Zelda Universe Forums - Serious Discussion

Scientology: Truth in Freedom

LoZisEpic77 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:57:49 GMT

I am Scientologist, and I want to discuss this with the forum, as the other forums I have went to despise our beliefs. Here, I hope we can have a mutual discussion on our positive beliefs of Scientology. If I cannot post such a subject, my apologies.

So, to start off, why are you Scientology? How'd you find out about the truth?

Why do white people oppose the nationalism of minorities

Discussion — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:30:55 GMT

I consider myself a mexican nationalist. When I speak of power and echo similar sentiments popularized by organizations such as the black panther party, I am met with hostile comments and sheer disgust by my white neighbors.

The power structure of modern capitalist society has created the illusion that whites are needed, that they are an integral part of the organization of daily life. I do not believe this. I believe that via self-determination we are to choose and dictate our own future.

However, I don't mean to pigeonhole myself into a tight spot here, because I don't think nationalism is the sole answer. My nationalism is the direct consequence of being a socialist, and I feel that it is one of the greatest demands of socialism.

I just want to know why you white people be hatin'.

Legalization of Drugs: Where Do We Draw the Line?

Wolfen — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:35:47 GMT

Kind of a copy of Lehrans thread, but it is a little over a month old and I wanted to broaden the discussion beyond just weed.

When debating the legalization of marijuana, a lot of people like to use the argument of weed being less harmful or addictive than tobacco or alcohol. They also explain that weed is not chemically addictive, that no one has ever died of an overdose, and that the smoke is less harmful than cigarettes.

While this is open to speculation, it brings up the question of "why stop there?" If weed were to be legalized, what other drugs would be legalized? Shrooms? Ecstasy? LSD? What sort of criteria would we use?

Civil Disobedience: When is it Right to Break the Law?

Wolfen — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:59:07 GMT

Somewhat of a derivative from the marijuana thread, except I wanted to take a look at civil disobedience outside of the spectrum of just drug use.

In 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat. As she was arrested, she asked the police officer "Why do you always push us around?" His response: "I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."

Civil Rights can't be compared to drug use, but that is not the focus of this thread. My focus is on the officer's reply. We tend to see the law as being something you don't question, but in Rosa Parks' case, she fought the law because it was the right thing to do.

With drug use, it is not a matter of morals. When someone does illegal drugs, they (may) do it because they do not believe the drug should be illegal. In the other thread, I kept on being told I shouldn't smoke weed because it was illegal, and I explained that I understood its legality and would accept the consequences if caught with it. Another user then replied that you can't buy permission to break the law.

And I agree.

So let me ask you all. Do you think there are situations where it is okay to break the law? If so, then isn't that taking the law into your own hands and changing it to fit your needs? Or do you believe that the law is something you should always uphold?

Discuss! :scholar:

Political Party Support.

The-Rotinaj — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:45:38 GMT

So, as the name suggests, which political party (if any (in Britain)) do you support?

Now, I'm not really into politics, but Labour have my support. I'm sure most of you know what the Conservatives were like when they were in!! And despite the credit crunch, think of the things Labour have done to our country - hospital waiting lists have lowered, the minimum wage has increased, the winter-fuel allowence, etc.

No doubt some will agree and others disagree.

So, what about anybody else?

The Secret

bolero_of_fire — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:54:15 GMT

"The Secret reveals the most powerful law in the universe. The knowledge of this law has run like a golden thread through the lives and the teachings of all the prophets, seers, sages and saviors in the world's history, and through the lives of all truly great men and women. All that they have ever accomplished or attained has been done in full accordance with this most powerful law.

Without exception, every human being has the ability to transform any weakness or suffering into strength, power, perfect peace, health, and abundance........

The Secret reveals the natural law that is governing all lives. By applying the knowledge of this law, you can change every aspect of your life.

This is the secret to prosperity, health, relationships and happiness. This is the secret to life." - Thesecret.tv

The secret is based off the law of attraction. This states that what you think about will come about. All you really have to do is believe.

For more information about this topic read "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrne or
"The Secret to Teen Power" by Paul Harrington

The Ontological Beauty of Beethoven's Later Works

Mooncalf — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:17:01 GMT

Introduction:

My recent aberration from the music world is mostly due to music theorists, and here's why.

They look at music that has already been written, come up with some fancy mathematical formula that accurately reflects the notes on a page of one specific piece that are mere vague representations of what is actually in a composers head, then they secretly pretend to be a music critic and say "oh this piece is the new cool". Then, composers start magically popping up that sort-of fit the theories expounded by the instrumentally inept, then said inept persons write another treatise explaining how those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Wtf.

