What is to gain from ranking members?

At 4/5/09 12:51 PM, Patton3 wrote: Hey, Catz? Stay away from future speculation stuff. China as a topic is fine, so long as it is historical. As for ranking members...any ideas?

I was high as hell my bad.

Well, I would think that ranking members would allow for a little more organization. As for how we could make ranks, I would say rank from past to future, such as very new members as protazoa to Patton3, the leader, as... IDK, some important role in society today. Just a thought, though.

At 4/5/09 03:06 PM, Ninja-Without-Sight wrote: Well, I would think that ranking members would allow for a little more organization. As for how we could make ranks, I would say rank from past to future, such as very new members as protazoa to Patton3, the leader, as... IDK, some important role in society today. Just a thought, though.

Or maybe you could just make up cool-sounding meaningless ranks.
I call Spiderman.

At 4/5/09 03:03 PM, WildCatzTy wrote: I was high as hell my bad.

No one cares if you get stoned. Just don't post here stoned.

And that makes me of a new topic.
Does the current illegalization of pot relate to prohibition?

At 4/5/09 03:03 PM, WildCatzTy wrote: I was high as hell my bad.

No one cares if you get stoned. Just don't post here stoned.

And that makes me of a new topic.
Does the current illegalization of pot relate to prohibition?

Yeah, we don't really need ranks, noone is better or above anyone else(unless you spam).

If you don't mind, I'd like to expand it to be illegalization of drugs in general. Being that alcohol in general was banned, unless it was medicinal, and now drugs are banned in general, unless they are medicinal.
Anyway, The Noble Experiment and the Drug War share a lot of simialarities.
1. Both were pushed by religious and moral activists.
2. Both were very popular at first.
3. Both increased the value of the products they banned, and cut off all (legal) supplies.
4. Because of this huge potential for profit, and being illegal, gangs exploited them to make their money.
5. these gangs began to make huge sums of money, monopolizing the trade of the product, and killing anyone who got in their way.
6. Many people began using these products illegaly. especially young people, as a way of rebellion.
7. Gangs became enormously powerful, killing hundreds, even thousands.

One little difference.
1. We were smart enough to end Prohibition.

And now, I think we're going to see the drug war ended in the next decade.

I'd like to strike a note against that difference point, patton. While Prohibition was ended smartly, rthe drug war would be foolish to end. Why? Because, alchol can be consumed without immediate danger. Unless you intake dangerous amounts, you will not becom drunk or in fatal dangeer. No, it takes a great many drink to incur danger from alchol. Illegal drugs are different however. From the first "huff", a drug can kill you. They are incredibly addictive, destroy your brain with devastating efficiency, and ultimatel;y screw you over.

Whoops, I completly missed the point of the question :3

To redirect the conversation a tiny bit.
I was talking about pot specifically. Try to leave harder drugs out of this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you mean Neville Chamberlain, British PM prior to WWII, right?
Anyway, the appeasment policy in this time period probably looked good. The world was still weary from WWI, and Neville either never really saw the big picture of what Hitler was doing, or didn't want to achknowledge it. Judging from some quotes by him, such as when he said "They're merely moving into their own back garden" in response to Hitlers reoccupation of the Rhineland. I think he didn't see Hitler's actions as having any major effect. Even when Hitler went so far as to demand the Sudetenland.
By the way, thanks for bringing up a topic about Britain. Looking back, most topics have had to do with the United States.

Sorry I haven't answered, I've been busy lately.

And yes, Neville Chamberlain, the great Appeaser (Dunno about the Joseph Chamberlain, he was his Neville's father I'm sure).

Anyway, I would tend to agree here, I think many of the actions in appeasement were either due to Chamberlain supporting public opinion against another war or supporting the reindustrialising and building up of Germany. Many claim that action should have been used but it was impossible when you look at the circumstances (primarily economic troubles after 1929).

I'm not sure about the major effect though, I believe he did see Hitler's actions as provocative which is why I think he decided to sign the Polish Guarentee. Chamberlain did have limits, but he was willing to push them.

At 3/31/09 08:10 PM, Ninja-Without-Sight wrote: Personally, I think he made his decisions out of fear and ignorence. See, though WWI was only a short time ago, it was completly irrelevant. Germany was torn apart at the seams. When Hitler took over Austria, he shoulda been there.

This was pretty much inevitable after Versailles anyway. The Anschluss would have helped both countries survive an ongoing economic turmoil and Chamberlain would have had a hard time justifying his reasons against it. Not to mention Hitler created his own casus belli for occupying Austria, which was unknown (but I assume suspected) elsewhere.

