not such dumb you will understand what i am talking about. But its seems like you just silly brainwashed boy with no urge to knowledge. So better don't post anything and don't look like dumb!
1 - Britain Empire - 52,2 mln\km (1922)
2 - Mongol Empire - 24,0 mln\km (1270—1368)
3 - Russian Empire - 23,7 mln\km (1867)
4 - Soviet Union - 22,4 mln\km (1922—1991)
5 - Spain Empire - 20,0 mln\km (1790)
6 - Tsardom of Russia - 19,0 mln\km (1721)
You can't really count the Mongol Empire.
(click to show/hide)
And also Mongols never really had that ''empire'' organized. So not too sure about it.Says who? As far as I know the Mongol Empire had a relatively high degree of administration and central authority. The Timurids were nothing compared to the Mongols, don't worry about anyone mistaking those.
The Timurids were nothing compared to the Mongols, don't worry about anyone mistaking those.Timurids had cannon elephants that crashed the world everytime they shoot.
They even lost to freaking Finland.
Just scanning through the thread i noticed a few people mentioning Russia and its empire, I know I'm being a nationalistic retard again (although, aren't we all?) But the Great British empire was a lot more vast the Russian empire plus it came from a tiny island, just a note to add though i do see some valid points in your arguments so im not being anti-Russian. Thing that really bothers me is how Britain gave up their empire to save France who we have been fighting against for thousands of years, although i do like the Belgians.
:mrgreen:
And to end my discussion from a while ago, how can you compare a modern war vessel to the Victory? I mean the gun decks were known as the slaughter house, not only that but in Trafalgar Nelson sailed this ship straight into the French broadsides to split the fleet, There is not the protection of modern ships it is simply a wooden wall between you and flying cannon balls, musket fire, and worse of all the splinters. This is the greatest war vessel that ever lived!
Templar_Skipper, yes Brittain was biggest Empire in whole world. Noone can deny it. I respect it. But i voted for continental European empire, biggest was Russian Empire. Besides Russia always was one of the biggest countries in the world and still it is! Russia have huge potential, but our mother is still sleeping. :)Hm? I thought the Mongols ruled the biggest one in history, if we're speaking about the whole world.
Hm? I thought the Mongols ruled the biggest one in history, if we're speaking about the whole world.Yeh i said "one of the biggest" :)
Hm? I thought the Mongols ruled the biggest one in history, if we're speaking about the whole world.
I think the British still ruled over more land than the Mongols did and a far larger population. But regardless, both great empires.
On the point of empires, occupying a stretch of land is not all that impressive if no one actually lives there. According to Wikipedia, that makes the Mauryan Empire the greatest empire of all time, seeing as they controlled 43% of their contemporary world population. Compared to 20% for the British, 25,6% for the Mongols, 12,3% for Spanish and 9,6% for the Russian Empire.
You could argue for Rome and Greek but how much was Europe really influenced by them after their fall?Not the Romans fault some uncivilized Euros lost most of the knowledge and pushed themselves WAY back in regards to technology.
well it is the Romans fault that they collapsed ^^Well, if you had to babysit all the idiots in Europe I think you'd collapse eventually to.
Oh great a thread for people to splurge nationalist sentiments at one another...
Well, if you speak about nations, Italy shouldn't be on that list imo , Italy became a nation/was unified only in the 2nd half of the 19th century (1861 if i remeber well, and Rome was annexed only in 1870).
Italy is one of the youngest nation in Europe, one could say that also Germany was unified around that period, but the main difference is that Italy was "divided" for like 1500 years, and the Holy Roman empire (or "Holy Roman empire of the German-ic nation" or something like that) lasted until 1800, while Italy , or better, the Italic peninsula, was completely fragmented in many states/kingdoms etc... it's not a case that in italy there are so many different dialects.
I think nations like France, England-GB, Spain ( Spain is quite culturally diverse. I woulnd't be suprised, for example, if Catalonia would become fully indipenent in the future. Anyway Spain was politically unified many centuries before italy and other nations. ), Austria-Hungary and Germany, definetly played a more important role in Europe and not only. ( at least since late middle ages till modern era).
Voted England-GB
Greatest Ancient-Old civilizations : Ancient Greeks, Romans and Celts
hmm.. the greatest european nation it's hard to tell, but i could tell you what nation provided the most important (and probably the best) changes, which is roman empire (laws, latin, culture, and ofc the empire..). the strongest european; i'm not sure, undecided among england, roman empire, maybe even chocolate chip cookie german (probably not) or spanish/german empire (holy roman shit, though not really strong); these are the strongest imo.
edit: lol almost forgot, USSR also
Dude, roman empire was built on the foundations of Alexander`s empire, after his death, his successors started fighting each other and the romans owned them all easily because they were weak.
Also, 90% of roman laws, culture and other stuff, was inspired by Greeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece
educate yourself.
wowo are you serious? roman laws taken from greeks? only thing was taken from greeks was literature, phylosophy and art, things that alone can't build a great empire; the greatness of rome wasn't built thanks to greeks.
also, i can tell you that alexander could do what he did only because the persian empire (where alexander found his wealth and managed to conquer lands) was lead by idiots, and noone but macedonians were strong enough in those times; on the other hand you can't say that romans were enough strong, since they defeated carthage that was lead by the greatest strategist of all time, hannibal.
i may need to educate myself as everyone, always, needs to, but panos, you need to look over your nationalism.
i also would like to add that amazing things like aqueducts and roads were made by romans not thanks to greeks.
Inspired and Taken are two different words.
Alexander attacked the Persians because he wanted revenge from them, Xerxes was no idiot, he had millions of soldiers, on the other hand, Alexander conquered Persia with 40~k Greeks, now that must be something.
