Bar lounge

[Aivoturso]

@Sommers,

Look, sorry for calling you a troll, but much of your arguments have qualities that I usually associate with trolling. Can you tell me that why you mostly ignore the main points in the other peoples' messages and concentrate on attacking on single cherry picked sentences or even parts of sentences and trying to find in the messages a hidden agenda that just isn't there? Only reason I could come up with is that you are intentionally trying to get a rise out of the other discussers. Is it just that we are in so different wave length that you really don't see what my or 2metra's or Calis' real points are? Add to that the fact that you have not really stated either that how you define the greatest and then you debunked each of 2metra's examples of what could also be considered as greatest nations ever. And you even used different criteria for each nation. That is exactly the tactic you accused me of using (which I wasn't since I am not bent on debunking US even if you think I am). For these reasons and others it really seems to me that you are intentionally trying to get a rise out of other discussers.

Now I am also a bit hesitant to respond further as I'm not sure if this does any good. But here goes. Individual responses to your previous points:

1. I never said it is too dangerous to talk a topic of national pride. That is actually exactly the opposite I think. Only thing I am opposed to is the basic sentiment of really believing a nation is superior to others. That is what makes nasty business like wars and such possible. Believing that your country is better than others and is right in its cause. Discussing about the statistics that put the countries in different orders depending on the statistics picked is completely different thing. BTW, the actual rule about internet discussions is calledGodwin's law and in short it goes that when online discussion grows longer, probability of a comparison involving Nazi's and Hitler approaches 1. A point we yet to have reach even in this discussion.

2. See my previous answer.

3. Look, I do not imply that scientific approach is "the best". Science and law are completely different things and you have to use different rethoric in them. I am trying to tell that because of my background, I tend to think about things in certain ways, e.g. discussing about ill-defined parameters seems pointless to me. One lecturer I had actually used frequently a saying "Dung integrated is dung", which means that if you have crappy data to begin with, your results end up being crap no matter what sort of refinement you try to do for it. This is why I think that the whole concept of greatness is flawed and therefore only reason to use it is to boost national pride.

Oh, and I am not aiming to get last word. I just said that you don't win arguments by getting other people to give up because they are frustrated with you, didn't I? I just would like you to understand that when someone does not immediately agree that the US is the greatest nation ever, it could be also because they think that "the greatest" is meaningless parameter as there are so many ways to define it.

In conclusion, maybe in my last posts I have been nastier than necessary. Sorry about that. But I'd like to think that I am the best expert of what goes on inside my head and what my convictions are. So I may get a bit worked up when someone else claims to know that better. But don't worry, I don't feel insulted. I'm just annoyed. You'd have to attack way lower than you have to really insult me.

 

[dratboy]

If this was a real bar, and a bunch of civfanatics from different parts of the world were all sitting around getting drunk, wouldn't the conversation unfold exactly as it has already? I enjoy applying civ scores to the real world, actually. It's a decently aggregated and easy-to-understand frame of reference that we all share. Of course there's no real value to any of it, but I've been having a good time. As 2metra pointed out, the conversation has even warped into something far bigger and weirder than the very specific topic he first raised, just as it would at any pub.

Aivoturso, I've given more thought to the "American cities are too young" for culture victory argument and you are right, BUT, I think I solved it. You see, America only started existing (in civ terms) sometime just before the industrial age. before that, all of it's territory was controlled by the British. To save on the horrible maintenance fees, Britain formed a colony and took on America as a vassal. but then they demanded too many gpt for the tea resource and America rebelled and there was war. the war ended quickly and suddenly America is it's own civ, but one with decent population, an expansive leader in Washington and best of all, the great people points start at zero. so for the Americans, they are only getting into the game late, but with certain advantages. they can pump out GAs pretty quckly and for the entire game. they have access to many buildings and civics in the beginning that older civs did not, including running free speech, free religion and ... well I guess slavery is probably still there, but not for long! before you know it, America has ramped it's culture slider up and bam! culture victory by 1985.