Action could not have been taken anyway, as I said previously, financially the British Armed forces were in no shape to face up to Hitler.

But when he allowed the German navy and airforce to form, that was like a giant facepalm to Versailles and Locarno.

He had no choice but to allow it, when it was announced that rearming had gone on, the extent of the German army was unknown (infact it was much lower than anticpated). With the figures British intelligence was churning out, I don't think they would have stood much a chance in a war.

At 4/5/09 05:35 PM, aninjaman wrote: To redirect the conversation a tiny bit.
I was talking about pot specifically. Try to leave harder drugs out of this.

Why do u call it pot???? Thats Not a Term you would use when trying to make a point.. Humans have been consuming cannabis since prehistory,[5] although in the 20th century there was a rise in its use for recreational, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes. It is estimated that about four percent of the world's adult population (162 million) use cannabis annually and 0.6 percent (22.5 million) daily. Isnt That insane.

But U got to relize I can argue the con all day and the con and agru the pro all day.

The strongest argument for legalizing marijuana is for medical purposes. Marijuana can treat many patients with certain illnesses. Legalizing marijuana will make it easier for the patients to receive the drug and it will make it easier for scientist to study the drug further and confirm the drugs medicinal purposes.

Legalizing Marijuana means we can treat the problem of drug abuse as a medical problem not a criminal one.
The United States spends millions of dollars a year on to get drugs off the street. This could all turn into a profit...If Marijuana is legalized The U.S. can put tax on it and the revenues can be used for awareness of the drugs affects and treatment.
During the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's the Mafia could produce alcohol and had a considerable control over others who wanted it. The role that the Mafia played in the 1920's has transformed into the corner drug dealers and drug cartel of the 1990's.
Legalization will result in a decrease in deaths related to drug deals.
The government spends $8.26 million dollars a year to try to keep Marijuana off the street
Money spent on prohibition is an overwhelming figure that is not needed and is obviously accomplishing little.
1/6th of people in jail are in for non-violent marijuana offenses. Prisons are overcrowded and it cost a lot of money to keep a person in prison. Legalizing marijuana would make room for more violent offenders.
The money saved on law enforcement can turn into a profit or be used for treatment and education of the drugs effects.
Scientists have proved that marijuana is not a lethal drug.
A recent report states that approximately 57 million people in this country are addicted to cigarettes, 18 million are addicted to alcohol, and 10 million are abusing psychotherapeutic drugs
Everyday 1,000 people die from smoking related illnesses, 550 die from alcohol related accidents and diseases, and less than 20 die of drug related causes.
The record speaks for itself: American adolescents use marijuana twice as much as their counter parts in Holland where the drug is legal. Furthormore the only drug that causes traffic fatalities in and violence in Holland is the same one that causes these problems here--Alcohol

Btw this just turned into a debate club.

At 4/5/09 05:09 PM, Ninja-Without-Sight wrote: I'd like to strike a note against that difference point, patton. While Prohibition was ended smartly, rthe drug war would be foolish to end. Why? Because, alchol can be consumed without immediate danger. Unless you intake dangerous amounts, you will not becom drunk or in fatal dangeer. No, it takes a great many drink to incur danger from alchol. Illegal drugs are different however. From the first "huff", a drug can kill you. They are incredibly addictive, destroy your brain with devastating efficiency, and ultimatel;y screw you over.

Well, 2 things:
1. Pot really isn't that addictive. You get a bit of a buzz, your reactions slow down, and you think about weird shit.
2. They have harmful effects, i seriously doubt legalization would increase the number of users.

And in addition, most people don't advocate legalization of drugs so they can get them. Rather, it is to provide a legal avenue for their consumption and taxation. This, as opposed to having people fund gangs, cartels, and criminals in general who use any means necesary to produce and traffic the drugs. Killing anyone who stands in their way in the process.

Sounds a nice little club, may I have in ?

At 4/6/09 06:53 PM, Patton3 wrote: Well, 2 things:
1. Pot really isn't that addictive. You get a bit of a buzz, your reactions slow down, and you think about weird shit.

Of course pot isn't that bad. Ninja seemed to be talking about harder drugs like crack that can kill you.
Thats why I wanted to shift the focus away from legalizing all drugs.
Also I don't want a debate about legalization (there is already one of those, you know that) more comparing the prohibitions.

At 4/6/09 10:32 PM, aninjaman wrote:

Also I don't want a debate about legalization (there is already one of those, you know that) more comparing the prohibitions.

u want me to feed u soap to....

At 4/5/09 05:38 PM, Ledgey wrote:



And yes, Neville Chamberlain, the great Appeaser (Dunno about the Joseph Chamberlain, he was his Neville's father I'm sure).

A brief biography of Joseph Chamberlain. He was indeed Neville's father, He was also probably one of the worst British politicians to have ever lived.

At first a Liberal his views on Ireland and the Empire split the Liberal party (he headed the Liberal Unionist faction) nearly costing Gladstone (regarded as the greatest Prime Minister of the 19th century) an election. When the Conservatives came to power he became Imperial secretary, He then joined the Conservative party. Where he then caused a split in the Conservative party costing them the 1906 election by suggesting a reform of tariffs which if implemented would have led to a famine amongst the poor in Britain.

Anyway, I would tend to agree here, I think many of the actions in appeasement were either due to Chamberlain supporting public opinion against another war or supporting the reindustrialising and building up of Germany.

Actually by the Czechoslovak crisis he was fighting against public and parliamentary opinion. There were many polls being taken at the time with question like "in a conflict between a Communist state and a Fascist state which would you prefer to see winning?etc" and he only opened negotiations with the USSR because of parliamentary pressure.

Quite a few historians believe that his slavish loyalty to appeasement was due to losing his favourite cousin Norman in WW1.

And no one in Britain supported re-industrialisation of Germany because they were directly competing with British industries in world trade.

Many claim that action should have been used but it was impossible when you look at the circumstances (primarily economic troubles after 1929).

Actually military action was quite possible, a alliance between Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the USSR was quite possible as all those nations had invested interests in keeping Germany weak and were much stronger militarily and economically. Poland had already been in conflict with Germany during the Silesia crisis. And Mussolini had yet to ally with Hitler, in fact the British and French used Mussolini to get Hitler to negotiate at the Munich talks at the Sudetenland crisis.

I'm not sure about the major effect though, I believe he did see Hitler's actions as provocative which is why I think he decided to sign the Polish Guarentee. Chamberlain did have limits, but he was willing to push them.

Interestingly he never guaranteed Polish integrity, just independence which suggest that even by 1939 he was prepared to keep conceding to Hitler.

This was pretty much inevitable after Versailles anyway. The Anschluss would have helped both countries survive an ongoing economic turmoil and Chamberlain would have had a hard time justifying his reasons against it.

Actually Dolfuss the leader of Austria before Anschluss was planning on holding a plebiscite on unification with Germany which according to sources sent Hitler into a rage as the Nazi's believed they'd lose which would make attempts to turn it into a satellite state would be unjustifiable to the German people. The reason why he didn't was because of internal pressure by Austrian Nazi's and a lack of support from foreign powers.

Action could not have been taken anyway, as I said previously, financially the British Armed forces were in no shape to face up to Hitler.

The German financial situation in Germany was far worse then in Britain. By 1939 Germany was spending so much on armaments that they were running out of money. Some economic historians believe that the dire economic prospects in Germany was why the non Nazi Officer corp in Germany agreed to expansionism in the first place.

He had no choice but to allow it, when it was announced that rearming had gone on, the extent of the German army was unknown (infact it was much lower than anticpated). With the figures British intelligence was churning out, I don't think they would have stood much a chance in a war.

Actually the Admiralty new full well how extensive the German Naval expansion was going. They even new the exact sizes of the new Dreadnought class. The Anglo-German Naval agreement was a cash saving measure that led to the First Lord of the Admiralties dissolution with Chamberlain and his eventual resignation.

I think we may have exhausted the prohibition drug war, compare and contrast topic, correct me if I'm wrong. And I was looking around the forums and noticed the huge number of fans of war games, like call of duty. I think we can go in a couple directions with this:
1. Do you think war games show callousness to the brutality of war?
2. To what extent is war romanticized?

1. I would say that most players recognize that the games don't show anything of what war is really like. Yet, I think it shows some ingratitude to make a video game out of an actual war.

