Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

Another 500 years could also mean greatly increased population density and disease outbreaks naturally, which in turn means greater resistance to pathogens within the populace and ability to adapt to new diseases.

The native american didn't really have the useful animals needed to produce their own unintentional bio weapons, a city full of cows and pigs and horses shitting on the ground and living with humans is not only a city with a high calorie (and work!) density options but one that's basically assured to be a breeding ground for the most terrible of diseases. I don't think that 500 years was likely to have changed this. Mayyybe. Buffalo are sorta assholes, but man if they were domesticated I'm sure that we'd all be speaking Sioux.

[redwallzyl]

do note that Buffalo diseases wouldn't have helped much in being resistant to European diseases. the main effect would be a plague hitting the rest of the world. also their are good reasons many animals aren't domesticated. you cant just take any animal and domesticate it. only ones with certain mentalities and instincts will work. if it was possible and useful it was done already, excluding modern efforts aided by fancy new methods.

also please note the primitive->civilized model was thrown out more than a hundred years ago so don't use it. anthropology is really complex now.

[TempAcc]

It was rife with political turmoil tho, to the point cortez didn't have much of an issue getting several local allies to fight the core of the aztecs. Also I'm not sure I'd measure the strenght of a culture by how much people feel like they're a part of a state. I'd measure it by its ability to withstand the tide of change and contact with other cultures, specially those with greater military power or money. The roma, for example, still have their own culture and habits despite never having a state of their own, and the jews kept their cultural and spiritual identity strong for centuries despite not having an actual state of their own until recent times.

I feel the need to note here that measuring the "strength" of a culture by its cohesiveness was one of the major contributers for the rise of anti-Semitism in late 19th century Germany, since Jews were "strong" and thus threatening to the unity and strength of the German nation (and "Germanness"). The Irony being that it's not nearly so clear-cut, as the existence of Yiddish should illustrate. By contrast, I might point to Greek: it's widely considered to be incredibly important and influential by most of the region around and near them, and yet they are clearly influenced by their surroundings as much as they influenced them (including, of course, Rome; with the Greeks carrying the torch of Rome long after Rome itself ceased to do so).

A populist oportunist comming along and using them and their culture as a spacegoat for all problems (along with several other civilizations, cultures and several sects of a certain relijhun of pehss) in a time rife with national and international unrest does not take the merit away from the jews, me feels.

One could say jews are the perfect example of positive integration, as they became productive members of society and adapted pretty well to the local culture, without actualy sacrificing any of their native culture for it. I'd say the jews may be the most sucesful case of such a thing. If that isn't true cultural strenght, then I don't know what is.
Certainly nothing observed on scandinavia nowadays, lel.

[hector13]

Spacegoats ftw, man.

[Max™]

Spacegoat is amazing.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[TempAcc]

This is now the spacegoat thread

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Max™]

And lo, TempAcc doth accepteth the sins of autocorrect, and shouldereth the burden as spacegoat for all, uncaring what slings and arrows may fall upon their flesh, for keks were to be had, and keks there were, baa-aa-a-amen.

[Starver]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[misko27]

I'm not prepared to give up on this argument so easily, but if I'm outvoted I will respect the will of spacegoat. I'm no mainiac, after all, nor do I wish to be.

That said, I'll finish my point first: don't be so quick to take something neutral like "resistance to change" (your words) and call it "strength" or "merit" without actually making the case for doing so. I could just as easily call it "xenophobia" and "closed-mindedness."

[TempAcc]

Is one xenophobic for not throwing away one's culture while at the same time being a productive member of society and respecting another's culture?

Thats some sweet xephobia then. Sign me up for xenophobia.

[Neonivek]

Is one xenophobic for not throwing away one's culture while at the same time being a productive member of society and respecting another's culture?

Thats some sweet xephobia then. Sign me up for xenophobia.

What is throwing away your culture?