Also, Ceaser and Napoleon used tactics inspired by Alexander first.
and also a great leader is not only the one that wins wars, but the one that spreads culture and civil rights to other countries.
Alexander was named Faraoh, and there are a lot of cities with his name.
You may want to rethink who is the best Strategist of all time..
Inspired and Taken are two different words.
Alexander attacked the Persians because he wanted revenge from them, Xerxes was no idiot, he had millions of soldiers, on the other hand, Alexander conquered Persia with 40~k Greeks, now that must be something.
Also, Ceaser and Napoleon used tactics inspired by Alexander first.
and also a great leader is not only the one that wins wars, but the one that spreads culture and civil rights to other countries.
Alexander was named Faraoh, and there are a lot of cities with his name.
You may want to rethink who is the best Strategist of all time..
Also, i may not agree with the whole post, but dis ship :')You won't understand if you're American, we don't salute to our flag, we don't pledge our allegiance to the state every day at school from a young age, you could quite frankly wipe your ass on the Union Jack and i wouldn't mind, i'd find it amusing. But if you fuck with my precious Victory then i'll full-on pull your arm off and beat you to death with the bloody stump Beowulf style.
Says who? As far as I know the Mongol Empire had a relatively high degree of administration and central authority. The Timurids were nothing compared to the Mongols, don't worry about anyone mistaking those.
Also to those who said the Mongol empire doesn't count, remember that once Genghis Khan died, his domain was divided into four areas, the Golden Horde being the Russian/European counterpart. Even so, that sect of Mongol dominance was not very great prior to the previous empire. It mostly just subsided into the Russian natives of that area.That was first after his son, Ogedai Khan, died, and even then it still sorta functioned as one empire, no one just gave enough of a fuck about the emperors wishes (which were mainly to just chill out in China forever).
Also to those who said the Mongol empire doesn't count, remember that once Genghis Khan died, his domain was divided into four areas, the Golden Horde being the Russian/European counterpart. Even so, that sect of Mongol dominance was not very great prior to the previous empire. It mostly just subsided into the Russian natives of that area.
Every option has its own bad and good times in history. It is a question like ''which color do u like most?'' I think.ORANGE IS SUPERIOR! YOU HEAR ME! HUR DUR ORANGE GOATS
Alexanders protagonist...if even that, was Darius. Also he wasn't inspired by vengeance, but with lust and at the beginning; national prejudice.
On a second note, I don't believe Caesar was ever inspired by Alexander. They came from two different cultures with different beliefs, views, etc. Napoleon on the other hand was a student of military history I believe. I don't know who his heroes were, but Alexander could have been on of them.
and greek culture itself was an amalgamation of tons of different cultures, from egyptian to persian to babylonian. Even greeks themselves had different cultures depending on geographical area (achaens, dorians, aeolians, etc).
Pay no attention to darmaster, he's an idiot. Panos, despite his obvious bias, is totally right. Roman culture, military, laws, literally everything that made them a civilization, had greek origins, initially from the Etruscans and Magna Grecia, later from the conquest of Sicily, the greek mainland and greek Anatolia, not to mention the dozens of greek colonies spread around the Meditterranean . Of course they were not identical, and greek culture itself was an amalgamation of tons of different cultures, from egyptian to persian to babylonian. Even greeks themselves had different cultures depending on geographical area (achaens, dorians, aeolians, etc). And Caesar, like again literally every single general in the Roman period, knew very well who Alexander was and emulated him. Greek gods and myths became roman gods and myths, Hercules and Alexander being a huge part of the warrior mythos.
As for Alexander's empire collapsing immediately after his death, it completely ignores the entire Hellenistic period. The diadochi still ruled the vast majority of his empire. Egypt was Ptolemaic, i.e ruled by greek rulers descended from Ptolemy when the romans conquered it. It remained entirely greek culturally throughout roman occupation, like the greek mainland and Anatolia, you know, the nucleus of that little empire known as Byzantine (i.e: East "roman") that outlasted the actual romans by a thousand years.
There's a reason the term Greco-Roman World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman) is used to describe the culture.
As for aqueducts being a roman invention that barely merits a reply, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_%28water_supply%29.
hmm caesar emulating alexander? everyone emulated him? i really doubt about that, at least before he became dictator. because conquering gaul just to gain power and popular support doesn't remind me of alexander. same goes for others great generals; even if they've read about other battles (included alexander's ones), it doesn't mean they just emulated those. i agree about culture, as i already said, but i have to disagree on military and laws parts; rome brought in greece its political system, its institution and its technologies, but not the contrary. on the other hand, greece brought its way of thinking, bringing the man in the center of thoughts and not gods, which was really innovative (i'd like to add that there's no doubt that greece had been great, i'm sorry if i've shown so). but i'd like to add that it's thanks to romans if this thought was brought in europe. while on the other hand alexander couldn't manage to bring the greek thoughts to other lands; he had been conquered (as romans had by the greeks) by other primitive religions that made him deify himself.
hmm caesar emulating alexander? everyone emulated him? i really doubt about that, at least before he became dictator. because conquering gaul just to gain power and popular support doesn't remind me of alexander. same goes for others great generals; even if they've read about other battles (included alexander's ones), it doesn't mean they just emulated those. i agree about culture, as i already said, but i have to disagree on military and laws parts; rome brought in greece its political system, its institution and its technologies, but not the contrary. on the other hand, greece brought its way of thinking, bringing the man in the center of thoughts and not gods, which was really innovative (i'd like to add that there's no doubt that greece had been great, i'm sorry if i've shown so). but i'd like to add that it's thanks to romans if this thought was brought in europe. while on the other hand alexander couldn't manage to bring the greek thoughts to other lands; he had been conquered (as romans had by the greeks) by other primitive religions that made him deify himself.
