Planetarion Forums

Nusselt · 5 Jan 2003, 05:33

Is there something i can read about the similarities between nationalism and religious fanaticism???

and im just wondering here at 4.20 am, but is it fair to compare the 'islamic' civilisation to the 'western' civilisation as they are now, since one is based on the practices of religion, whereas the other has deviated into a more secular direction. ie wouldnt it be better to say that christianity was as cackhanded in ruling people as anyone, and that it was really the ability of the various states to form more secular/freer socities that led to the advancement of western nations???

and also could it be argued that the printing press allowed the west to even further develop since it allowed more extensive use of peer review and publication of scientific stuff compared to arabic scholars??

and why didnt the chinese ever invent guns?!?!??. i mean ffs you have this stuff that goes bang. And they make pretty fireworks out of it. My first thought would have been, how can i use this to take that wankers head off at 1/2 mile.

and the greeks and steam power. How in the name of zeus's arse can you use steam power to open massive temple doors, then not carry the idea through to a reciprocating engine??!?!?!

and another thing. Why did the egyptians et al use chariots?? why not invent a saddle?? its not that difficult is it?!??! they can make hughe fcuking pyramids but cant sit on a horse.

and just where did the aborigines in australia come from???

Nusselt · 5 Jan 2003, 05:37

oh and tell me the keyboard command to change font size

ta 'night

slick · 5 Jan 2003, 05:45

Quote:

and why didnt the chinese ever invent guns?!?!??. i mean ffs you have this stuff that goes bang. And they make pretty fireworks out of it. My first thought would have been, how can i use this to take that wankers head off at 1/2 mile.

firstly... the chinese made fireworks. yea. right. these were not invented until later on after the emporer was killed. it used to be used for rockets. yes rockets. big blowy - up things that give big hurt.

secondly. aborigionies. they came from india. they came over on the path that used to exist between india and australia. (look it up inb a book. it was there.)

W · 5 Jan 2003, 05:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
and another thing. Why did the egyptians et al use chariots?? why not invent a saddle?? its not that difficult is it?!??! they can make hughe fcuking pyramids but cant sit on a horse.

They had regular cavalry too, but it's kinda hard to aim an arrow or a javelin from the horseback.

Nodrog · 5 Jan 2003, 06:09

Its easy to spot things if you are an external observer who knows all the facts. There may well be 'obvious' technological advances that we havent yet made, that someone in the future could look back and "lol, look at them! they'd put a man on the moon, but they couldnt even manage to do XYZ? lol wtf??" or whatever. Because we have only seen one human race evolve (albeit in various cultures), we generally place technological advances on a linear scale (think civilization - first they develop X, and then Y follows). In truth however, all this scale represents is the order that we discovered things in. Theres no guarantee that the human race couldnt have discovered things in massively different orders, or that we 'should' have discovered things a lot earlier or whatever. Its hard to draw meaningful conclusions when you only have 1 instance of the thing (the development of an intelligent species) to work with. Also, technology is moved forward by individuals. A culture doesnt automatically advance its current level of technology/knowledge using mystical Hegelian magic. If no one individual 'genius' actually manages to develop a new invention/piece of knowledge, then the society isnt going to have it.

As to the Islamic thing - It depends what you mean by 'fair'. It would be perfectly fair to compare somewhere like Saudi Arabia to a Western nation and say that they are massively backwards and generalyl screwed up. However, you couldnt really draw a conclusion from this such as "Western culture has always been better than Islamic" or whatever. The West wasnt much better a few hundred years ago, they just managed to shrug off the retardness of having a religiously controlled state a bit earlier (although thats obviously a gross oversimplification).

Intervention · 5 Jan 2003, 13:42

Once again T'bolt, you've interested me.

Structural Integrity · 5 Jan 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
oh and tell me the keyboard command to change font size

ta 'night

ctrl+mousewheel

acropolis · 5 Jan 2003, 16:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt

and im just wondering here at 4.20 am, but is it fair to compare the 'islamic' civilisation to the 'western' civilisation as they are now, since one is based on the practices of religion, whereas the other has deviated into a more secular direction. ie wouldnt it be better to say that christianity was as cackhanded in ruling people as anyone, and that it was really the ability of the various states to form more secular/freer socities that led to the advancement of western nations???

and also could it be argued that the printing press allowed the west to even further develop since it allowed more extensive use of peer review and publication of scientific stuff compared to arabic scholars??

and just where did the aborigines in australia come from???

any government (ie theocracies) that allows its governors to claim that they are all in secret communication with the real ruler (who is all powerful and can kill you whenever he wants) and that He wants you to let me have sex with your daughter is going to turn all ****ed up automatically because of human nature. so yeah. under catholic rule, things sucked.

and i would agree that the printing press is the reason europe jumped way ahead of everyone. certainly the most significant invention ever, by far.

and as for aborigines, it seems that every island on the planet suitable for human habitation ended up with it. how did people get to hawaii is what i would be asking. apparently pre-civilization types were taking boats all over the place for thousands of years. supposedly all the native americans got here by the landbridge, but as people got hawaii people certainly would have made it to the america's land bridge or no. therefore some people did make it the america's by boat.

JonnyBGood · 5 Jan 2003, 16:52

I must admit I don't understand the point of this thread. In answer to the original question, yes they both have the similarity of promoting something irrational at the expense of everything else which might actually do something valuable for people. One a side-note I'd say the development of a more competitive civilisation in Western Europe would be due to climate and available land more than anything else.

Also you cannot mention the printing press and disregard the Ancient Greeks. What use would a printing press have been if all it did was print thousands of copies of the bible? The advantages we originally had and the differences between western european civilisation and others weren't really that big. It's just that once there was a difference it was rapidly exploited and grew exponentially!

Supernova9 · 5 Jan 2003, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
ctrl+mousewheel

Are we talking in Word?

If so, Ctrl+Shift+P = Set font size

Ctrl+[ or Ctrl+] = Decrease/Increase by 1pt respectively