Debate Civilization and Evil: A Debate

Psh. Have your point then. I'd rather not this turn more hostile than it already has. You may now commence your wallowing in your 'security'.

What, so ransoms suddenly become easy cash? No, I heavily doubt that they were always honorbound to pay in the form of their kingdom's vault.

It sure is nice when that 100 gold is more than you have, or perhaps it is a 100 gold that you will pilfer via over-taxing that will result in much worse. Then again, I suppose they ARE selfish.

How is that applying to different things? Just as leaders promoted chivalry in their troops to make themselves look good, they whisper silently to assassins and mercenaries with a pouch of gold to help them him the battle.

Oh, yes, then why don't we have a World War 3? 4? 5? Hmm, I wonder why... oh, perhaps because that World Wars are ultimately debilitating to the world itself. Golly, we sure love wars.

Carthage didn't seek to bother Rome until the two empires met. Either way, Rome and Carthage both used many resources in the process in the battle. Remember how Hannibal completely owned Rome's 80000-strong army with the pincer? Yeah.

No, no we cannot. But we can wonder what you were thinking when you said that.

Yes, Roman Peace. But ambition still drove on Pax Romana. Violence isn't the only way to wage battles.

You can call it king, emperor, whatever. If it is one significant figure-head/actual person of power, it can be referred to as such. Empires and Kingdoms are glorified names of controlled lands.

Shooting a gun to kill someone - That's using your finger to kill me, not the gun. You fail.

I'm not attributing later uses of an invention to the creator. I'm attributing the later uses to the invention itself.

Ah, but you have already done that so many times now.

 

Rome had a senate did'nt it?

Thats the truth. Just because someone invented something doesn't mean you can blame them for the usage of it. Henry Ford didn't make the automobile to kill a famous rapper in the future.

What do assassins and mercs have to do with chivilary?

War can be quite benificial. Civil wars within a country can get rid of a dictator and put in place a potentially better gov't.

 

Ahh, a new entry. Neph supporter too. Woot, 2 on 1!

It had a senate in much of its history, yes. But before that time, it had rulership in the form of an emperor. With an advisorship formed by what would eventually expand into the Roman Senate.

As stated before, I'm not attributing later uses of an invention to the creator. I'm attributing the later uses to the invention itself.

They work well in that era to undermine the apparant chivalry that was displayed by the army battles.

It may also result in many deaths and war debts that would povertize a country, a punishment for its ambition. Not all countries persevere and grow like America did.

 

We just share certain veiws, that is all.

Ah yes, on the subject of war debts, its true the Treaty of Versailles royally screwed over Germany's economy, but you can think of it as a repricussion of trying to take over Europe, which I believe is what you stated. I also failed to mention that war had its downsides, however, I thought you could figure that for yourself. For every winning side there must be a loser. In the World Wars, it was the Axis Powers, in the American Civil War, the Confederate States.

 

perhaps it might be a good idea for everyone to stop strangling each other and try to get along?

This is not fair - Miko may just agree with Neph on a couple of points but that certainly doesn't mean everyone is against you.

chill out! we all make mistakes...i certainly do
the name-calling wasn't necessary.

 

Those two seem to have been at it for a while, just let it go..

 

Whaaat? I never said a 2 on 1 was bad.

And either way, in a debate, insults are more or less expected. I don't expect myself to hit report post in a debate forum - never did before, and I was fine, heh.

 

For every winning side there must be a loser, but the winning side still pays debts, and to be a winning side there must be many sacrifices... unless it is a war with unfair sides, but hey. America's outgunning Iraq by a lot, and America's not getting much benefits from it, more like demerits from its citizens.

Forgive me for the Iraq comment, but eh.

 

Its only gonna get worse since those pics were released, but lets not get into my opinion on the Iraq situation, it would lead to a flame war.

 

Concession Accepted.

*shrugs* Looks like neither of us really know.

100 gold is a bargain given the revenue generation possible.

...So you don't understand the difference between hundreds of years and cultures?

Given how the issue of WW's was brought up to rebutt your theory that mass production would destroy an economy, and this has nothing to do with that... Concession Accepted.

*shrugs* He won the battle, not the war.

I was mocking your "point" that toothpaste aids war by having influence on diplomatic negotiations.

So Bush is sort of like a king? All hail the God Emperor of Mankind!

Given that you never challenged me to kill you with a gun, this has no point.You fail. Again.

Wrong. You said that every invention was considered with war in mind, and kept it up with the plane. Its obvious to everyone who views the thread. Suck it up. You screwed up. Stop saying "I didnt mean that" and start meaning what you say.

If this was an isolated incident I'd chalk it up to a mistake, but all through this debate VR has been playing word games and in general being annoying.

P.S. I won't be on much till next week; my comp is acting buggy and theres camping on the weekend.