EDIT: i forgot the collapsing part: what i meant is that the empire that alexander built had been divided, it greatness wasn't same anymore and it wouldn't have never been again.
also there's no need talking about culture, we all agree on that part, but i think we all agree that it alone doesn't make a nation the greatest
No culture is an island. To suggest greeks were never influenced by outside cultures is definetely your nationalistic bias talking.
Not sure how any of it was influenced by "primitive" outside influences (i.e pretty much identical pantheistic religions). The usage of the word primitive is particularly faulty considering egyptian religion had been around for thousands of years earlier than the greek.
Where do you think the Imperial roman cult came from? All roman emperors deified themselves. As for Alexander's Amun-Ra cult, it was merely an extension of the whole "son of a god and a mortal woman" mythos, specifically Zeus in this instance, which was repeated over and over in greek culture. Many powerful political figures and myths (especially Hercules) had that as an origin. Alexander had already begun his own deification before he ever stepped outside of the greek mainland.
Not sure how any of it was influenced by "primitive" outside influences (i.e pretty much identical pantheistic religions). The usage of the word primitive is particularly faulty considering egyptian religion had been around for thousands of years earlier than the greek.
Btw, guys, why is USA not on the list?..
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The Greeks were the ones who influenced Roman culture the most. The patricians ( the Roman aristocrats ) HAD TO be able to speak Greek. The Greek element is ubiquitous in Roman culture. However, the Romans weren't as fascinating as the Greeks; they didn't make any important discovery.
There is a popular belief that the Celts were more influential in Roman culture than the Greeks, however this is totally wrong; the Romans adopted the same important deities that the Greeks worshiped, even the Roman temples looked strikingly similar to the Greek ones. The Greek language was as important as literary Latin. The Greek way of life became the Roman way of life in the sense that the Romans would go three times a day to wash themselves in public bath houses, lived in towns, had an advanced infrastructure and also the old Latin alphabet was based on the GREEK alphabet
They were never influenced by none because they had everything a nation needs.
Own language, own religion and own customs.
k thx bb.
and please set aside my "nationalism" it ain`t my fault that my country has the greatest history and culture that this world has ever seen. :wink:
Greeks didn't expand anywhere? Whaaaaaat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_period
Btw, guys, why is USA not on the list?..
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Are u serious? America is not a nation. Nations have their own languages.lol
lolI dont know why u took Turkey with ur answer. You better take Jews as EU nation.
Turkey is a bird, gg.
Are u serious? America is not a nation. Nations have their own languages.
That is wrong imo, a language can play a big role in "building a nation", but it's not fundamental to create a nation's idenity.
In Austria,Germany and Switzerland(well, most of the Swiss) people speak the same language: German (Deutsch whatever), but still, they are different nations... the same could be said about Ireland,Wales,Scotland : i really doubt that a big part of the population of those countries can write and speak fluently in Gaelic; the main language over there it's Englis, but that doesn't mean they are English .
I respect your comment but it is only a comment. Also there are facts. If you can research about language sciences and histories, you will see that the language is the skeleton of a nation. :wink:Saying you're not a nation without your own private language is beyond idiotic.
I respect your comment but it is only a comment. Also there are facts. If you can research about language sciences and histories, you will see that the language is the skeleton of a nation. :wink:
That is wrong imo, a language can play a big role in "building a nation", but it's not fundamental to create a nation's idenity.
In Austria,Germany and Switzerland(well, most of the Swiss) people speak the same language: German (Deutsch whatever), but still, they are different nations... the same could be said about Ireland,Wales,Scotland : i really doubt that a big part of the population of those countries can write and speak fluently in Gaelic; the main language over there it's Englis, but that doesn't mean they are English .
A nation state is abstract, a label we give with no real meaning other than what we attach to it. Essentially all it comes down to is where the European powers decided to draw absolute borders in the 19th century. The rest is just how we come down to justify these moves- we use language or common history to justify common backgrounds, but this is just another form of propaganda. Simply put the political entities at the time were frozen and later these were given justification. When H1tler tried to claim one land of Germanic descent he used similar archaeology of the areas to try and validate a common descent (a 'Germanic' style of metalworking or pottery throughout prehistory, trying to make a deep claim).
Cornwall is part of England despite having far more in common with Wales in terms of Celtic language and history, both lands being relatively untouched by the Romans and Anglo-Saxon invasions. You could also say the Bretagne (Brittany) region in north-west France has more in common with Cornwall than it does with the rest of France, similar traditional language, a history of contact and exchange. When the Romans took Gaul they reported men from south-western Britain (Cornwall) fighting alongside the Gauls in the area now known as Brittany, which suggests more than just casual trade- they had common customs and language but one was absorbed into England, the other into France.
So let's not pretend 'nations' have any real bearing on ethnic, linguistic or historic alignments. Just look at Africa, the modern day nations were formed by European nations drawing lines on a map and sharing the continent between them with no regard for native languages, cultures, identity or infrastructure. If you see your land as a united political, cultural, linguistic and social union, then it's because some fellow in a top hat over 100 years ago decided that's what he wanted you to think.
Common language in a nation? Just look at India. There are no common languages no matter how much the state tells you the official languages are Hindi and English but everything is translated into regional languages anyway because the vast majority speak neither of those.maybe u cannot call them a nation. I dont know about india so I w,ill not talk about them before I learn some but see north africa please. they mainly talk arabic and you cannot call them algerian, moroccon, tunusian, libyan, egyptian but arabs.