But, I wouldn't use the term "greatest" to describe America. They just won the game, that's all.

It's all in good fun, folks! good fun...

On that note, Aivo, I believe mentioning Godwin's Law is actually fulfilling Godwin's law.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If this was a real bar, and a bunch of civfanatics from different parts of the world were all sitting around getting drunk, wouldn't the conversation unfold exactly as it has already?

Correct! Thank you!!! Right?!?! Exactly what I have been saying! This is just for fun, nothing to get, mad, annoyed, irritated, insulted, etc about sheesh

I enjoy applying civ scores to the real world, actually. It's a decently aggregated and easy-to-understand frame of reference that we all share. Of course there's no real value to any of it, but I've been having a good time.

Correct again (you're on-a-roll dratboy )! Civ scores are just as valid a category as any in this just-for-fun trivial debate... Especially since we all play and understand Civ... AND this is a Civ forum Its an excellent frame of reference. I mean, c'mon... saying "I don't want to compare things to Civ!" or "I don't consider Civ a valid parameter or frame of reference!" in a CIV forum is a little... ... you know.

On that note, Aivo, I believe mentioning Godwin's Law is actually fulfilling Godwin's law.

Correct again

HEEEEEE'S ONNNN FIIIIIRE!!!

(Technically, we actually already reached that point when Aivo said something about how 100 years ago the evil nationalists did this and that and then again 75 years ago)

 

[Sommerswerd]

Can you tell me that why you mostly ignore the main points in the other peoples' messages

I don't do this. I always try to respond to what appears to be the person's main point. If I have missed/ignored discussing or responding to your main point please remind me what it is, so I can respond.

Only reason I could come up with is that you are intentionally trying to get a rise out of the other discussers.

Now what are you doing here? I won't say it... you have already accused me of this, now here you are doing it again yourself.

Is it just that we are in so different wave length that you really don't see what my or 2metra's or Calis' real points are?

Now it is a little unfair for you to presume to speak for what 2metra or Calis main points/thoughts are when you are adamantly saying:

I'd like to think that I am the best expert of what goes on inside my head and what my convictions are. So I may get a bit worked up when someone else claims to know that better.

I am suggesting to you that it is hypocritical to purport to speak for Calis and 2metra thoughts while simultaneously lambasting anyone doing that to you.

Maybe you can just tell me your point, and let 2metra and Calis speak for themselves.

Add to that the fact that you have not really stated either that how you define the greatest

I have, its just that you reject the whole notion as "silly, pointless" etc... This is what I keep saying over and over. You can't state that you reject the possibility of defining parameters of greatness as "silly" etc and then ask for my parameters. I gave them to you and you mocked and dismissed them as "silly" etc, without any discussion as to why... They're just silly because you say they are I guess ... OK.

And you don't need to apologize to me, although I appreciate the sentiment. I am just having fun talking about this. I actually just moved to a new area and I haven't started working my new job yet (after working a job 7 days a week for years), so I have all day to fool around talking about this... So I'm just having a little fun.

 

[Aivoturso]

Aivoturso, I've given more thought to the "American cities are too young" for culture victory argument and you are right, BUT, I think I solved it. You see, America only started existing (in civ terms) sometime just before the industrial age. before that, all of it's territory was controlled by the British. To save on the horrible maintenance fees, Britain formed a colony and took on America as a vassal. but then they demanded too many gpt for the tea resource and America rebelled and there was war. the war ended quickly and suddenly America is it's own civ, but one with decent population, an expansive leader in Washington and best of all, the great people points start at zero. so for the Americans, they are only getting into the game late, but with certain advantages. they can pump out GAs pretty quckly and for the entire game. they have access to many buildings and civics in the beginning that older civs did not, including running free speech, free religion and ... well I guess slavery is probably still there, but not for long! before you know it, America has ramped it's culture slider up and bam! culture victory by 1985.