2. When most people think of war, they see the Marines raising the flag over Iwo Jima, the guns sending salvo upon salvo at the Normandy beaches, or victorious, but battered, soldiers smoking, against a background of destruction. What we don't think of, whether it is because we are not shown or because it is something humans would much prefer to forget, is the horrors of war. The ground, littered with entrails in the Falaise gap, where the roads were so slick with blood vehicles had no traction, the stench so awful, pilots of scout planes 300ft up would hurl. The sight of pigs feasting on the charred remains of a child, burnt to death by Napalm. The sight of hundreds of thousands of homeless Japanese, after the Tokyo fire bombing, which burnt miles upon miles of the slums to the ground, killings even more hundreds of thousands. The bloody remains of soldiers, after having their fox hole hit directly by artillery fire. Or, one that has haunted my cousin for over 40 years, holding your dying friend in your arms after he was hit by shrapnel. Calling for a medic as his brain matter leaked out of into his lap. Seeing the look on his face, or at least half of it, as he passed on. And then having to leave him on the battlefield, to charge at the enemy.
These are just some of the things in war we're not shown. I believe it is highly romanticized, that many are ignorant of the horrors of war. And that noone who has ever experienced combat can ever really understand.

At 4/6/09 08:30 PM, Skilla wrote: Sounds a nice little club, may I have in ?

Me too. I would love to join. Can I?

And as my first question (Sorry if it's already been asked):

Was America justified in entering the First World War?

At 4/9/09 03:16 PM, puddinN64 wrote:

At 4/6/09 08:30 PM, Skilla wrote: Sounds a nice little club, may I have in ?

Me too. I would love to join. Can I?

Yeah. Anyone who asks to join may. The only time you're excluded is if you have proven to make a nuisance of yourself time and again.

And as my first question (Sorry if it's already been asked):

Was America justified in entering the First World War?

Hasn't been asked, but let's save it for a little while (maybe a couple days), as it seems we have at least 3 or 4 other topics of discussion still active.

At 4/9/09 06:23 PM, Patton3 wrote:

Hasn't been asked, but let's save it for a little while (maybe a couple days), as it seems we have at least 3 or 4 other topics of discussion still active.

Oh, okay. I can dig it.

Hate to ask, but can you bring me up to speed on what we're all disscussing? Maybe a little synopsis on each thing?

At 4/9/09 08:57 PM, puddinN64 wrote:

At 4/9/09 06:23 PM, Patton3 wrote:

Hate to ask, but can you bring me up to speed on what we're all disscussing? Maybe a little synopsis on each thing?

1. Compare/Contrast prohibition and drug war.
2. Discuss aspects of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy.
3. Do war games show callousness?
-to what extent is war romanticized?

At 4/10/09 02:53 PM, Patton3 wrote:

1. Compare/Contrast prohibition and drug war.

Well, the question here, is wether or not there was a movement to ban drugs and then ask if it happened at one moment.

I say the two are unrelated because drugs never got a banning amendment.

Well, I think we can safely narrow our focus to our two most recently posed questions, eh? To reiterate:
1. Do war games, like Call of Duty, show callousness?
-To what extent is war romanticized?
2. Was America justified in entering the first world war?

War has always been romanticized. Don't blame Call Of Duty.
Think back to the times of the stories of King Arthur's knights.

At 4/15/09 06:38 PM, aninjaman wrote: War has always been romanticized. Don't blame Call Of Duty.
Think back to the times of the stories of King Arthur's knights.

I wasn't trying to imply that war video games are the first time in history war has been romanticized. I was just using that as a modern day example. And really, the question about war being romanticized was kind of a subtopic.

Sure its a subtopic but I started thinking about war being romanticized.
I think it occurs alot less today. Back in the days of WW2 before mass TV most war news was actually propaganda. All the movies about war showed heroes. But nowadays the reality of the Iraq war is shown. Its not shown as downright terrible but the war isn't romanticized either. If the government is making propaganda about the war then Im not seeing it.

At 4/15/09 07:32 PM, aninjaman wrote: Sure its a subtopic but I started thinking about war being romanticized.
I think it occurs alot less today. Back in the days of WW2 before mass TV most war news was actually propaganda. All the movies about war showed heroes. But nowadays the reality of the Iraq war is shown. Its not shown as downright terrible but the war isn't romanticized either. If the government is making propaganda about the war then Im not seeing it.

True, however along with it's being romanticized there are so many aspects of it we're not shown.