Fun question; is England a nation? Cos i don't really think it is, it's just a country. I'd call Great Britain a nation though, however it encompasses a far more culturally and linguistically diverse population. I'm sure you could say the same for other similar political unions.there are comments and also facts. your opinion will not change anything. also I know my typing here proabably will not change your mind. the best is ending the thread :D
For this reason i think there is something lacking in the definition of a nation if we think they're based purely on cultural and linguistic similarity. It's just hard to see because we get to observe the finished product that appears so unified, when the reality, and the history is often far from simple.
there are comments and also facts. your opinion will not change anything. also I know my typing here proabably will not change your mind. the best is ending the thread :D
I'd be interested in scanning this entire thread for any facts lol. This kind of question is always going to be largely opinion and theory. My entire argument is based on what i've read on the subject, having had to write a number of essays on culture and the formation of nation states. But saying i've read a ton on the subject doesn't make me more correct, i'd never claim that, at the end of the day all the books anyone can read on the subject are just going to be the opinion of the writer based on their observations. Well, not so much for formalised nation states, we know those happened in the 19th century, that's a well-documented fact. And for language i guess i provided a few examples, i can put a bibliography if you want xD
But culture? Hell, even trying to define the word is a matter of preference and opinion. I think anyone going into an internet debate (or an academic one for that matter) thinking it will be possible to change their oppositions mind is deluded and bound for imminent frustration, but there's no shame in admitting that and it does no harm to put your case forward.
That's what i've been saying lol, the vague imagined communites part. Also the flawed question. Also the entertainment. This post has just restored my faith, this thread can die in peace now, at least i met someone else who understood what a nation is/isnt xD
maybe u cannot call them a nation. I dont know about india so I w,ill not talk about them before I learn some but see north africa please. they mainly talk arabic and you cannot call them algerian, moroccon, tunusian, libyan, egyptian but arabs.
also u can see turkish world. we(in turkey) call khazaks, azerbayjanians, turkmen, north cyprussian, ozbek, kirgiz, karaçay-çerkez federal government, kabartay balkar federal government, tatars, baş kurdistan federal government, çuvaşistan federal government and dagestan federal government turks first. Turkish people are Turks, Khazaks are Turks, etc... And after Soviets brought Russian language to Khazakistan, you see Khazaks are becoming Russian in a time.
As a result, Language--->Culture--->Nation
PS: You cannot call Greeks, under Ottoman Empire as ''Ottomans or Turks'', they are Greek.
Doesn't Algeria also speak French? And Egyptian Arabic is very different from say...Palestinian Arabic or Saudi Arabic. There are similarities and they do broadly come under the 'Arab' world but there are also big differences.
I'm sorry but this thread should have been ignored from the very start.
you are just saying that because your culture is Mr Bean, Austin Powers and Benny HillDoesn't sound too bad.
Doesn't sound too bad.
you are just saying that because your culture is Mr Bean, Austin Powers and Benny Hill
HA HA HA :twisted:
Your culture is homosexuality,potterypoverty and cheap holidays.
Greece, obviously :)
I said that just to make Panos feel better.
may 25 2013
what difference does it make. what defines greatness, bla bla. I see us all being a fragment of what once will truly be great. Europe.
great not by winning wars, but overcoming all the nations crap and being human.
Do you really think that China or Russia or anyone else really takes what Europe says seriously? Go put another sanction on someone.Think Torben was referring to the humanism of the enlightenment, human rights etc.
Greatness = tax havens for oligarch criminals from actual great nations
Cayman Islands greatest nation of NA, it is known.
Although, tbf, Switzerland is actually pretty badass. Armed militias and mountain fortifications made it's independence as much as it being a convenient tax haven for surrounding countries.
This is about nations, not countries...
Every person will tell you that nation he belongs is the most bad-ass, except those who choose not to belong to any nation.
I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world
It's not a crazy revelation, and in fact is a theme that had already (and continues to be) explored over and over in science fiction. But I believe it to be true. If there's one thing that would spur humanity to unite under one flag, it is an outside threat. Hatred of "other" tribal groups of humans is a luxury, present only because humanity is such a dominant species in our universe (as far as we know), and the only real threat to humans are...other humans. All it would take is a REAL "other" to suddenly redraw all those battle lines. All the different tribal markers that are sources of conflict would become irrelevant. Actual, real race (i.e species) would be the only important marker.
Haha yeah right. Fascists like Panos (and probably most of the EU posters here) would pledge allegiance to the aliens immediately and form the core of the collaborationist Humanity Obedience Force.
Which european nation has the greatest history and was the most powerful?[H]ello !
Nations? What about extended family groups, tribes, religions, ethnicities, political ideologies, cults, etc, forms of "arbitrary" tribal identification that STILL exist, and probably always will? Do you understand that a "country" is literally the most inclusive and non-restrictive form of tribal identification that has ever existed? Do you think people will suddenly identify purely as "human" if you remove them? Are you functionally retarded?Well, at least the scale of identification with other humans and of thinking in 'we' terms has steadily increased. I am sure it was once impossible to imagine for different German tribes two thousand years ago to once look at eachother as all Germans. I am inclined to believe humanity could eventually 1up countries to a larger, more inclusive and even less restrictive form of primary identification. Obviously as you say, old forms of identification will continue to be present in that case, but their impact has diminished in for example western society in the past and possibly will diminish further.
As an American the only european country I like is Switzerland. Beautiful country, beautiful women, great government, it's almost as good as America. I would even call the Swiss honorary Americans.I am sure the Swiss will be delighted with that label.
I'd argue that the obsession with race, religion and identity *within* these nations is a counter-force and a means of coping with a new identity so large we cant realistically comprehend being a part of it. If a global nation is ever achieved, i'd expect these other forms of identity to become even more important to people.What obsession? Me and many of my fellow-countrymen don't seem to be obsessed with any form of identity, be it class, religion, race and what not. I am white with roots that are completely Dutch, raised a christian now an atheist, parents are lower middle class, currently a student myself. None of these things seem to have any adverse affects on my interactions with other human beings in my country, and not even with most people outside my country. Honestly I think that identity factors like the ones you mentioned are fairly unimportant for large groups of people and I can imagine that with better education and increased mobility, the number of such people can increase.