 

Though generals don't really provide much revenue generation, and generals and other prominent military figures were usually the captives. Rarely was the brilliant civil administrator captured.

I do quite understand the difference. However, years and cultures will never change mankind's base instinct, the need to survive, the need to eliminate obstacles.

What kind of concession was that? The World Wars only destroy the economy more so than regular wars. Sure, they spur progression, but I've already stated that long ago. The costs are much more imposing than you think. Here:

Also, World War I's German reparations and the over-production (note this consequence of too much progression) of technology was a major cause of the Great Depression. We sure loved that time period, no?

Next time, please don't think that all other subjects are concessions just because I averted danger in one of them. Thank you.

Oh yes, and if I lose all but 100 of the people in my kingdom in a large battle that ended in me annhilating the other kingdom, I sure won the war too... except I'm not a kingdom anymore, you know.

Except that I never said toothpaste or the other menial invention aided war. The first reference I made was to every invention having a military-related use, not aiding the war itself. Please up your perception filter next time.

Sure. President's only a glorified name. Government figureheads are regularly manipulated by 'advisors', or, 'eunuchs' as you will, such that the differentiation between President, Prime Minister, and Emperor doesn't prove that much of a difference any more.

Given that you were using a total unreasonable counterpoint to my kill method that would more or less destroy all other methods of killing, I believe you fail some more. After all, without limbs, how does a man kill? Throw his chest forward and hope that the opponent dies of a heart attack?

Considered with war in mind? When did I say war? I said 'other uses', not military uses. Please don't shove a general reference into a one-slot funnel, it sorta defeats the point of raising a point. Perhaps you should stop making narrow-minded inferrences out of general sayings?

I played word games a total of twice - once with the constant number theorem that you provided, once with the creation of famine, which I admit was a mistake in the wording. That's about it. Don't need to spread an invisible plague with a simple advantage, my boy.

P.S. I won't be on much till next week; my comp is acting buggy and theres camping on the weekend.[/QUOTE]

 

No, he throws his chest forward and hopes the opponent moves out of the way and falls off the steep cliff next to them.

Then I doubt this thread will move much until you get back. It's fun arguing with you.

 

Oh yes, on every battlefield, there is a convenient steep cliff..

I thought you were arguing with me, but okay.

 

Yeah, gotta love those steep cliffs. (It was a joke dude, I live to lighten the mood.)

I am. Or I was. I dunno, are we arguing?

 

I know. But doing that here is basically like being a clown in the middle of D-Day in World War II.

I'm pretty sure. I've seen counterpoints from you against me, and not him... yet, anyway.

Anyhoo, let's stop this short-reply thingy before it gets spammy.

 

So are you rock stupid or just intentionally obtuse? Your generals are not the ones most commonly captured. Think of a foot soldier. Think that in that era he would have doubled as a farmer and such. Think that there are several thousand of these people. And you're still fixated on one lone general?!

Ah, so you simply believe that one should take the exception rather than the rule as to how to judge things? Righto, the Taliban was Muslim, therefore ALL Muslims must be extremist fundamentalists, therefore they are all potential problems. At least, thats how following your logic goes. Yes, that sort of thing happens but its not the most common thing.

Furthermore if you did understand, then why did you (in response to a question regarding the age of chivalry) bring up Caesar? If I say I have a problem with my 1995 Ford Windstars air conditioning, do you start to talk about a 1955 Ramblers seatbelts?

I brought up a point which countered yours. You did nothing to counter it. Instead you *****ed. Therefore, concession.

I like how this guy says "more expensive than all other wars combined" as if he has the budget for the Athenian wars.

Anyway, if it was as damaging to a nations economy as you say it was, then America, having spent the most money on the war, would not have become one of the financial superpowers almost immeadiately after. Pull your head out of your ***.

Again, this is an exception rather than a rule. Why have we not faced similar economic crises after every other war? Especially World War 2, which was far, far more expensive?

Well that would just be stupidity on your part.

You aren't paying attention to me, are you?

It matters in historical context.

"Waaaaaaah! Neph proved me wrong! Mommy, make the bad man stop! I made a broad, sweeping generalization AND I WAS WRONG! THAT ISN'T FAIR!"

Stow it, crybaby.

Biting, obviously.

Oh please. We all knew what you were implying. If you're going to leave escape clauses left and right so you can't lose, don't bother debating.

(Edit: Readers, in case you think I'm being unfair here, go back and reread his post. The entire post he had been talking about military uses for inventions and then says 'everything is made with other uses considered'. It's hardly unreasonable to assume by other uses he is again referring to military uses. [/End Edit])

When you stop being stupid, sure.