I'd have thought that USA has been running on with a very high science rate. I mean, they had everything expect Fusion already somewhere around 1980s. And don't forget that they have also spawned multiple other GP as well, like Nikolai Tesla (GS) and Wright brothers (GEs).

On that note, Aivo, I believe mentioning Godwin's Law is actually fulfilling Godwin's law.

Not in its original form, it doesn't. Mentioning Godwin's law does not compare anything or anyone to Hitler and Nazis, which is what the law originally was about. Of course if you expand the law to be about any reference to the dude and his posse, then mentioning the law will also trigger it as Godwin's law is a reference to them as well. But if you broaden the law so much, this is the problem you'll run into: http://xkcd.com/261/

 

[dratboy]

. But if you broaden the law so much, this is the problem you'll run into: http://xkcd.com/261/

 

[Aivoturso]

@Sommers, I did a quick review of the discussion so far and I honestly can't find a message where you mention what your criteria for greatness are. In fact I cannot even find a message where you explicitly state what you believe is the greatest nation, though I think I could make quite a good guess about that. Only thing I could find is this:

All those parameters are great ways to measure. I base my opinion on all those factors and more to reach an "overall greatest nation."

Plus a message where you say that Olympic gold medals could be added to the parameters for greatness. Does not really tell much to me unless you share the set of other parameters (on top of olympic medals and what I already mentioned) you are using

I don't do this. I always try to respond to what appears to be the person's main point. If I have missed/ignored discussing or responding to your main point please remind me what it is, so I can respond.

My main point is that greatness is very ill-defined quantity. There is no single way to calculate greatness. Thus any calculation trying to do that is arbitrary at best, at worst it is a purpose built to get the desired results. To which your response has mostly been that I just want to avoid the issue since I am a USA hater who just don't want to admit that USA is the greatest ever. What I would consider a proper response to this is either "Fair enough. It's completely subjective. Here are my subjective criteria why I think country X is the best." or "You are wrong. There actually is such an objective quantity as greatness. Here is why..." Either of those responses could bring the actual debate forward instead of us being locked in a meta argument about argumentation

Also, I'd like to hear why you dismiss my fears about spreading nationalistic sentiments as ridiculous. Though I gather that neither of us is in an influential governmental position, I believe it is opinion of the general populace who will matter more in the end. And that is something everyone of us has an impact on, albeit a small one.


BTW, you are right that I should not have mentioned you missing Calis' point. Especially since you have not really commented on his messages. But 2metra has already spoken for himself so I do not think it was totally unfair to bring up your answers to him:

ANd LOL, you twist in amazingly spectacular way a lot of the things I say. ANd it is really sad I have to say this, but sorry buddy, I really have no time and desire to answer all this I know you will feel disappointed, so am I feeling myself.

 

[YossarianLives]

 

[Sommerswerd]

Nowhere in that quote does 2metra say that I missed his point so I'm not sure why you quoted it. And I also respond diretly to one of his main points/issues after that so not sure where you're going trying to bring 2metra into it

Anyway I will respond to the rest after putting my little ones to bed

EDIT:LMAO @ above Yossa quote SOOOO appropriate right now!!!

 

[Caledorn]

LOL YossarianLives!

 

[Sommerswerd]

OK I'm back

What I would consider a proper response to this is either

Thanks for giving me the template for what I can say that you wont complain is "trolling" or "annoying you" or "trying to get a rise out of you"

1. I agree that measuring the greatness of a nation is highly subjective, but I still think that the USA is easily one of the greatest nations and here are my subjective criteria why.

a. As I have already said, since this is a Civ forum, we are all here to discuss Civ and all things Civ related, and since score in Civ is something we all understand I have observed that in scenarios based on the modern era, that include all the major nations... the US tends to have a very high, if not the highest score.

b. As I have already said, I regard the wealth and military strength of a nation to be good criteria of measuring the greatness of the nation because as 2metra pointed out in the discussion about medals and cavscout pointed out dicussing "bully power" Military might and financial power give a nation the ability to do everything else. As was observed by the villain in Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon "Value strength because strength is what makes all other values possible"


2. Additionally, there are objective ways to quantify greatness. Here are some:

c. As I have already said, I think a nation's athletic prowess is a good way to measure its greatness because atletic competition is one of the highest profile ways that nations can compete peacefully, and the comparisons are objective. The Olympics are the grand stage for global athletic competition, and the US dominates in the Olympics.

d. I also think that the geographic and biological diversity of the US is unparalleled on this planet. Almost every climate, and so many of the plants, animals, elements, and other resources are represented within the US borders

e. I also think that the racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity of the US is unmatched. That the US has so many representatives of so many different types of people, as many if not more than any other nation, I think that no nation better represents our planet's human diversity than does the USA.

d. Lastly, the US has become a hub of of the world relations, culture and economy. Los Angeles/Hollywood is the the entertainment capital of the World and Wall Street (New York) is the financial center. The global relations hub, the United Nations, is also in New York.

Also, I'd like to hear why you dismiss my fears about spreading nationalistic sentiments as ridiculous. Though I gather that neither of us is in an influential governmental position, I believe it is opinion of the general populace who will matter more in the end. And that is something everyone of us has an impact on, albeit a small one.

Before I respond I am tempted to ask for a template on what "you consider a proper response" so I dont get accused of saying nonsense to intentionally annoy or get a rise out of you (ie trolling) ... but what the hey... I'll risk it... and my response is this.

No one on this forum has any iota of impact whatsoever on bringing about the next World War/holocaust/genocide or anything else remotely like that... zero... none. I regard the whole line of argument to basically be pseudo-intellectual, politically correct baloney... essentially trying to appear aloof and enlightened by warning all us less intelligent/educated ones of the all the scary hidden dangers and boogeymen we are creating for ourselves without even knowing/realizing it .. [ghost voice] ooooohhh scarry [/ghost voice] I live in America, remember, I get enough fearmongering as it is, thanks

It reminds me of the politicians here who try to get soda banned because they think they are so smart that they need to remind the rest of us neanderthals how to take care of ourselves

Just because we play at running the world in a lovely game called "Civilization" does not mean we are actually running it, or that anything we say on this forum has any real world impact. We don't need to "watch our words" like real-life politicians and world leaders just because we play world leaders in this game and on this forum... Honestly, sometimes some of the sh!t I hear people say on these threads sounds like people are actually starting to think that they are real life UN ambassadors ... Aivo you really should join a diplogame, seriously. I think you would enjoy it immensely.

 

[dratboy]

Civ 5 Gold Edition (and I think all other civ stuff except the new expansion) is 75% off right now on "
Steam and for the next 6 hours. Just made it! the Steam Summer Sale rages on!

http://store.steampowered.com/sub/25544/?snr=1_7_15__13

 

[Magno_uy]

CivV KK

 

[Sommerswerd]

If they are selling the Gold edition then that means that Civ 6 is coming out soon

 

[Bowsling]

BtS came out in 2007, did it not? Civ5 was released in September 2010, three years later. The second expansion for Civ5 was just released, so we're probably only about halfway through the wait.

That is, if Civ 6 is even worth playing.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That is, if Civ 6 is even worth playing.

Don't say that!

I can dream can't I?

 

[dratboy]

That is, if Civ 6 is even worth playing.

tiles will be dodecagons.

 

[Magno_uy]

BTS is like an old prostitute... its will always be there waiting for you can back....

 

[YossarianLives]

Just in case anyone here wasn't already aware, Maga is organizing a PB over on RB that a lot of us are playing in. Here is the CFC post and the RB thread.

 

[classical_hero]

Maga, your PM box is full and I can't contact you.