Worst-case scenario is we just wipe out humanity, planet will be fine, it'll find a new equilibrium and carry on. Planet earth dont care if it has humans on it or not. I'd feel bad for all the human-dependent species though, what would they do without us?
Although I have to agree with Leshma
what difference does it make. what defines greatness, bla bla. I see us all being a fragment of what once will truly be great. Europe.
great not by winning wars, but overcoming all the nations crap and being human.
Hah! Giving birth to great nations...
I would rather say that it raped the original country and spawned a bastard that killed it's mother country in its place.
This is not some socialist libtard West-eurpoean guilt trip, it's just a more accurate description of what GB and several other imperial countries has done.
Not that it's wholly moral but in Imperial Britain the wealthy and well-to-do didnt really have many qualms rubbing shoulders with the 'right sort' or 'noble savages' of different cultures as long as they were the 'nobility' of that culture. A Native American 'Chief' and their family was something that the British Royals could relate to as equivalent to themselves in a different culture, and more than welcome in British courts and noble estates (cynically you might say as a curiosity or 'oriental' intruigue).
If there was one thing that the scummy British Empire was good at it was placating the natives and finding the 'right sort' to talk to and deal with.
Yeah okay Karl
Great Britain did pretty much rape a lot of countries, but its nothing that every other country around the world wasn't doing then and in the past, hell some are doing it right now.
But what makes Great Britain great is what came from it and all its 'bastards'. The english world has achieved quite a lot. Probably why main land euro trash are so compelled in the jealousy to destroy us.
Ah well the muslims will deal with them :twisted:
Or we could always ask our resident brit muslim convert, I'm sure in his views and opinions will be logical and unbiased.
So you're not a brit then, just an extremely ignorant american. Go visit London one of these days, if there's a continental euro country more pozzed out and infected with self-hating multicultural "islamophobia is bad, m'kay" bundle of sticksry I haven't seen it. Excluding maybe Sweden.
Sweden
/thread
I think you're confusing nationality with... something else.
If Muslims want to come to England and have roast dinner with gravy on it, and pies with gravy, and chip butties with ketchup, and say 'sorry' when someone else clearly bumps into them - then they're already English. I'm sure the same applies to other countries.
Sweden's population: 9,5 million
TL;DR Australia got as many muslims as Sweden do.
Muslims seem to assimilate just fine over in UK, pick up all the native quirks and habits so the native culture is never going to be wiped out that way. And considering the relative populations even if I were obsessed with sacred native homeland bloodlines even that isnt under threat of saturation by immigration at the moment, (on top of that i think the concept of nationality being genetic or race-based is bollocks anyway). Then again in Australia the idea of maintaining a continuous sacred national homeland bloodline is already kinda moot isnt it.
even if I were obsessed with sacred native homeland bloodlines
Charlemagne, do you even know what you are talking about? Sweden has a muslim population of 7.6 percent, England has a muslim population of 5.1 percent and France somewhere between five to ten percent. Your precious Australia has a muslim population of somewhere between 450.000 to 500.000 while Sweden has a muslim population of about the same size. We aren't 'gone'. Even tough I don't approve of the immigration system in Sweden our economy is rising fast (I know that it doesn't look good when you say it like this). We barely got any poverty, free healthcare, 480 days of paid parental leave, I believe it's six weeks of paid vacation, köttbullar, fika, IKEA, ABBA. Suck it.
TL;DR Australia got as many muslims as Sweden do.
Sweden's population: 9,5 million
Australia's population: 24 million
Australia: 7,692,024 km2
Sweden: 449,964 km2
Australia's muslim population is comparatively MUCH smaller than Sweden's.
Australia is a lot harder to get into
England and Australia have larger populations of Kuffar than Sweden.
Also Swedens birth rate is extremely low among the native population, whereas the Muslims who immigrate tend to have larger families meaning that small 400-500,000 Muslims you talked about will double if not triple.
Australia is alot harder to get into yet have a muslim population of 500.000 thousand.Are you legit retarded? Immigration populations are usually managed by percentages, so even if there's as many Muslims in the country, percentage wise there's much less, probably because their quota has to do with percentages...... and clearly Sweden's percentage quota is much higher, as is obvious from the numbers. Skipped a few too many statistics classes?
>rite
Are you legit retarded? Immigration populations are usually managed by percentages, so even if there's as many Muslims in the country, percentage wise there's much less, probably because their quota has to do with percentages...... and clearly Sweden's percentage quota is much higher, as is obvious from the numbers. Skipped a few too many statistics classes?
I aint talking about race, Im talking about core beliefs and culture. Things such as freedom, democracy, and equality. Muslims don't abide by these fundamental beliefs that are unique to europe. Islam is especially against equality and freedom.
But you keep up that delusion that they are your friends and they have assimilated :mrgreen:
You may know the information but clearly can't comprehend it.
No shit, thanks for your input Holmes. Now re-read what he and I wrote and atleast try to get it right. Then you can shut up since for each post you tend to make, it's useless information that we all know already.
That certainly explains why the birth rate is increasing in the same speed as twenty years ago. So if all borders were shut down right now the native population would still increase faster then the Muslim one
Also, why do you have such a problem with Muslims anyways? What point are you trying to make?
I think the point he's trying to make is that he's xenophobic and terrified of Muslims.
But you can keep up that delusion that Muslims are this great and terrible threat and you're the only person smart enough to see them
Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch; “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”
You clearly have no idea :lol:
Actually no, the birth rate is way to low in Sweden, it may have been still rising then but that was twenty years ago, today it is mostly from families who have immigrated since then. Not enough native swedish have children. Actually the birth rate of most European nations means that the native populations are declining rapidly, this rapid decline in the native population is fixed with mass immigration, mostly from Muslim countries. The Muslim population within each of these countries will keep having large families and will outgrow the native and other smaller populations who will eventually become minorities in their own countries. A similar thing happened in the Roman world where Romans abandoned having large families or children all together, as Hierocles said 'most people' seem to decline to raise (some of) their children for a not very lofty reason, love of wealth and the belief that poverty (penia) is a terrible evil. The only groups within the Roman Empire that were growing were the Jews and Christians. Now if the current demographic trend continues it will be as it was then the Muslims will eventually become the majority in Europe.