You also screwed around with the philosophy point; you screwed around with "other uses"; you screwed around with the word "chivalry" (the reason why escapes me; perhaps you think you're being clever in bringing up completely unrelated things in a different time period); you again screwed around when I countered your idiotic generalization in regards to impromptu weaponry; you began to use the propaganda technique of twisting a counterpoint regarding mass production and the economy so it looked like I was endorsing World War 3-5, and this is just to start. It's readily apparent to everyone that you enjoy twisting statements to aggravate and annoy others. I don't know how old you are, but this sort of nonsense certainly isn't fit for any age.

(Edit: Normally I'd simply leave the debate after this much, however I'm still willing to give it a few more posts just to see if theres something worth coming for. If this sort of 'neph says one thing, VR makes it look like he said another' thing carries on, I'm simply going to leave because there are more productive debates where nobody resorts to twisting words like this. [/End Edit])

 

Oh yes, I am so going to pay 100 gold for each and every man that are ransomed. Hmm... lemme think about it... no. And what is this you are spewing about keeping several thousand men as prisoners of war? What, are the glorious nobles of the medieval times going to make a giant pit to throw in several thousand men? I sure don't see it possible to keep several thousand men in a menial prison. Do you?

Either way, nobles were the ones that they actually captured. Since, you know, they actually worthed the gold that was ransomed. I would think that there's a reason that nobles were normally ransomed at least 10 times as much as peasant troops, if the peasant troops were even ransomed for. Gee, I didn't know that the shiny armor of the noble had a worth of 9900 gold...

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped with the personal attacks. You know, perhaps drag yourself out of the fire before someone else does.

Sorry, religion does not apply to human nature, no matter how hard you try. When faced with nearing death, most... oh, let's just say Muslims, since you used them, would probably fight back in one way or another, no matter how they are outnumbered... or they'll respond to fight or flight and run. Allah never told them that they had to fight or run. Allah never told them that they must use whatever resources needed for them to survive any given situation. No, their base instincts did.

I used Caesar as an example of the murders and such that's been done ever since the Roman Age. Can I not use that to bolster my own opinion that assassins and sellswords are still regularly used to kill even in the medieval age?

Oh, I countered it. I believe that the sarcasm would state more or less - 'If you thought the World Wars were so damned 'beneficial', why don't we have more of them? Wouldn't that be 'beneficial' too?

Using your logic, I can say that all of your points were concessions. You've been *****ing at my points for quite a while, I must say.

Tis not my fault if you cannot detect sarcasm...

I'm quite sure that it is implied that the 'other wars combined' refer to the wars of the Modern Age. Because, you know, we don't exactly know the price of gold back then, when it was probably a lot more common of a resource.

America is a financial superpower because of their technology, their industrial power, and their sheer number of people who work for them. The amount of money that they have does not apply. Being a financial superpower doesn't mean we are earning in economy. I'm pretty sure that our economy has been going down in the past couple of years, and yet we are still a 'superpower'. Hmm...

Because we learn from what we suffer? People learned from the Great Depression and the breakdowns it caused. There's a thing in all living things, and it is called the response to stimuli. It is quite a basic concept, if I do say so myself. This spurs on adaptation, and this adaptation applies not only in physical survival, but economical survival and such as well. This, coupled with the fact that the US didn't even participate fully in WW2 until Pearl Harbor, is why we did not suffer as much.

Oh, I don't know. I'm reading the parts of your posts and making specific responses to them. What do you think?

And when did that ever matter in the real world? If I called you Neph, Lord Neph, Emperor Neph, Supreme Ruler of the World Neph, Peasant Neph, or such and such Neph, would it make you different? Nah.

 

When did I say all the men would be taken? Look at it this way - you buy a pack of cards. You get more commons than you do rares.

I never said they always played by the rules. I did however toss it out as an example of ways war could be waged with minimal casualities.

I admit I got a little hot under the collar; however when ones words are twisted as much as you have done to mine its easy to get aggravated.

Course it does. Its justification and motivation.

...So base instincts taught them to attack The Great Satan by assaulting civilians?

And then asked how chivalrous that was. Do you see what I'm getting at?

...Given that Caesar was not even near that time period, no.

Right here you're assuming. See, I simply used that as proof that mass production did not always destroy economies. I never said anything about support for more wars like that. Mass production happens to this day (cars, computers, cds).

Then that should be noted.

Because Americas economy is stronger than most others. A decrease in overall national economy does not equal a massive drop is worldwide economic standing.

And now you see why I said war was necessary! Because we need new stimuli to adapt to or we stagnate and fall!

I'd like to think you are, but many responses are simply very flawed.

Accuracy, really. Sacrifice minor, "interchangable" details and eventually your history ends up distorted and inaccurate.

No, you see, my counterpoint was that it didn't matter if I gave you an "unreasonable" challenge, because you said ANYTHING could be used. And I proved you wrong.

