Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[jalapeno_dude]

This thread has more than a hundred pages... isn't it time for Alternate History NESes thread #2?

 

[Dachs]

It probably won't catch on without das, NK, amon, or another "older" NESer starting the thread. It won't be a poll...etc...this thread has a lot of memories for me, at least. Ideas, etc.

 

[North King]

I can start it if need be. >_>

 

[silver 2039]

I think Xen is right, partially. The Chinese arent not able to form a perfect, stable democracy, but they have been so used to absolute, tyrannical rule that that transition to a free democracy might be very difficult without proper guidance and support, as one has to take into account the opinion of 1,300,000,000 people - with different groups vying for more representation/power. It could very well end up looking like Iraq, if the communist regime were suddenly to fall and the Chinese nation forced to turn to full democracy right away, but more likely it will end up in a situation similar to post-cold war Russia.

India has been managing to do it for the last 60 years. I don't see why China could'nt. In the most recent election we had a complelty eletronic voting eith a 80% voter turnout.

 

[das]

Okay, my person loathing for democracy aside...

Every true patriot is fond of whatever ideology (person, invention) that makes (or used to make) his country great. Xen's liking for democracy is understandable, thusly. But, for instance in China, democracy only was, historically, set up on a small island. China achieved its greatness under what I commonly describe as "divine monarchy". Also, it currently is doing quite well under a NEPist communism, which, taking into account Chinese specifics, is quite understandable. Much like Russia, China was, and still is, a predominantly-rural country. Democracy, meanwhile, is connected with urban civilization and mercantilism. Both of those things were never in particular developed in China, taking into account geographical specifics...

Incidentally, here in Russia democracy is yet to lead to anything good at all; instead atttempts at democracy constantly result in even more suffering for the masses. Socialism, when one considers it carefully, is much better suited for Russia, combined with an authoritarian regime (Russia always seems to fare comparatively well under those, as long as they are oppressive enough, and not getting too meek).

 

[Dachs]

Are we still using this, or will all activity switch to Xen's thread? There are no posts there as of right now...

 

[Toteone]

Das, I understand and agree with the idea that certain forms of rule are better suited to certain nations then other. This does not imply society can not be changed or that sacrificing the means for the goal is the right thing to do.

Oppressing the masses is always wrong and should never be done even if there is a greater good to be achieved through such a policy. There are such things as absolute moral values.

 

[das]

That's the problem - there are NO such things as absolute moral values. The more I hear of those, the less I believe in them, if that indeed is possible. The masses, generally, don't care much about political rights - at least, here. All revolutions that ever happened occured over matters of economy. Which is why an enlightened despotism with limited protectionism is a quite good and stable, nearly utopian, political system.

 

[Toteone]

always happy to discuss
I agree to disagree w/ you
...

Then how come every society has developed similiar codes of right and wrong independantly?
You are saying rampant murder sprees, rape, prostitution, alcoholism, divorce, theft and all other various sorts of crimes and sins aren't absolutely wrong, that they are simply inconvenient to the human race as a whole and therefore labelled as 'evil'.

I know an absolute moral value, it's from the bible. Love your enemies.
Practice this rule and it will give your life joy.

Economically-minded revolution occurs but I find it a very flawed theory to think that humans only kick up a major fuss about money. Even such an economically minded philosophy as communism bases itself on the basic human principle of sharing, it hates religion and espouses total equality for all. Clearly even communism extends its philosophic domain over more then economy. The Islamic Revolutions that are going on in certain Arab states; Osama Bin Laden and his vile followers fight for their religion, he was a playbow once but his people all eschew economic gain. Did the settlers leave for the USA simply to become rich? No, it was also to practice their religion freely! The Civil war may have involved a strong economic drive, but slavery was an equally important reason. To state that economy is the only reason a revolution ever occurs is like saying statecraft only involves economy or that NES'ing is 100% about applying economy to military.

I believe that mankind is sinful and can not achieve utopia on Earth. Democracy kicks ass because it balances power and allows everyone a say in important matters. Enlightened dictators however are but a flittering dream, where are we to find these infallible men? Surely we could procur a few whose conciences are clean, or perhaps mighty man with an enlightened man can wrestle the throne and place it unto his own head. What then? Shall he kill those who do not agree with him? What of worldly matters, he can fail like any other prince. If a country has an enlightened ruler, democratic or despotic, will it not fare well? What of his sons, and any royal father he might've had? Skills of rulership do not carry through birth, what of the people?

My mother is Chinese and I have some rudimentary knowledge of Chinese and Asian societies. From my perspective, our ancestors have suffered much under the iron heel of Kings and Emperors. Even those who were counted as enlightened were more often then not cruel dogpigs who were only counted as Gods but behaved like evil men. My kin certainly had to suffer under the jackboots of 'Great Leader Mao'.
So there have been a few Kings, a few Emperors, counted as divine they did a job as good as any other man. Perhaps this style of government suited the nation at the time and still does. But if their rule was good was it because they were in a dictatorship, no it's because they were good rulers who had the fortune of ruling. Like winning in the lottery.