O jeez this Charlamagne guy :lol:"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual act such as forplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed" -Quran
Seriously sit down and read the Quran fully and go over the context of the various quotes you posted. If you have half a brain, you would realise just how simple minded your outlook is.
Debating with people such as you is utterly pointless because you are already convinced of your own bullshit.
Now get back on topic bitch.
"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual act such as forplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed" -Quran
If a boy under the age of nine perpetrated sodomy upon an adult, the adult is not liable for punishment, for the intercourse of a boy under nine years of age is not legally an act of intercourse. Since a child less than nine years old cannot commit sodomy, he can also not be the object of sodomy.
A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated.
A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.
A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat
A Jew may misuse the non-Jewess in her state of unbelief.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual act such as forplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed" -Quran
Nice little quote that isn't from the Quran but written by a lovely Iranian guy in the 60's.
As far as I could tell from some quick googling it was his way of interpreting this section of the Quran:
65.4. Those of your women who have passed the age of monthly courses (or those who for some reason do not have monthly periods) – if you are in uncertainty about it – their waiting-period is three (lunar) months. As for the women who are pregnant (whether divorced or widows), their waiting-period is until they deliver their burden. Whoever keeps from disobedience to God in reverence for Him and piety, He makes his affair easy for him.
This is to do with re-marriage as defined in an earlier verse, not consummation or any other form of sexual act. Although there are a dozen different translations of this due to the difficulty of translating the very old, poetic form of Arabic that is the Quran.
Anyway, as smart as you are I'm sure you knew that and are just here to cause trouble.
Everytime an argument goes bad for you Xant you find something else to bash on. That's pretty funny to be honest.Since an argument has "never gone bad" for me, that's a silly thing to say.
You dont need to be 'enlightened' to get bored of the same 2 'religion sux' type posts that this forum produces and recycles every thread. If some people tried thinking for themselves they might even enjoy it.You must hate science then, and things like the theory of evolution. The same theory repeated over and over! So boring, and obviously false, since people keep saying the same things about it.
You cant generalise for protestants because they dont have a ruling authority, you get a totally different practice depending on the pastor or leader of the local 'flock'.The Bible literally says it is the word of God and that every word should be heeded, yet few people are willing to do that exactly because it is difficult to reconcile with modernity. Any serious Protestant denomination that has a strong Biblical basis that I know of, claims to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and these denominations do in fact have ruling authorities on at least a national basis. Yet they pick and choose what to read out loud, entire sections get marginalized or largely ignored, or terrible actions by God get justified because of 'different times'. Simply because many things in the Bible are so problematic for these modern times. So indeed, organized modern religion isn't evil because Holy Book says X, organized modern religion is retarded though for basing their beliefs on the Holy Book while avoiding X written by God.
Those protestants you grew up with, did they regard molesting children as moral? If not they cant have been wholly literal in their interpretation of the Bible. And that's the entire crux of this whole 'Holy Book says X and therefore the religion is evil' debate we're having.
Do you disagree that 2000-year-old lawcodes would be equally as cringeworthy regarding modern human rights and ages of consent? That's where i'm coming from, all shit attemtps to derail aside.(click to show/hide)
This is Crpg community not the academic world, I only see half-baked musings on 'religion sux, we must remove' here.So what you're saying is that you're skeptical about the theory of evolution? Figures.
If i had only heard of 'science' or the 'theory of evolution' on forum.melee.org coming from people like you 'Evolution works cos i say so, NGH!' then i'd be skeptical too.
I am skeptical of why you chose to misinterpret what i said, but then again english isnt your first language. I will try to be clearer next time.I didn't misinterpret anything. Also, it's English* and isn't*. But then again you're retarded, so that's okay.
i just put myself in their shoes and know i'd rather not have some retarded know-it-all tell me how to live. I apply that principle when it's a roomfull of christians being know-it-alls, i apply it when it's a forum full of atheists.
but i'd feel like a generic dime-a-dozen 'enlightened' basement wanker for saying it.[/spoiler]
You clearly dont understand plain English, want me to make it clearer? A finger-space between every letter maybe? Or is this just the part of the argument where instead of even trying to make an argument you just say ''So what you're saying is...'' and then make some shit up. That's generally the point where we all know you've lost and your brain hurts too much to think more, you typically do it at the start of every argument, bless you never last long.whooooosh, went so far over your head you couldn't even see it. Which I foresaw, of course, and it only makes your stupidity funnier :D
You're making it out like it's a big deal to not hate someone just for what religion they have. Fuck you. I judge people on their own merits. At the end of the day you're fucking tiny, you cant make religious people stop doing what they do and believing what they believe, keep your pathetic little judgements on people who are different, you dont have the balls to do anything about it, just sit in a corner and cry if a muslim comes and lives next door.
That's what you do when you judge everyone who has a religious belief. I base my opinion on you on what i've heard you say as an individual.
Do you see the difference? There's judging individuals on what they say and do, and then there's saying 'all religion is retarded and everyone who is religious is retarded'.
You asked for a specific snippit of yourself looking down on people for their religious beliefs, or calling them stupid or retarded. I gave you your snippit.
Unless you dispute that the above quote was questioning the intelligence of people who believe in 'ridiculous fairy tales', 'bullshit', 'myths' - and you claim you dont call or consider religious people to be stupid or retarded or inferior?
