Titus Ultor
-
Posts
893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Titus Ultor
-
-
I've heard it said by someone in on the project (can't remember who) that the individual unit would be made more powerful, to avoid having to have trillions of crappy units to do the job of a few good ones. However, I hope that some attempt will be made to make it appear as it there is a large body of soldiers. Rise of Nations uses units that have three seperate persons, for instance. Tactics really suffer if manuevering is futile because of a lack of coalescent flanks and rear., both to defend and attack.
-
I believe that was in the time of the Roman Empire. And the Roman historians did, in fact, mention her specifically, implying that it was an uncommon thing from their perspective. Boudicca wasn't of a common stock of ancient female.
-
Personally, if someone is about to kill me, if I can, I'll kill him first. Now sure, I'll not purposely kill him if I can impale or disable him. That's how I view killing in war as justified. If my going to war can help protect the values and people that I love and support, I will promote them.
Turn the other cheek? Go the extra mile? If your values are Christian, than death should give you no fear. Life in an imitation of Christ is but a Segway to heaven. Human war over ideals is never condoned in the Bible. Examples of wars that are sanctioned are the Israelites various conquerings, slaughterings, and self-liberatings. But, then again, it was their Promised Land.
Perhaps killing your enemy in war for your nation is acceptable. But killing s is not. For instance, in Iraq, as that's the number that sticks in my head, anywhere from 15,000 to 100,000 non-combatants have been killed.
-
The Catholic (Counter) Reformation occured directly after the Protestant Reformation (an odd title, considering it was more of a revolution, but...) in the mid-16th century. You know, that Martin Luther chap. But Christianity had been widely spread before then.
Notice such large movements as the Crusades.
However, the point remains....Christianity has been called (by some historian) "Paganism with a veneer of Christianity".
-
The entire idea behind communism is that each person (men and women are completely equalized in every aspect) would work their hardest. For, if one worker works harder, he will benefit the society as a whole that much more. Inspiration by example is a powerful force. Do we, as social-capitalists, not revere our past heroes and value their achievements and values?
-
Maybe the topic of the original game is a bit out of your range, but you are forgetting the game with, perhaps, the most scenarios widely dispersed for it: Starcraft. Sure, it has no historical backround or anything...but the adaptability of the editor to make huge, and entertaining, RPGs that last for hours, or bloodbaths that last ten minutes is mostly unparalleled.
-
The direct rule of solely the "plebs" was more of a Leninist addition. The reason Communist regimes (the very term is somewhat paradoxial) have failed is that the leaders of each given revolution gave themselves a way to hold power, as in Lenin's 'vanguard'.
-
To say that Judaism is an older form of Christianity isn't quite true. That's roughly like saying that the Ford Focus is an older form of a Ford F-150. Which may seem odd, at first. But the religion of Judaism has progressed from its early roots to a much more modern one. While they both have the same roots in Old Testament scripture(the -T, if you will), the Torah and sects such as the Hassidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, and Kerbala(sp) has seperated the the new Judaism from the earlier form in many ways. How often do you see Jews sacrificing goats and doves?
-
This topic may become a bit explosive, due to the rather harsh anti-socialist and anti-communist educations ingrained in the minds of many, even those born after the fall of the Marxist-Leninist state of the U.S.S.R.; however, it may be enlightening.
I hold that an orthodox, Marxist revolution could have, at a certain point. brought about a true communist state. Especially if the orthodoxy is injected with a slight bit of opiate (religion). Before you exclaim "omgomgomgomg comunsm cn't worc", read some literature, as well as some history of lower class society during the Industrial Revolution (particuarly the 1860s-1890s). Of note are the Shakers, Harmony, and many other towns reaching populations of 30,000 under a Marx-esque system of equality and justice. Due to the socialization/modernization of society since that time, as well as the fact that the Soviet's general failure led to the impossibility of a popular Popular Front occuring, the Revolution will most likely not happen today, or any time in the next century, at least.
