Conquer Club

Norse, hate to burst your bubble, but corn came from North America, not Asia.

Norse wrote:

heavycola wrote:
Accidents of geography and environment brought about the domination of European whites, not racial differences.
Put simply, we had more animal species to domesticate, more native crops, and a dense population (as a result) that bred immunities to diseases by living in close proximity to each other and to our livestock.
It was luck.

I have a distinct feeling of deja-vu here.

Anyhow, I will continue.

The siole reason for the domination, advanced thinking, hard working in built mentality of the north european peoples, was due to the hardships that were faced during their expansion into the north of europe.#

It is laughable that you have this idea that the cold, biting tundra of northern europe somehow had "more animals to domesticate"...as opposed to the warmer climates of africa, for instance.

The conquistadores and empires were based in southern and western europe. You can't say that africans, as a whole, have had it easier than europeans. Civilisation had already begun in north africa, west asia and china well before it arrived in greece. Europe had mild weather and plenty of resources to give it a leg-up, is all.

What you fail to comprehend, is that there were no native crops in northern europe....corn was originally an unpalatable crop from the asian peninsula...this had been nurtured by the northern europeans into being an edible crop, to which we built a tolerance for, as with cows milk, too.

I don't know abotu northern europe. I do know that afriaca, india, the americas, were colonised by england, france, belgium, spain and portugal, where the ideas I first floated definitely applied.

See, the reason why the white race has a higher level of industrious thought, is that the long baron winters, and lack of native wildlife readily available, caused said peoples to have to develop a strong sense of community, and also overcome far greater challenges, than, say africans, who had walking meals on their doorsteps, for whenever they could be assed to throw a spear.

Greater challenges? What about the kalahari bushmen, or teh bedouins, or the australian aborigines, for example? The oldest civilisation on the planet, they have lived in an environment that would kill you or me in a few days for 50,000 years. Very community-based, as is every successful civilisation. But to say they lack resourcefulness, or industriousness, doesn't make sense.

This is one of the reasons why there is wide-famine issues within africa, as they just ate, and ate without any foresight for future production. They have not got the in-built tools to cope with forward thinking, or overcoming challenges...

Actually i would blame much of the African famines on massive droughts compounded by poor administration by corrupt, inept governments and bureaucrats. You can blame that on different brains, i could blame it on the colonial legacy. It's probably for a different thread.

Norse wrote:"Give a black man a fish,. he eats for a day...give him a fishing rod, he tries to attack someone with it, and steal their fish"

Highly racist, but also embarassing-public-laugh inducing.




I feel so conflicted...

Cola, I think Norse meant the expansion when some tribe from north africa decided that they'd much rather live in this cold harsh climate in Europe where they had to actually work to get some food instead throwing a spear at random and eat whatever it hit.



Also:

Corn





Maize



Maize was indigenous to America I think, but corn has been around in Europe for quite some time already.

I have just one problem with what you say, Norse. How is a society that forces it's members to slave away for 60+ hours a week for essentially no reward inherently superior to one that allows it's members to work for a mere 20 hours/week and lay around and have sex the rest of the time? I fail to see your logic.

MeDeFe, that's not true, nobody in my family will eat corn because its too alien and they see it as animal food (because it was introduced just a few centuries ago).

MeDeFe wrote:Cola, I think Norse meant the expansion when some tribe from north africa decided that they'd much rather live in this cold harsh climate in Europe where they had to actually work to get some food instead throwing a spear at random and eat whatever it hit.



Also:

Corn





Maize



Maize was indigenous to America I think, but corn has been around in Europe for quite some time already.

corn can just mean grain. that's why collinists in the americas refered to it as indian corn. in the U.S. we only use the term corn to refer to maize.

on a side note there is some contraversy about maize possibly getting outside the new world before it's commonly accepted to have.

Neutrino wrote:I have just one problem with what you say, Norse. How is a society that forces it's members to slave away for 60+ hours a week for essentially no reward inherently superior to one that allows it's members to work for a mere 20 hours/week and lay around and have sex the rest of the time? I fail to see your logic.

not to mention what they do as "work" we often consider recreation.

Neutrino wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Problem: Motive.

Well yes, I agree both the Christians' and the Muslims' motives wern't very salubrious or nice. Killing people and taking their land for personal profit very frequently isn't. That's humanity for you.

That was Europe's reason. For Islam, it goes far deeper than material acquistion; it's a matter of bringing all peoples into "submission" for the sake thereof. If you can find a Koranic passage that says something else, then please post it.

Come to think of it, it has been a while since I last reviewed the book in question.

Neutrino wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Which comes from where....?

Oh Gee Whiz JR, The Koran!