That doesn't mean I consider myself smarter than those who believe in god, just in this particular case I think they're wrong, but in other areas they can be "the smartest most correct people in the world". So don't be so upset.
That doesn't mean I consider everyone who's not an atheist as a fool.
Charlemagne and Xant arguing that modern muslims hate our way of life and will assimilate and devour our countries lol (RIP Sweden amirite, apparently it's too late to save them).Thanks for proving you're just making stuff up. That was easy.
Xant accusing me of making shit up that the other person said just to try and badly prove a point because their own reasoning is too hard to tear down so i have to invent a different argument and ridicule that instead? You really dont know what hypocrisy or irony means do you.Go ahead and quote my posts then where I say those things about Muslims. You can't. Hence, you're making shit up.
The fun part about your accusation is that unless you go back and edit your posts, it's not hard for anyone to see exactly what you and Charlemagne were saying about those scary scary muslims. Or maybe i'm just a computer genius who has hacked your account IN THE PAST and posted using your account in the past so that you said all those things, i'm sure famous Xant logic dictates that's the only reasonable explanation.
I cant? That's a surprise, it's a good thing you arent just making stuff up.All I see is you trying to move the discussion away from your failure to back up your claims.
I always find it amusing how the only assurance i ever need that i'm not wrong, is to see you arguing on the other side. Now if I ever found that you agreed with me on a topic, i might be concerned. It is my permanent relief that you never seem to be able to understand my point of view or be able to comprehend a single thing i post without inventing your own significantly different version.
It's impossible, you already said i cant on the same line as you told me to do it. That's one hell of a time limit expecting me to drag up a quote in the time it took for the first 1/4 of your post to appear, but before the last 3/4 of your post appeared telling me i'd been unable to find one.Good god you're retarded. I rest my case.
No, we won't. You're like a retarded kid who claims he won at chess because he threw all the pieces off the board and keeps shouting it louder and louder, until he notices a butterfly and starts talking about that instead. Other people who are stupid can at least be made to see basic points and concepts with hard work and simple examples, but not you, so I'm just not going to reply to you from now on. I'm sure you'll claim that's some sort of a victory, but seeing how desperate you are for my attention in so many threads, I just really feel pity for you.
Sleep well, we'll do this again tomorrow when you've rested your dear head
No, we won't. You're like a retarded kid who claims he won at chess because he threw all the pieces off the board and keeps shouting it louder and louder, until he notices a butterfly and starts talking about that instead.This what you did throughout page 23 and 24 of this thread, go home Xant.
This what you did throughout page 23 and 24 of this thread, go home Xant.Oh really? How so? Where exactly did I do that? Back up your claims, otherwise your post is massively hypocritical. Not that I'm surprised you're a hypocrite.
Oh really? How so? Where exactly did I do that? Back up your claims, otherwise your post is massively hypocritical. Not that I'm surprised you're a hypocrite.
You must hate science then, and things like the theory of evolution. The same theory repeated over and over! So boring, and obviously false, since people keep saying the same things about it.Your attempt at ridiculing Heskey's logic uses completely different logic.
So what you're saying is that you're skeptical about the theory of evolution? Figures.Nope that was not was he was saying.
I didn't misinterpret anything. Also, it's English* and isn't*. But then again you're retarded, so that's okay.Yes you did, stalwartly denying your clear lack of reading comprehension and calling Heskey retarded in the same post.
whooooosh, went so far over your head you couldn't even see it. Which I foresaw, of course, and it only makes your stupidity funnier :DCorrecting punctuation errors and namecalling went over Heskey's head? Or do you mean to say that you misinterpreting Heskey went over his head? That victory surely deserves some more name calling.
Oh really? How so? Where exactly did I do that? Back up your claims, otherwise your post is massively hypocritical. Not that I'm surprised you're a hypocrite.
Your attempt at ridiculing Heskey's logic uses completely different logic.No, it's not an attempt at ridiculing Heskey's logic, you retard. He had no argument, and I made no argument either. There was no logic in his post -- that isn't necessarily a bad thing, not everything someone says must make a factual claim.
Nope that was not was he was saying.Oh really, you just figured that one out genius? Obviously it's not what he was saying, I was implying cRPG forums is the first place where he heard the word "science" and "theory of evolution"... not being serious, as anyone with half a brain would have figured out.
Yes you did, stalwartly denying your clear lack of reading comprehension and calling Heskey retarded in the same post.No I did not, see above...
Correcting punctuation errors and namecalling went over Heskey's head? Or do you mean to say that you misinterpreting Heskey went over his head? That victory surely deserves some more name calling.No, moron, see above again -- and you really don't see why I was correcting his punctuation without someone holding your hand?
And not to forget that in the entire discussion at hand the only argument you came up with, has been an extremely disputable translation of a Quran text. Solid victory Xant.Do you not even know what an argument is you retard? It was a quote, backed up by no arguments or points. Nor did I ever claim victory by using it; way to fail, Teeth.
No, it's not an attempt at ridiculing Heskey's logic, you retard. He had no argument, and I made no argument either. There was no logic in his post -- that isn't necessarily a bad thing, not everything someone says must make a factual claim.Your usage of 'You must ... then' means that you made a logical inference based on premises made in Heskey's post. There is logic in his post, logic that you use to say something stupendous and irrelevant.
Oh really, you just figured that one out genius? Obviously it's not what he was saying, I was implying cRPG forums is the first place where he heard the word "science" and "theory of evolution"... not being serious, as anyone with half a brain would have figured out.The thought crossed my mind that you were doing that and then I discarded it, as I didn't think anyone would dare to make two more cringy posts on the basis of the lamest little 'joke'. Guess I should degrade my social expectations to accomodate for you.