What are your opinions? Does the nature of man, given an option between wage-slavery and community, allow for utopia? Or is humanity doomed for its own greed and ineptitude?
Edit: I fixed some grammar.
-
It is not so much that Catholics are not considered Christians, it's that they are called Catholic to distinguish them from Protestants, who were the original "Christians" in the English colonies which later became the U.S.A. It is not that they are not considered to be a part of the Christian faith, it's simply in the seperation between the two.
The difference between the two is rather large: in nearly every area (save for the entire Jesus=Saviour thing, condemning and generally hating gays, and disliking Muslims), they have differing view points. Be it baptism, cantonism or many of the other Sacraments, there is at least a slight divergence in theology.
This, of course, brings us to an interesting point in the argument of the Ten Commandments. I believe (correctly) that one of the Commandments is "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images of God", or something not too dissimiliar. I'm all for not killing and stealing, but here's an interesting point. Catholics have many religious sculptures and crucifixes which are a focal point of many of their cathedrals. However, many Protestants(particularly the Evangelical section) feel that this is making graven images.
The seperation (even among the Christian majority that is America) does not end there. War is killing, no? But is it sinful? Some would say yes, many would say no.
Sure, the Commandments(most of them) are great standards to live by, but even the standard that they set is controversial. The Christians have more sects and offshoots than left wing politics do. Which interpretation is to be deigned as the honourable choice in the matter?
-
I was a staunch supporter of the Democratic ticket, but I still came across this realization as I heard of Kerry's concession: the man finally figured out how to shut up. After he lost, of course, but he finally learned to give up on something. Just a thought.
-
Nearly all of my information, including the 41% is based on the New York Times' article "Without a Doubt", an article about Bush's use of 'aith in exchange for rational (It's long, but a good article). I said "No, they're not all ex-drunks." It was a joke. But many born-agains believe that they were deeply in sin, and often were.
Moreover, I am a Christian, and I attend church three times a week. And when I said "or even an avatar", I meant that a smaller part of the 41% believed that. It's simple English. I said the standard view, "chosen by God", and then proceded to detail the other views.
Thirdly, the denotation of "liberal" is far different from its connotation. Liberal simply means something equivalent to "socialist". Open-mindedness is an extenstion, yes, but "liberal" covers a whole realm. Communists are very closed-minded, for instance, particularly when the bourgeoisie are involved.
-
George Orwell believed that we should use the more Germanic words, and phase out the foreign roots and languages as much as possible. I don't think that's correct, despite his fame. His works were never valued for literary value, but mainly for their thought-provokedness (Shakespeare got to make up words, so why can't I?).
It really depends on what mood you're trying to convey. Harsh Germanic words tend to convey edginess or anger, while softer Latin-Greek words convey a softer mood. Hitler sounded meaner than Mussoulini.
-
In America, we have an entire branch of government (judicial) devoted to interpreting the Constitution. Determining what the spirit of the Constitution is is crucial to the operation of government. It is, of course, an amendable document (Free Speech is an amendment, mind you), but a lot of reasons are needed for such a change. One of ours, in fact, was prefaced by a Civil War (the greatest number of American lives lost in war).
But the Founders are percieved as all-knowing, and the only reason to change them is that political pressures at the the time prevented a more free enviroment.
-
I'd have to disagree with Yiuel. Since the entire English language is a conglomerate of various roots to begin with, to claim that the language is borrowing from Latin, but not from Celtic or Germanic roots, is rather foolish. Latin phrases make you seem more intelligent, as Latin has been the lingua franca of intellectuals since 100 A.D., despite the fact that no nation holds Latin as their national language. Germanic and Celtic roots sound more harsh and brunt, and can, and often are seen as less sophisticated. Here are some examples:
Germanic/Celtic is to the left, and Latin/Greek is to the right.
Classy/Sophisticated
Stop/Cease
Intelligent/Smart
The list goes on. Thesarus
-
And, also, consider the source. That site clearly has a right-wing agenda, as evidenced by their myriad of other anti-Kerry articles. Of course the Kerry campaign didn't respond to the site. His words would only be twisted.