Didn't say you didn't, however enough of them do.

It was implied. I covered this.

That isn't helping that you began to use it in ages that were not even close.

Yes you did. I never said I supported world wars, or even wars in general. I did say that they were necessary, but thats not really support. Thats concession that wars occur for a reason.

Play the victim all you want; it's not helping you when you begin to alter quotes or play revisionist history (since when was Caesar from the medieval era?)

 

And if they aren't all captured and kept for ransom, where does your 'multiply it by several thousand' go? Yes, a city's population's important, but what sets one man from another in the midst of a thousand infantrymen? The general and his advisors are obviously rares, but their intricate armor usually saves them. If anything, the nobles are priced more just because of the fact, and the infantry usually aren't bothered in the process of capturing.

Even though ransoms existed then, there are still a massive amount of casualties from the attacks, just like there is now. Though people are killed now, others are still held as prisoners of war. Ransom may not be paid much, the holders may not be as honorable, and money is perhaps more reluctantly given, but the fact that hostages are alive give the idea that the concept hasn't changed.

When one's words are twisted as much as you have done to mine it's easy to get aggravated... but from where I see it, it probably isn't wise to express it openly.

It justifies and motivates from stories written by a few 'scholars' who began the religion in the first place, compared to the simple and easily understood want of survival. I'm pretty sure one would rather act immediately to save himself rather than "Hmm, would God like it if I did this?" (Hmm, I wonder which side I stand on the 'do you believe in God?' issue..)

Were they actually in danger of dying while laying slaughter to said civilians? Those kind of cold-blooded overzealous killing is probably done with no fear of self, only fanaticism running through their veins.

Ah, fine. Though I only intended to use it to say that chivalry never actually existed, I'll admit that using medieval chivalry in the Roman Age is flawed. However, that doesn't dismiss the fact that such murders didn't exist in the medieval age.

I used the example to state that chivalry never actually existed then, and through the usage of such people, it probably didn't in the medieval age. Anihoo, refer to above comment.

I never said that mass production destroyed economies. I said that war destroyed economies.

I'm pretty sure it would be an obvious implicated, but you just noted it, so there it is.

It doesn't equal a massive drop, but over time it does equal a drop, no matter how small or trivial it may be.

At this point in technology, I doubt that we'd stagnate and fall. Right now, war expenses are what is making us fall - the drain of resources is quite apparant.

Flawed in your viewpoint, perhaps, but then again, we all have our own.

But I'm not accumulating the sacrifice of minor and interchangeable details. I'm only utilizing one.

You never actually proved me wrong there. You merely set a rule to 'prove me wrong' that would in effect prove everything else wrong.

Enough of them for you to pounce upon, I suppose.

Look up to point 6.

Look again to the last post. Read the whole thing, if you may, and try not to comment only on the first sentence.

Since when I said Caesar was from the medieval era? I said it again and again - I used it as a support point, not a direct point. And if I was playing the victim, I probably wouldn't be continuing this debate.

 

You -still- don't get it, do you? I brought up ransoms as proof that war -could- be done with minimal casualties, NOT that casualities NEVER happened during those wars.

Y'see, you post a lot about how I do this to you, but haven't really posted specifics save for a couple where you were vague enough to tap-back and declare that it meant something else. THEN you ignore the majority of points I bring up regarding word twisting.

...Yeah, the pilots of the 9/11 incident, the suicide bombers in the middle east... very rational people.

Refer to suicide attackers above.

Never said they didn't.

No concept ever "exists" without people coming up with it first.

*sigh*

"And if two enemies adopted automation against each other, the cost of production that came with that sort of skirmish would cripple the people in homeland."

Comment is sort of half and half.

That's a big assumption to make. You'd have to assume extraordinary costs per unit and extraordinary numbers.

I'm pretty sure it would be an obvious implicated, but you just noted it, so there it is.

Drops can be made up for. I didn't pass math one year, so I retook the course and ended up winning the Academic Achievement Award for math for the entire grade. As this was in high school, we're talking about a grade where math is mandatory and there are about 600 students. Guess which mark the colleges decided to look at?

If the war proves to be that costly, sure, but not every war is going to be like that. Heck, lets face a fact - in the modern era (as in the past 50 years) no major nations have really fought bloody wars. The real reason Russias economy collapsed was because they bought into the Star Wars Defense Systems essential bluff ( I know, the program EXISTED, but IIRC it wasn't really too effective) and tried to modernize too quickly.

It always starts with one. (I could mention the detail of chivalry in pre-Christian Rome but you already conceded that it was a mistake to try that)

How seeing you fail to think of a way to kill me with a soggy gum wrapper doesnt disprove the notion that EVERYTHING can be a weapon, I don't know. Buuuuuuut if you want another challenge...

Kill me with a speck of dust.