Do you not even know what an argument is you retard? It was a quote, backed up by no arguments or points. Nor did I ever claim victory by using it; way to fail, Teeth.Argument was the wrong word indeed, it was the only seemingly on-topic thing you said, though with its source being something entirely different from the Quran it was a useless post as well. You are right, you didn't actually argue anything in the last few pages and little before that. Yet you are all over the thread like parasital growth.
Your usage of 'You must ... then' means that you made a logical inference based on premises made in Heskey's post. There is logic in his post, logic that you use to say something stupendous and irrelevant.No, there isn't. Only an utter retard would think "if some people tried thinking for themselves they might even enjoy it" is some sort of an argument. Ding ding, we have a winner. And what I said is only irrelevant if you're too stupid to grasp its meaning. Wow, double winner! You've never won this much in your entire life, you must be ecstatic.
The thought crossed my mind that you were doing that and then I discarded it, as I didn't think anyone would dare to make two more cringy posts on the basis of the lamest little 'joke'. Guess I should degrade my social expectations to accomodate for you.There, there, no need to be so harsh on yourself for being context blind.
Argument was the wrong word indeed, it was the only seemingly on-topic thing you said, though with its source being something entirely different from the Quran it was a useless post as well. You are right, you didn't actually argue anything in the last few pages and little before that. Yet you are all over the thread like parasital growth.You mean an useless post like all of your posts in this thread? Hypocrite, like I said.
No, there isn't. Only an utter retard would think "if some people tried thinking for themselves they might even enjoy it" is some sort of an argument. Ding ding, we have a winner. And what I said is only irrelevant if you're too stupid to grasp its meaning.I don't think that is an argument. Obviously this is the part of Heskey's post from which you drew a premise ''You dont need to be 'enlightened' to get bored of the same 2 'religion sux' type posts that this forum produces and recycles every thread.'' To which you respond with this:
You must hate science then, and things like the theory of evolution. The same theory repeated over and over! So boring, and obviously false, since people keep saying the same things about it.
I don't think that is an argument. Obviously this is the part of Heskey's post from which you drew a premise ''You dont need to be 'enlightened' to get bored of the same 2 'religion sux' type posts that this forum produces and recycles every thread.'' To which you respond with this:So him saying he's bored is an argument? Uh....... okay....... you sure do have strange views on what constitutes an argument - first a quote is one, then "I'm bored" is one.
You are clearly inferring his stance towards science and the theory of evolution by misusing Heskey's premise, as Heskey obviously commented on the quality of the 'religion sux' posts aside from them being repeated. How can you say his and your post do not contain logic, while you attempted to use it?
So him saying he's bored is an argument? Uh....... okay....... you sure do have strange views on what constitutes an argument - first a quote is one, then "I'm bored" is one.I never said his post contained an argument. It's you that drew a premise from it; 'Heskey finds things that are said over and over again boring'. Added a premise; 'The same things get said about science and the theory of evolution over and over again'. And finally you drew a conclusion; 'Heskey finds science and the theory of evolution boring'. Then you proceed to stretch it to him hating science and the theory of evolution, and even seeing them as false. That is an argument, albeit a poor one as it is built on a false premise and concluding more than the premises warrant.
I never said his post contained an argument. It's you that drew a premise from it; 'Heskey finds things that are said over and over again boring'. Added a premise; 'The same things get said about science and the theory of evolution over and over again'. And finally you drew a conclusion; 'Heskey finds science and the theory of evolution boring'. Then you proceed to stretch it to him hating science and the theory of evolution, and even seeing them as false. That is an argument, albeit a poor one as it is built on a false premise and concluding more than the premises warrant.No, I didn't draw that premise from it, so your whole argument falls apart.
Why yes you did. You started your sentence with 'Then you ... must', if you can't see that is a conclusion based on one premise you got from Heskey and the other one you came up with in the next sentence, you are absolutely oblivious. This is exactly what a basic argument is, try to keep up Xant.I didn't say I didn't make a conclusion based on a premise I got from Heskey, I'm saying you've got the wrong premise. Try to keep up, Teeth. I wonder how long you'll keep on trying to desperately prove this unrelated tangent of your original claim, which I destroyed.
What happened to your earlier claim of there being no logic in either his or your post and you not having made an argument?Nothing?
How can anyone deny that GB was the greatest european nation.
Britain kind did the same, by making sure Scotland stay in the Union.That is not the same at all.
Remember, you wouldnt argue properly if you were talking to a child.
Actually treating children like grown ups often works best, makes them feel respected and they do their best to act reasonable in return. God knows why this doesnt work with xant.Sure it does, I'm very reasonable with all the reasonable people on the forums.
Sure it does, I'm very reasonable with all the reasonable people on the forums.
So...no one?Lots of people, actually, too many to list.
No the printing press was invented in Tudor Britain, we became the most literate nation due to this. You might be thinking of flower press?
Thats what i said, except he didn't go to Germany that has been specifically made clear by historians. And nice wikipedia article, the Dutch beat us in a battle, yet somehow the British retained naval dominance and had the worlds largest empire. Anyway you wanna go on about decisive victories, hahahaha agincourt xD (hehehe dumb French peasants). But no im only being patriotic so don't take any of this to offensively.
I chose agincourt because the result is almost laughable.
I love that the country with the most votes is also the country that's constantly trying to pretend it's not in Europe.
content to rape technologically underdevelopped tribes half a world away or intervene in continental wars once all the major participants had exhausted each other fighting actual threats.
Nicholaus Copernicus.
Who is this
the guy Gallileo ripped off.
USA of course
I've been learning a lot about Swiss History lately through some old documentaries; William Tell and how the country was formed. It's really interesting to get an official look on how a country was formed that i otherwise know nothing about.Hehe it's funny I usually never look at this topic and now that I do it's about glorious switzerland :D
Check out the following documentary, it's part 1 in a series: