What do you LEARN

[whitelaughter]

My point is not that you are wrong but that there were "serfs", and "serfs". In some countries they had more rights in some less, but still much more than slaves.

True enough. I was ignoring serfdom in the East because it was a comparatively late development; Russia in particular was trying to entice workers to emigrate for most of the Middle Ages.

 

[whitelaughter]

Sounds similar to the Union/Confederacy situation. When one region/segment of the population finds slavery not as profitable anymore, it sees no reason not to outlaw it and impose its will on other parts of the Empire. If we want to talk about sloppy reasoning, it is sloppy to not look at the underlying reasons for why people do things, and simply chalk it up to "oh they must just be a great leader" instead.

You DO realise that for those who DON'T own slaves, that slavery is extremely unprofitable. It eliminates many of the jobs that these non-slaveholders could be working. One example. Just sayin...

[sigh] What section of the British population was not making money from slavery?
Slavery made money for *everybody*. The more slaves in the New World, the more cotton, grain, flax and so on was created to feed the British mills. Everybody, rich or poor, benefited.
And no, I'm not saying that 'they must have a had a great leader' - I am saying that financial considerations were yelled down. People were not motivated by self-interest to do this.

At the moment? Massive human rights violations have never ceased. When was this golden age of human equality? Granted, the USA itself has seen a increase in human rights violations, but for many parts of the world it is just business as usual.

You're not even trying here. Here, case example might help - Laos. Reluctantly, they had been tolerating freedom of belief, because aid was dependent on it. Now that aid money is drying up, they've gone on a spree of arresting clergy, destroying temples, churches etc and punishing villages that celebrate religious festivals.
Now, what did the USA get out of tying aid money to human rights? Nothing. What did they get out of giving foreign aid in the first place? Nothing. The "it's all self-interest" argument just doesn't hold water.

 

[thegastation]

OY! I said slavery wasn't profitable with capitalism. Mercantilism is another story. What I'm more concerned with is that even though both of us more or less agree with the other's views, to an extent, (we have a fundamentaly different way of thinking, its surprising we've gotten this far) everyone's STILL arguing...over what? I'm starting to think that we have lost meaning of this debate and have simply started to prattle...AH MAN WE SHOULD GET INTO POLITICS!

-end of argument-

also I win.

 

[Mesodius]

[sigh] What section of the British population was not making money from slavery?
Slavery made money for *everybody*.

Slaves do not pay taxes, nor do slaves have money to buy consumer goods and contribute to the capitalist economy (excepting what little their masters allow them to have). Two examples. This is basic capitalism.

Now, what did the USA get out of tying aid money to human rights? Nothing. What did they get out of giving foreign aid in the first place? Nothing. The "it's all self-interest" argument just doesn't hold water.

Except when you consider that a stable country makes a far better trading partner and corporate investment than one that's in constant chaos.

I bet for every bit of anecdotal evidence you can think of and post here, if you look at the reasons WHY someone might do something, instead of just making assumptions, we wouldn't need to continue this. I'll have to go ahead and agree with Thegastation on this one, since it obviously isn't going anywhere,...

-end of argument-

 

[whitelaughter]

OY! I said slavery wasn't profitable with capitalism. Mercantilism is another story.

Distinction noted, however Mercantilism is a form of capitalism. The Slavery Abolition Act predates the rise of industrial capitalism, so how is it relevant?

What I'm more concerned with is that even though both of us more or less agree with the other's views, to an extent, (we have a fundamentaly different way of thinking, its surprising we've gotten this far) everyone's STILL arguing...over what? I'm starting to think that we have lost meaning of this debate and have simply started to prattle...AH MAN WE SHOULD GET INTO POLITICS!

No, no, I wouldn't wish that on you! On my worst enemy, sure, but save yourself! You're too young to devolve into a politician!

I argue for the joy of it, to clarify my thoughts, and get the occasional joy of learning something new.

also I win.

Sure - if you've had fun!

 

[whitelaughter]

Slaves do not pay taxes, nor do slaves have money to buy consumer goods and contribute to the capitalist economy (excepting what little their masters allow them to have). Two examples. This is basic capitalism.

Slaves would only pay taxes if they were in your country to begin with, so irrelevant for international matters.
Further, the money they're not being paid doesn't disappear - the owners have it.
There will actually be fewer consumer goods bought when slavery is abolished, as the ex-slaves will be poor and only buying cheap local goods (cheap overseas goods is a modern effect, that begins with the invention of the container ship) while the ex-owners have less money and so can't buy as many foreign imports.

Except when you consider that a stable country makes a far better trading partner and corporate investment than one that's in constant chaos.

Most stable countries in the world? Let's see - Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba...noticing a pattern here? Dictators are normally in power for life, so their nations are far more stable than those with pesky elections etc.

