Racism

(July 11, 2013 at 10:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Everything you just said had nothing to do with what I originally posted when I said

Threads move on cock sucker.

I was taking you to the task during your inept bitchfest with Chuck.

(July 11, 2013 at 10:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Why should I be impressed with this, the technology they had wasn't primitive when they were around and actually using it.

By that logic, and I use the term so loosely that Statler's babble qualifies, you should never be impressed except with the current set of state powers.

After all, with Moore's Law and other similar fast rate laws of development, only the most modern and strongest economy is the "best" as per your "game" rules.

You already decided the answer to your question.

So why did you ask, you narrow minded provincial putz?

(July 12, 2013 at 11:45 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(July 11, 2013 at 10:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Everything you just said had nothing to do with what I originally posted when I said

Threads move on cock sucker.

I was taking you to the task during your inept bitchfest with Chuck.

(July 11, 2013 at 10:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Why should I be impressed with this, the technology they had wasn't primitive when they were around and actually using it.

By that logic, and I use the term so loosely that Statler's babble qualifies, you should never be impressed except with the current set of state powers.

After all, with Moore's Law and other similar fast rate laws of development, only the most modern and strongest economy is the "best" as per your "game" rules.

You already decided the answer to your question.

So why did you ask, you narrow minded provincial putz?

You keep talking about my rules my paradigms my narrow minded view, I said if life was like a game of civilization great Britain would probably be top of the league table, it wasn't even a serious comment (although I do think some of the things chuck said about the British empire were fairly idiotic saying they were never really all that dominant).
The game civilization wasn't invented by me it was created by sid meier. It's a pretty good game and on it you get points for taking over places, winning wars, technological advances and still being around in the year 4000, this is how the game is judged so they aren't my paradigms or my rules

I would never judge a modern civilization and compare it to a primitive one because that would just make no sense, the British empire has obviously had more people under it's power and more technological advances than Egypt or the mongols or Rome it would be no competition, but as I said my comment was made in relation to what if it was a competition and life was like the computer game Civilization.

It was basically a flippant comment with the basis being that I do think the achievements of the British empire are amazing, I don't think it's a reasonable response after I make this obviously flippant comment for people to start going mental and start typing in massively large fonts things like "EGYPT INVENTED PAPER" "PAUL YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY RETARDED" and so on.

It's like me saying " I think if life was like a command and conquer game America or china would probably win" Then people replying with "HEY YOU FUCKING RETARD EGYPT HAD A MASSIVE ARMY YOU COCK SUCKER" is it really necessary or logical?

You keep on not getting it.

Carry on then.

I have no more to say to a moron who can't compare civilizations, unable to crawl outside of his own views of what technological and cultural acheivements are while ignoring the dependencies and limitations of previous and current civizations.

By the rules of civ and normalizing to compare older to newer civs, you'd find that the conquests and territory holding of old to be amazingly large compared to later, better armed, more intelligent powers.

But hey, we can be extremely stupid in how we compare powers out of sync with each other by, well, hundreds to thousands if years?

Got third grade math worksheets yet?

(July 11, 2013 at 7:39 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(July 11, 2013 at 6:15 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Technological adances.
England. ...the submarine...

Whaaaaat?

How you figure that?

The British invented the submarine when the Mary Rose sank under the eyes of Henry VIII as she hoisted her sails (undoubtedly invented for this and no other useful purpose by the dastardly and useless Egyptians), and, god forbid, the wind blew.

I suspect if we look hard enough, we'll find people were imagining things much the way Leonardo daVinci did - looking forwards into the future with stunning imagination - though lacking the tech at the time to put it to practical application. This is why it is unfair to say that any group of fully homo sapien humans is 'primitive' or 'more like animals'. They are not. They have fully functioning brains just as we do, and a thousand years from now (provided we don't blow ourselves up) we'll be saying WE were primitive.

I suggested a book to Capn some time ago that talked about the advanced concepts of medicine, machinery and etc that the ancients had. I'll find it tonight and link it.

(July 12, 2013 at 1:43 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(July 11, 2013 at 7:39 pm)Rahul Wrote: Whaaaaat?

How you figure that?

The British invented the submarine when the Mary Rose sank under the eyes of Henry VIII as she hoisted her sails (undoubtedly invented for this and no other useful purpose by the dastardly and useless Egyptians), and, god forbid, the wind blew.

I never claimed the Egyptians were useless, I was wrong about the submarine but British inventions outnumber and are more important than egyptian inventions. For example the language you're speaking in, the first computer, the other things in the list I mentioned.

More people speak Chinese than English, and English itself is a hodge podge of languages invented by other people, amongst them the Romans, the Germans, the Celts. Most of the other things you mentioned were not invented in Britain even in the minds of most British:

telephone - Invented in the US

military tank - Leonardo Da Vinci thought of it in 1500, the Austrians designed a version already with all the attributes of the real tank 4 years before the British, and the French actually built a working tank 3 month before the british conceptualized it. In any case, the lumbering British box with canons poking out the sides isn't the real ancester of true modern tank. That honor belongs to another French tank, the Renault FT.

sewage system - The Indians had it 1500 years before London had it, and guess who put it in London? The Romans.

jet engine - The British idea was a dead end. Modern jet engines descended from the independently conceived German concept formulated at the same time.

the periodic table - Russian

the submarine - Like the Mary Rose? Ships have sunken before, you know?

television - The first electronic television of any kind was made by the Germans in 1884. The first conceptually modern televation was made by the French in 1903

the world wide web - Invented in CERN

english language - So what? Everyone needs and has invented their own launguage.

(July 12, 2013 at 1:02 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: You keep on not getting it.

Carry on then.

I have no more to say to a moron who can't compare civilizations, unable to crawl outside of his own views of what technological and cultural acheivements are while ignoring the dependencies and limitations of previous and current civizations.

In the game of civilization if one player (Egypt) has the wonder of the pyramids, and the people in their civilization are rioting, and their are revolutions and internal turmoil within the country this would be considered inferior to a civilization who has wonders such as stone henge, the london exchange, the east india company and so on, and who also has inventions under their belt which are numerous. (The British)

In a game of civilization the dependencies and limitations wouldn't be taken into consideration, since I was typing about what if life was like if it was a game of civilization why would I take this into consideration.

---

(July 12, 2013 at 2:53 pm)Chuck Wrote: More people speak Chinese than English. Most of the other things you mentioned were not invented in Britain even in the minds of most British:

Well they were from a list I found on the internet, it doesn't really matter either way, the british have invented a lot of stuff. I know a lot of people speak chinese, but that has nothing to do with their conquests it has to do with the amount of Chinese people in the world, the reason a lot of people speak English is because of the influence of power the British empire had, that's why Americans, Canadians and Australians all speak English. And the Chinese had Honk Kong took off them by the British.

(July 12, 2013 at 2:57 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Chinese had Honk Kong took off them by the British.

And they took it back.

In 1982, Margrite Thatcher, flush with victory at Falklands, went to china to say Hong Kong belongs to Britain just like Falkland. Appearently the Chinese response was so harsh the Iron Lady almost fainted, and stumbled down stairs on the way out of the meeting. Shortly thereafter the british agree to give Hong Kong back in 15 years. That happened in 1997.

Considering Hong Kong was the crown jewel of what was left of the British Empire, being responsible over half of the total economic output of the British possessions, I would say the British scampered home with their tails between their legs.