So falling into a pitfall that almost everyone else does is now a despicable act intentionally committed by you?

No, denying basic human rights is!

Neutrino wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:Phew, I'm glad I didn't have your parents. They must have been the hysterical "Achieve! Achieve!" type, if that's how you think...
If you want a full response, sans personal attacks, scroll a few posts up. You'll notice Napoleon raised the same points as you and has still yet to actually back them up with logical reasoning. Please read the thread before posting and save everyone a little time.

Perhaps I am not being clear enough: The root of what is wrong isn't the people, it is the beliefs they hold. Especially with regard to how they treat their fellows.

Jenos Ridan wrote:
That was Europe's reason. For Islam, it goes far deeper than material acquistion; it's a matter of bringing all peoples into "submission" for the sake thereof. If you can find a Koranic passage that says something else, then please post it.

Christians = reasonable people, Muslims = religious fanatics.
Despite the fact it is easy to pull excuses for invading and subjugating other countries out of the Bible, apparently Christians did not do this. Of course the Crusades were not justified at all using Biblical material. You'd have to be insane to suggest otherwise.
I can predict your answer now. "The Crusades were perpetrated by greedy Non-Christian Christians and falsely justified usuing Biblical material." Why the double standard? Muslims are people just like everyone else and are therefore inherently no more likely to declare Jihad on someone than anyone else. I can almost hear you preparing to blame their religion. Don't bother. Frigidus posted some rather nice pro-War Biblical quotes in the other thread (Number 3 and 5 mostly). If someone wants to declare war, then they will do it, religion or not. If someone wants to have peace they can pull something out of their religion as well. People will see what they want to see in any religion and select parts of it that support their view.



I don't know why you keep suggesting otherwise, but I am not out to prove that Islam was not violent. What I am trying to do is prove that Christianity was just as violent.

Jenos Ridan wrote:


No, denying basic human rights is!

That's the pitfall. Basic human rights have never been popular in fuedal societies. Islamic countries use a feudal society. Islam never got the chance, collectively, to leave the Fuedal state. Is it Islam's fault that it never got the chance?
There are very few religions that formed in fuedal states that will accept the UDHR. Having women inferior to men seems to be the ground state for religions. It takes a lot of effort to push them off it. Christianity was a big offender for quite a while, until various revolutions managed to push it into a more accepting form. Without these revolutions Christianity would be exactly the same as it was in the Middle Ages. Islam never had the benifit of a series of revolutions.

Well, I suppose that Saudi Arabia could be considered to have a strong element of feudalism, but certainly not Iraq, Iran or Pakistan.

I'm guessing that you don't know what the word means. Sorry to be harsh, but pretty much everything you wrote concerning Islam, feudalism, and human rights was pretty wrong. I think that you just need to rephrase your arguments, but they're pretty messy.

I think that you may be confusing the Reformation and the Enlightenment with the development of societies from feudalistic culture through revolution. You're missing the fact that many Islamic states emerged as revolutions against feudalistic government (and not, as you suggest, have been revolution free). You're also missing the foundation of a lot of the major terrorist groups- as revolutionary organizations against various oppressive (sometimes feudal) regimes.

Oppose terrorism as much as you like, and I'll be behind you. Suggest that Muslims are somehow retarded religiously, or that Christianity is the model for other religions, and you come off sounding a bit odd.

Neutrino wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:
That was Europe's reason. For Islam, it goes far deeper than material acquistion; it's a matter of bringing all peoples into "submission" for the sake thereof. If you can find a Koranic passage that says something else, then please post it.

Christians = reasonable people, Muslims = religious fanatics.
Despite the fact it is easy to pull excuses for invading and subjugating other countries out of the Bible, apparently Christians did not do this. Of course the Crusades were not justified at all using Biblical material. You'd have to be insane to suggest otherwise.
I can predict your answer now. "The Crusades were perpetrated by greedy Non-Christian Christians and falsely justified usuing Biblical material." Why the double standard? Muslims are people just like everyone else and are therefore inherently no more likely to declare Jihad on someone than anyone else. I can almost hear you preparing to blame their religion. Don't bother. Frigidus posted some rather nice pro-War Biblical quotes in the other thread (Number 3 and 5 mostly). If someone wants to declare war, then they will do it, religion or not. If someone wants to have peace they can pull something out of their religion as well. People will see what they want to see in any religion and select parts of it that support their view.



I don't know why you keep suggesting otherwise, but I am not out to prove that Islam was not violent. What I am trying to do is prove that Christianity was just as violent.

Jenos Ridan wrote:


No, denying basic human rights is!

That's the pitfall. Basic human rights have never been popular in fuedal societies. Islamic countries use a feudal society. Islam never got the chance, collectively, to leave the Fuedal state. Is it Islam's fault that it never got the chance?
There are very few religions that formed in fuedal states that will accept the UDHR. Having women inferior to men seems to be the ground state for religions. It takes a lot of effort to push them off it. Christianity was a big offender for quite a while, until various revolutions managed to push it into a more accepting form. Without these revolutions Christianity would be exactly the same as it was in the Middle Ages. Islam never had the benifit of a series of revolutions.

This is a good post, and exactly the same one I was about to make. I've yet to read a proper response to the argument that the elements of Islam we find so distasteful in the West are a product of social, environmental and political factors rather than the political and social state of those places being a product of Islam. Nappy will use big words to say nothing, Jehan will point out how Christians are good and if people use the Bible to justify bad things they aren't Christian, Norse will be a bit racist and BK will spit into his beard with intense vitriol. Various people, on either side, will be asked if a) they've ever met a Muslim and b) whether they've read the Koran. Then we'll be right back where we started.

Neoteny wrote:EDIT: f*ck... I should actually read next time...

It's okay, we still love you.

Gregrios wrote:The only thing I don't get is how there are so many different religions all stemming from the same book,(Bible). Are there versions of the Bible out there that I'm not aware of.

If we're all reading the same version, how can there be so many translations?

Because they are all fictional BS altered by men to fit the agenda of the day.

Sorry....no Sky-Daddy.

Gregrios wrote:The only thing I don't get is how there are so many different religions all stemming from the same book,(Bible). Are there versions of the Bible out there that I'm not aware of.

If we're all reading the same version, how can there be so many translations?

1. Because the Christian came before the jews, duh! Actually the jews came first in various cults around 700 BC, and one of those cults became Christianity as we know it. A few hundred years later another cult re-adapted itself to be Islam.

2. Different versions...read the dead sea scrolls. The same original stuff by the same writers as the OT, with other gospels; the great thing is that these documents is that they show the term 'son of god' was common in those days, as 'oh my god' is now.

3. Different translations because each translation loses some value of the original gospels. The translators apparently want to bring back the original tales because they think there are holes in the current editions so they translate and sell their versions.

^^

Idiotically deriding beliefs because it gives you a false sense of intellectual maturity does not constitute a rational argument, even if lobotomized masses are willing to be persuaded by the typicl "science has solved all" approach.

Because the unconfirmed christ has solved everything, right?

unriggable wrote:Because the unconfirmed christ has solved everything, right?

Not quite.

Christ offers perfection of Truth, since God is Truth. However as St. Paul explains, we see as if through a misted glass, that is, our imperfections do not allow us to see the truth.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:Because the unconfirmed christ has solved everything, right?

Not quite.

Christ offers perfection of Truth, since God is Truth. However as St. Paul explains, we see as if through a misted glass, that is, our imperfections do not allow us to see the truth.

How do you know your multiply-translated bible isn't glass covering the truth, and how can you be sure jesus even exists?

I can't be 100% sure, you're right. But you can't be about anything.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I can't be 100% sure, you're right. But you can't be about anything.

True, but to me Jesus isn't much more than this:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/wallchina.html

On June 25, 1899 a sensational story about the Great Wall of China appeared in three Denver newspapers. It said that the Chinese were going to tear the Great Wall down and build a road in its place, and that to complete this project they were taking bids from American firms.

The source for this information was said to be Frank C. Lewis, a Chicago engineer who was bidding for the job. From Denver the story made its way to Chicago and then to the East Coast where it appeared as front page news in numerous papers. However, not a word of the story was true. It had been created as a joke by three reporters working on separate Denver papers to spice up a slow news day.

The news was fairly quickly debunked, and the entire incident might have been remembered as nothing more than a minor media hoax. Except that the punchline was still to come, because many years later a rumor began to circulate concerning what happened when the news reached China. Supposedly the Chinese had been infuriated by the hoax and took up arms against Westerners in retaliation, thus starting the Boxer Rebellion. This rumor grew and grew until it reached the official status of fact. It proved to be (and continues to be) a popular morality tale told by preachers to their congregations in order to demonstrate the harmful consequences of lying.

But in actuality the Great Wall of China hoax had nothing to do with the Boxer Rebellion. The idea that it did has been traced to a 1939 article by Harry Lee Wilber that appeared in the North American Review. Apparently Wilber was guilty of that old journalistic strategy of taking a good story and improving it.

In which case I suggest you read "Who moved the Stone?" by Frank Morison.

Napoleon Ier wrote:In which case I suggest you read "Who moved the Stone?" by Frank Morison.

Isn't there a summary somewhere?

It's certainly an interesting read, I'll try and fin you a good summary.