I bet for every bit of anecdotal evidence you can think of and post here, if you look at the reasons WHY someone might do something, instead of just making assumptions, we wouldn't need to continue this. I'll have to go ahead and agree with Thegastation on this one, since it obviously isn't going anywhere,...

You lose your bet......
but do try following your own advice!

 

[Mesodius]

Slaves would only pay taxes if they were in your country to begin with, so irrelevant for international matters.
Further, the money they're not being paid doesn't disappear - the owners have it.
There will actually be fewer consumer goods bought when slavery is abolished, as the ex-slaves will be poor and only buying cheap local goods (cheap overseas goods is a modern effect, that begins with the invention of the container ship) while the ex-owners have less money and so can't buy as many foreign imports.

Please study basic economics. So the slaves buying cheap local goods is better for the economy than them buying NO goods? Really? And yes, buying foreign goods is always better for the local economy . Oh yeah, the poor ex owners can't buy foreign goods now. They are bankrupt now because they have to pay someone a penny an hour now instead of having to feed, clothe, house, pay overseers, etc for slaves. You can't possibly believe this. Unless you lack basic knowledge of how an economy works, you must be trolling.

You lose your bet......
but do try following your own advice!

And yet for every bit of anecdotal advice you give, there is a pragmatic reason behind it. Pro-tip: Just because you say you won, doesn't make it so. Keep trolling if you want though. I must be really bored to keep replying.

 

[CyberDiablo]

Preverbs, emperor names, mottos, empires, city names etc...

 

[phoenix_sprite]

I've spent hours reading the Civopedia and I aced my history test of the ancient Levant when I was in 11th grade because of the accurate city locations in one of the scenarios.

 

[Mesodius]

Well, to be more on topic with the post... I've always loved history, and the only thing better than reading and learning about history is MAKING history, which is sort of what Civ is. The rise and fall of civilizations, the joy of discovering new technologies, cutthroat diplomacy, the exploration and colonization of new lands. Learning the names and cities of various civilizations aside, you learn a bit of the feeling of making the history yourself. I don't know about anyone else, but just the act of playing Civ has made me hit the history books harder, looking up info on this or that thing from the game. To actually interact with it makes it that much more interesting. I suppose what I mean to say is that while you can learn some things from Civ itself, it is also a catalyst for learning.

 

[Faramel]

I read the Civilopedia and I actually tought my teacher a few things.(I think that's been said to be one of the clues that you play Civ 4 too much.)

 

[Supr49er]

My kids also learned a surprising amount playing the Civ series.

Welcome to the Forums Faramel.

 

[JRedGiant]

* An awful lot of cool quotes
* That Leonard Nimoy sounds cooler than that other guy
* Various city names, leaders, etc....

Most importantly, the game has lead to me having a renewed interest in world history - the stories and conflicts and how they affected our world. I now know what the Franco-Prussian war was about, for example, and how it lead into the unification of Germany (in the 19th century, not post-Berlin Wall unification) which lead to World War I and so forth. While I didn't learn this from CivIV, the game was a catalyst to my interest in learning more.

 

[CHEESE!]

The main thing I learned from Civ was that it is not pronounced or spelled "Commerence"

 

[Airefuego]

Now, what did the USA get out of tying aid money to human rights? Nothing. What did they get out of giving foreign aid in the first place? Nothing. The "it's all self-interest" argument just doesn't hold water.

The US gains significantly from giving foreign aid and tying it to certain values:
- leverage and influence
- advantageous commercial access in comparison to other countries
- prestige in that country and the broader region
...and all via a relatively low-cost method

Put it in Civ terms. You are effectively paying someone to open borders and adopt your favourite civic. What do you get from it?
- positive relationship modifier
- extra trade route
- easier access for your spies

Also in real life (but not a coded feature of the AI in Civ IV AFAIK) other countries observe the benefits of playing nice with the USA, and may be more inclined to do so themselves.

 

[Airefuego]

...a stable country makes a far better trading partner and corporate investment than one that's in constant chaos.

Most stable countries in the world? Let's see - Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba...noticing a pattern here? Dictators are normally in power for life, so their nations are far more stable than those with pesky elections etc.

A stable trading partner is rarely a dictator. A dictator is much more likely to make unpredictable decisions, institute corruption, favouritism, nepotism and cronyism - or have the country change dramatically when the dicator dies or is overthrown. These risks make investors very nervous.

Stable does not mean the leader never changes. Stable means reliable institutions, courts and contract enforcement, good accountability, low corruption, and a smooth and predictable method of changing government.

This is why a stable and open country makes a far better trading partner and corporate investment than one that's in constant chaos - or one that's locked into a repressive police state.