"OHH NO! we are eating Dumplings! Our culture is being ruined!"

Sounds like I am exaggerating... I wish I was...

[Criptfeind]

also their are good reasons many animals aren't domesticated.

Yeah. Like them being assholes.

[misko27]

Don't play games with my words Temp. I'm quoting you.

You said, and I quote, that a culture's "strength" is "resistance to change". Not "being a productive member of society and respecting culture". You said strength , without the qualifiers. Bearing in mind that strength is, by definition, a good thing, you quite clearly defined "resistance to change" as good in-and-of-itself. Here, the precise quote in case you've forgotten.

Also I'm not sure I'd measure the strenght of a culture by how much people feel like they're a part of a state. I'd measure it by its ability to withstand the tide of change and contact with other cultures, specially those with greater military power or money.

I ask, why should that be considered strength? Note that here you didn't say anything about "being productive and respecting other cultures", which I could argue with but that's unrelated to my point. You didn't say anything about productivity and open-mindedness. You said nothing about influence, or invention, secularity, history, tradition, or modernity, or anything else that people have argued to be "good things". You made this argument; are you walking it back now? I can see why you might.

But even if you do walk it back, I still want to ask: can you give us an example of a "weak" culture? Neo asks a great question, actually. What is throwing away your culture? Can you provide examples?

[Reelya]

Obamacare repeal on the way?

They're keeping the "don't discriminate against the sick" clause but removing the "everyone should have insurance" clause. I think this is a problem as far as actual insurance premiums go. Young single people are just going to not get insured, which is going to push up premiums on those who cannot afford to go without insurance - sick people and people with families. And that's going be even more of a disincentive for the "well" to get private insurance.

Spreading out the pool of insured people as big as possible dampens the already existing high medical cost inflation, which was actually lower than before Obamacare. The 20 year average inflation in medical costs is 3.7%, while it was 2.5% in 2014, 3.5% in 2015. So there's been no spike in medical costs above what normally happens anyway, in fact it's been lower than average.

Also boo to rolling back Medicaid, which is probably just about the most efficient system you guys have there.

EDIT: The idea of universal insurance mandates isn't just governments being busybodies, it's based on sound principles: if only the people who definitely need payouts get insurance then the whole insurance market falls apart. e.g. let's use the metaphor of fire insurance. If it's optional and you're not taking risk into account ("pre-existing medical conditions"), then people could effectively only sign up for fire insurance as soon as their house is actually on fire. That's the equivalent situation. And as a result, their fire premiums will be exactly the same as the actual amount that's needed to pay out, rendering the whole situation moot.

The "pre-existing medical conditions" clause pushes up the price of insurance, but it protects vast swathes of people who would otherwise languish in agony and/or die horrible deaths. The universal insurance mandate pushes down  the price of insurance, because it spreads out the costs to more people who aren't in immediate need of a payout. Expanding Medicaid also keeps the price down: because Medicaid is a competitor to the private firms and competition drives prices and overheads down.

They've basically removed the anti-inflationary aspects of Obamacare but kept the inflationary ones. I'm kind of wondering what the health providers actually think of Trump's plan.

[smjjames]

Another 500 years could also mean greatly increased population density and disease outbreaks naturally, which in turn means greater resistance to pathogens within the populace and ability to adapt to new diseases.

The native american didn't really have the useful animals needed to produce their own unintentional bio weapons, a city full of cows and pigs and horses shitting on the ground and living with humans is not only a city with a high calorie (and work!) density options but one that's basically assured to be a breeding ground for the most terrible of diseases. I don't think that 500 years was likely to have changed this. Mayyybe. Buffalo are sorta assholes, but man if they were domesticated I'm sure that we'd all be speaking Sioux.

They WOULD have had horses, if they hadn't extincted them. Yes, there were horses in the Americas before humans arrived. Though whether they had the mentality of Zebras (not domesticatable) or Prezwalski's (domesticatable) is unknown.