I challenge you to find a concrete example of an enlightened ruler whose legacy has lasted longer then that of a democratically elected assembly whom did it without torturing his people although the latter is not a requirement.

 

[Toteone]

Wow... every time a debate turns to ethics and morales I spend too much time and return simply to edit. Is it a lack of self-control, faith or being hooked to the cyber? Hmmm, probably a mix. Time to return to the land of the living... ^_^

 

[alex994]

Did the settlers leave for the USA simply to become rich? No, it was also to practice their religion freely! The Civil war may have involved a strong economic drive, but slavery was an equally important reason.

Nonsense, the vast majority of people that came to the USA came for land and opportunites and they still do! Slavery was an economical issue before the Civil War, because without slavery the South's great wealth based on cotton would cease to exist.

My mother is Chinese and I have some rudimentary knowledge of Chinese and Asian societies. From my perspective, our ancestors have suffered much under the iron heel of Kings and Emperors. Even those who were counted as enlightened were more often then not cruel dogpigs who were only counted as Gods but behaved like evil men.

The "enlightened" Emperors were not "cruel" dogpigs who were counted as Gods. Hell, they weren't even considered Gods! Son of Heaven does not mean you're a deity and it's a title you can lose if you've lost the favor of Heaven! ! What you're saying is that the recognized great Emperors of Chinese History, Wu, Taizu, Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong were "evil" men? You can argue with das, but to bring China into this and slander it's long and ancient great historical rulers is nonsense! But i really doubt you've read a lot of Chinese history so it's excusable...

I challenge you to find a concrete example of an enlightened ruler whose legacy has lasted longer then that of a democratically elected assembly whom did it without torturing his people although the latter is not a requirement.

The problem is that enlightened rulers normally do not live past 100 which would prove difficult to last longer then democratically elected assemblies. However, i can name 3 that last around a hundred years : Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong. (never mind that after the last one died Qing China began declining, he was still great)

 

[Insane_Panda]

China China China. What of Napoleon? Granted, he killed millions in his wars of conquest, but everyone always ignores the Napoleonic code which he brought to many nations of Europe - a code which granted freedoms to many. Napoleon may have been a warmonger, but he was not the evil tyrant many make him out to be. Infact, IMHO he was quite enlightened compared to the other rulers of the day.

 

[alex994]

And before i forget, i give up trying to persuade Xen that democracy won't work in China for another 2-3 decades. Only time will prove us wrong

Also, it took taiwan over 30 years just for a small island to democratize.

 

[Xen]

That's the problem - there are NO such things as absolute moral values. The more I hear of those, the less I believe in them, if that indeed is possible.

The Absolute Good: That which is of direct benifit to the subject, and to subjects society, in an expanded form
The Absolute Evil: That which is of direct harm to the subject,and to subjects society, in an expanded form

Life, as you might notice, is a balencing act of these two often conflicting absolutes; if somthign is good for you, is is good for society around you; and if is not, is truelly "good" for you, or will it offer only a possible, or temperorary benifit while, in the long prooving to be a wrong choice for you. and likewise, is what is bad for you really, when reasoned and scaled agianst that which may occure under the alternative, or, rephrased, what is most likelly to occure when doing the alterntive that bad for you, when weighed agianst your own possibily actions, and thier own reprecussions for society around you?

The masses, generally, don't care much about political rights - at least, here. All revolutions that ever happened occured over matters of economy. Which is why an enlightened despotism with limited protectionism is a quite good and stable, nearly utopian, political system.

It is my firm hope that Russia's economy will boom in the near future, and that the main result of this is increased education for all people in Russia, which is the firm base for democratic rule.

 

[Xen]

The "enlightened" Emperors were not "cruel" dogpigs who were counted as Gods. Hell, they weren't even considered Gods! Son of Heaven does not mean you're a deity and it's a title you can lose if you've lost the favor of Heaven! ! What you're saying is that the recognized great Emperors of Chinese History, Wu, Taizu, Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong were "evil" men? You can argue with das, but to bring China into this and slander it's long and ancient great historical rulers is nonsense! But i really doubt you've read a lot of Chinese history so it's excusable...

I have news for you; every one EVERYONE has down points; and the high up the person, the greater and deeper and darker those pitfalls. that is a FACT of human nature; and no one, not even "ancient great historical rulers" are free of it- it is human nature to idolize things, objects, nations, people, all in accordence with what a person values- the trick is realizing weather or not what you idelaize is really worth idealizing at all. And no disrespect meant to ancietn chinese history alex- but ancient despots, good and bad arnt worth reverering- and that goes for everone from Emperor Augustus of Rome to your Wu of China.

look at thes epeople as men, that is what they were, that is all they will be- see them for thier good sides, and thier bad sides, and while soem may still be your ideal ruler, o rpolitican- dont fall intot he pit of reveraing them beyond all failing.