And on an unrelated topic, I recently got an assignment in European History:
List the top 25 most important people in European history. They must have been born in this time, so sorry, no Jesus.
Here's mine:
1. Johannes Guttenberg
2. Martin Luther
3. Galileo Galilei
4. Peter the Great
5. Napoleon I
6. V.I. Lenin
7. Hernando cortez
8. Petrarch
9. Christopher Columbus
10. Karl Marx
11. John Locke
12. Jean Jacques de Rouseau
13. Nicolo Machiavelli
14. Edmund Burke
15. Klemens von Metternich
16. Elizabeth I
17. Stalin
18. Isaac Newton
19. Adolf Hitler
20. Albert Einstein
21. King Louis XVI
22. Nicolas Copernicus
23. Adam Smith
24. Mary Wallstonecraft
25. Alexis de Tocqueville

Here's a few people who just missed the list by either space or time period, in no particular order.
Pope Innocent III
Jesus Christ
Well, I can't remember his name, but he moved the Papacy to Avingon
FDR
Winston Churchill

To name but a few.

I need help newgrounds, I need to do a report on the city of Constantinople and about it's city design while it was under roman control with pictures and such .

I need help finding pictures of roman ruins in Constantinople, I can't find anything.

Also any info I should put in would be greatly appreciated.

I'll do the report myself, don't worry.

I got this.
If that helps.

I'll give it a shot, mostly political and military leaders. I'm shortening it to 10 cause I don't have time, but I might adapt on it later. If I do, I'll choose more innovative people and scientists. I've added reasons too.

1. Winston Churchill - Great military and political leader. Led an influential life and fought for Britain in the first World War and led them in the Second. Wrote some of the best European literature too. Noted as being a key person in the formation of a federalist Europe.
2. Adolf Hitler - Obvious choice, started a war that shook Europe.
3. Napoleon I - Mainly because the Napoleonic Wars changed the whole situation in Europe.
4. Robert Schuman - French Foreign Secretary, deemed the father of modern Europe. Created the Coal and Steel community.
5. Josef Stalin - Led Russia through WW2 and start of the Cold War. Formed the Warsaw Pact in the Eastern Bloc.
6. Bismarck - Brought together the fractured German nations into a superstate.
7. Elizabeth I - Forged England into a great power, defeated the darn Spanish.
8. Chamberlain - Effectively implemented appeasement, resulted in the Second World War.
9. Charles De Gaulle - French resistance leader (and later, general arsehole). President of France twice, highly influential.
10. Karl Marx - Created a political ideology that has sparked wars and bloody revolutions. Very influential.

Woops. For the top 25 list above the time period is 1450-2005. As well, most of the old ruins of Roman times in Constantinople have been built over throughout the milenia. Obviously Byzantium destroyed some of the old temples, buildings and walls. I believe it was the fifth crusade that burnt it down, and obviously it has been modernized by the current Turkish government. As well, the Ottomans probably rebuilt the city during the period of urbanization, so it's going to be difficult to find pictures or sketches. I would recomend looking at Roman architecture in other, less destoyed areas of the fallen Roman Empire to get an idea of what the city would have looked like in Roman days. And at that, what time period of Rome? After all, Roman architecture changed and eveloped over the centuries.

oh, this club looks fun can I join? I love history, I just hope its not to euro-american or world war 2 based
also...

At 4/25/09 02:32 PM, Ledgey wrote: I'll give it a shot, mostly political and military leaders. I'm shortening it to 10 cause I don't have time, but I might adapt on it later. If I do, I'll choose more innovative people and scientists. I've added reasons too.

1. Winston Churchill - Great military and political leader. Led an influential life and fought for Britain in the first World War and led them in the Second. Wrote some of the best European literature too. Noted as being a key person in the formation of a federalist Europe.
2. Adolf Hitler - Obvious choice, started a war that shook Europe.
3. Napoleon I - Mainly because the Napoleonic Wars changed the whole situation in Europe.
4. Robert Schuman - French Foreign Secretary, deemed the father of modern Europe. Created the Coal and Steel community.
5. Josef Stalin - Led Russia through WW2 and start of the Cold War. Formed the Warsaw Pact in the Eastern Bloc.
6. Bismarck - Brought together the fractured German nations into a superstate.
7. Elizabeth I - Forged England into a great power, defeated the darn Spanish.
8. Chamberlain - Effectively implemented appeasement, resulted in the Second World War.
9. Charles De Gaulle - French resistance leader (and later, general arsehole). President of France twice, highly influential.
10. Karl Marx - Created a political ideology that has sparked wars and bloody revolutions. Very influential.

I dont think people should overlook charles the fifth since i would call him perhaps the most important ruler in europe ever, amongst other things he turned spain into a superpower, held back the turks, conquered the americas, diminished the power of the pope and it wa under him that protestantism flared up in germany and headed the counter reformation (btw sorry about the wikipedia link, i didnt have time to find anything better)