And the Communists were winning, anyway. We were losing ground, morale and soldiers. Kerry actually helped in saving further American damages. What has Vietnam done to us since then?
Also, it's on the freakin' internet. If you look around, even in this forum, you can find links to sites which claim that Idaho is a lie, and that the Earth is flat. And, amazingly, they have evidence for it. So it must be true, too. Obviously. If someone took the time to make a webpage on it, why would they lie?
Edit: Added last paragraph.
-
Our President states that what's wrong with Iraq is our 'television screens', showing us the news in Iraq. Apparently, seeing carnage and blood that we're causing doesn't help the fanatical war effort. That's why, as Klaas mentioned, a lot more news is seen in Europe than in the U.S., the starters and primary fighters in the war.
-
Even suppose that the government could endorse a religion. It would probably be Christianity. It practically already is, because the most candidates who get elected are Christians.
But suppose it's official. What branch would be supported?
Lutheran, Calvinist, Evangelical, Church of Christ, Catholic, Church of Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science or United Life? And that's only a partial list. Each one of those, except the last three, has a substantial hold of the American populace.
Seperation of Church and State must remain as long as there is diversity in this nation. Remember, people kill for religion.
-
To be frank, that phrase was not in any of our 'independence documents', unless you count Jefferson's private letters to Mormons. And, also, the Christians of which you are speaking are general the reputed "born-again"ers, who oft believe (except for the black urban congregations) that Bush II was not only chosen by God to fill that position, but also that he is the voice of God, or even an avatar of that diety. Scary, but true. Especially since 41% of Americans consider themselves Evangelical Christians (ex-drunks). No, they're not all ex-drunks. But our President (no, not the one that the people elected) is an ex-drunk.
When I started it, I didn't intend for this topic to be a religious-type debate. But as long as it remains semi-Constitutionally based, it's fine.
-
Marriage is not a "strictly religious thing". Nearly every civilisation developed some sort of marriage, and most religious practices around the act related to good luck for a long, healthy marriage, with many, many kids.
However, traditions do not have to stay true to their origins. For example, the electoral system of the U.S.A. was intended to enfranchise all voters, and today the opposite has been achieved, as proven by the 2000 Presidential election, partisan redistricting, and the fact that only a few "battleground states" see an actual election, and not just biased news about it.
-
You still have that Constitutional form? That's surprising.
Blame the United States public education system. I'm just lucky I learn outside of class.
-
Infallibility would definately be a negative. But the usefulness of the U.S. Constitution is that it's hard-as-heck to change, but if needed, it can still be amended (slavery, term limits, freedom of speech).
And the French Constitution isn't too dissimiliar from the U.S. Constitution, but they were based on the same sources (Locke-ian philosophy).
'Rising up against the government' died with the Civil War. It is an ideal that I believe should be resurrected, however. It's part of the Declaration of Independence, and it's how the nation was started. However, it is not a feasible option with military option.
I just don't wanna get shot because some guy wants his 'rights'.
-
I think that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of a 'well-regulated militia' to bear arms, such as the National Guard. The U.S.A. has a very large gun fatality rate. In 1995, the U.S. had over 15,000 handgun deaths, while Great Britain had less than fifty (FBI Stats).
And I agree. It is too simple of a solution. But I think the first step would be to actually protect the 'sanctity of marriage' by dropping the divorce rate. Interestingly enough, the 'religiously conservative' state of Tennessee has 76% divorce rate, while the much more liberal state of Connecticut has only a 33% rate, according to government statistics.
Edit: Added reply to Amish's statements.
-
It could be an optional feature that one could turn on and off. But it could have many uses for guarding your camps and city. Or even individual units (like workers) could have small torches that raised their LOS during night, if they didn't mind being seen easily at night.
Suggestions for 0 A.D.
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
All right. I just wanted to put more of a focus on just fundamentals than on all the frills that seem to have been grabbing attention lately.