 

[alex994]

I have news for you; every one EVERYONE has down points; and the high up the person, the greater and deeper and darker those pitfalls. that is a FACT of human nature; and no one, not even "ancient great historical rulers" are free of it- it is human nature to idolize things, objects, nations, people, all in accordence with what a person values- the trick is realizing weather or not what you idelaize is really worth idealizing at all. And no disrespect meant to ancietn chinese history alex- but ancient despots, good and bad arnt worth reverering- and that goes for everone from Emperor Augustus of Rome to your Wu of China.

On the contrary, Wu's reign isn't all that great. Sure, he drove away the Huns but they were only replaced by more nomads. Nevermind the previous lines though, I don't "revere" ancient/modern Chinese/any other national rulers most people don't, simply respect. Though I do extremely respect their abilities to be in the history books....

I think you're being a little too i don't know... critical over a simple statement, sure I am one of the youngest nesers around doesn't mean I don't know a fig of human nature.

 

[Xen]

On the contrary, Wu's reign isn't all that great. Sure, he drove away the Huns but they were only replaced by more nomads. Nevermind the previous lines though, I don't "revere" ancient/modern Chinese/any other national rulers most people don't, simply respect. Though I do extremely respect their abilities to be in the history books....

it seems your "respect" is more or less devote reverence.

I think you're being a little too i don't know... critical over a simple statement, sure I am one of the youngest nesers around doesn't mean I don't know a fig of human nature.

no offence, but i belive you are over-estimateing your own knowledge in this particuler arena. I say what I say with the certianty I say it with because I have both experienced for self, thought for myself, but also learned from skilled and wonderful professors who have opend me to wonderous new paths of thought that have given me new insight onto the human animal, and its nature.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Vive L'Empereur.

 

[alex994]

it seems your "respect" is more or less devote reverence.

Let's see, I don't love them unquestioningly, or uncritically, I don't venerate them as an idol, and I don't consider them hallowed, or exalted, or people to be in awe of.

Nope, it's not reverence.

no offence, but i belive you are over-estimateing your own knowledge in this particuler arena. I say what I say with the certianty I say it with because I have both experienced for self, thought for myself, but also learned from skilled and wonderful professors who have opend me to wonderous new paths of thought that have given me new insight onto the human animal, and its nature.

*shrug* I know enough to know that I'm not "revering" dead Emperors or historical people. And hey, youth is blissful ignorance. I would care less if you say you know more knowledge compared to me, that's supposed to be a given, to compare them is impossible equally thus you'll automatically assume I'm overestimating my own ability.

And really, who gives you the right to judge what and who people can revere? I'm not going to argue any further, but I am assured you will say you didn't want to argue further but this post made you respond and etc

You, Xen, is after all a well reknown spammer of course who always wants to get the last word in

 

[Xen]

Let's see, I don't love them unquestioningly, or uncritically, I don't venerate them as an idol, and I don't consider them hallowed, or exalted, or people to be in awe of.

Nope, it's not reverence.

after this little snippet of diologue? No thank you, I dont fully buy your story.

Spoiler :

You can argue with das, but to bring China into this and slander it's long and ancient great historical rulers is nonsense! But i really doubt you've read a lot of Chinese history so it's excusable...

*shrug* I know enough to know that I'm not "revering" dead Emperors or historical people. And hey, youth is blissful ignorance. I would care less if you say you know more knowledge compared to me, that's supposed to be a given, to compare them is impossible equally thus you'll automatically assume I'm overestimating my own ability.

didnt say I knew more then you; only that my many tangents of thought on the subject are more reasoned; if that actually equates to it being true is anyones guess, for the moment, but I never never found my arguments on thinlly based thoughts, and what i say stands to reason as a very solid argument- even you have to admit that.

I say that you overestimate yourself precislly because you ARE young. I dont care if you have an IQ that dwarfs einstine; I dont care how long you might spend thinking or mulling over such subjec,t or how many wet dreams you might have over chinese dominateign the world; to know about life means you have experience life, and if your much younger then 18, then you just havent experienced enough to know much of anything, not for yourself at least.

And really, who gives you the right to judge what and who people can revere? I'm not going to argue any further, but I am assured you will say you didn't want to argue further but this post made you respond and etc

whats gives me the right? Nothing in particuler aside from good common sense.

You, Xen, is after all a well reknown spammer of course who always wants to get the last word in

it is always the last bastion fo soemone whom has lost all other credibility for thier argument to resort ot making an argument agianst the person whom they have lost