It's called trend setting. They mathematically romanticized one of the most organic mediums of art and suddenly it just seemed like a good idea to the other composers who were perhaps a bit self-conscious about their own writings.

Now there's these musical historians that have taken the time to try and replicate the "true baroque sound", which is an admiral feat, albeit it will be impossible to ever find out unless Einstein magically re-appears in his time machine ship boasting a host of 13 mildly confused musicians from the 1600's. Teachers in the classical world then get caught up in the pedagogy of music historians and try to tell students, "no, it goes this way." when, in fact, they have no ****ing clue how it actually went and forgot how to interpret things from an individualistic perspective eon's ago.

(there are contradictions hidden in there. cookie to whoever finds them.)

Then there's Beethoven:

Having been blessed by the irony of fate, he went deaf and began banging notes with his skull glued to the side of a broken keyboard.

No longer was his mind polluted by the scratchings of mediocre musicians. His ears were thrust into alienation and isolation, empirically removed from the real world and forced to muse with the notes in his head. Thus what popped out later in his life was less a reflection of the real world and more a compilation of himself (in the form of sheet-music of course), proving Plato to be less "correct" and Nietzsche to me more "correct".

Thus, no one can logically tell musicians how the late Beethoven string quartets "should" have sounded unless they claim to be able to read the minds of the dead composers.

....Discuss?

Health Care Bill Passes

Twilight King — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:27:12 GMT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

What will come of this (hopefully good stuff)? What are your thoughts?

Your stance on piracy

attackʞɔɐʇʇɐ — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:09:57 GMT

Forgive me if this isn't exactly SD material. Also, please note I am not asking for downloads or anything, so I'm in full accordance with the forum rules.

Anyway, I would like to hear your stance on piracy of copyrighted material (be it music, movies, games, etc.). Should we make more attempt to stop, and if so, how? I'd also like to know if you think piracy is ok in some circumstance, and what circumstance they are.

Anyway, for my personal spin: While I occasionally download music or game illegally, I as a principal try to avoid pirating as much as possible. I only download music illegally when there is absolutely no way to legally obtain it (for example, game soundtracks that were never released on CD). I only download roms from games that are no longer in production and that nobody is making money off anymore. I never download movies.

As far as prevention goes; I really think we should try harder, especially with movies. I often see people who have home copies of films that are still in theaters; hell, I even saw somebody trying to sell a copy of Zombieland in my school halls the other day.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

Capitalism vs Socialism in the U.S.

Mooncalf — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:14:09 GMT

They are not mutually exclusive.

China is making controlled capitalism work, albeit with an iron grip that is suffocating human rights, freedom of speech, and at the destruction of their ecosystem.

They need not be forced to work together either since they don't seem to be mutually inclusive just yet due to the constantly changing variables known as human nature, moral strife, conquest, war, neighborly conflict, and fear of mutually assured destruction.

Either people will be willing to let go of their outdated views on economic philosophy and realize that the problem is not in-fact the economic infrastructure but rather the people hiding in the shadows of unchecked power (i.e goldman sachs).

Having said that, it seems that the easiest quick fix would be to embrace a more socialized system in the "real word" while leaving the internet economy an unchecked lasses-fair system.

That's not going to happen over night however. Obama is doing the most that he can with the power that has been granted to him, but internet economy regulation seems to be left to individual states if my observations are correct (which is appropriate in a nation that still seems to harbor anti-federalist sentiments).

Having said all that: I'm hopeful that the two systems will learn to live together without unnecessary force from either easily antagonized anarchists or a strong armed political machine.

What to you guys think will happen?

Fort Hood Shooting

Astarael — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:42:29 GMT

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Army-base.html

Quote:

A US army officer called Major Malik Nadal Hasan has been named as the man responsible for killing 13 people and injuring 30 more in a mass shooting at a Texas military base.
By Nick Allen, in Los Angeles
---

Major Hasan, a military psychiatrist who had allegedly called for Muslims to attack Americans over the Iraq war, is critically ill and under guard in hospital.

The authorities initially believed he had been killed in the ensuing gun battle with police but it later emerged he was still alive despite being shot four times in the incident at Fort Hood base, the largest American military installation in the world.

The serviceman was about to be posted to either Iraq or Afghanistan and argued regularly against the wars, it has been claimed.

Hasan, armed with two handguns, walked into a training centre and opened fire on fellow soldiers who were having last-minute medical check-ups before being deployed to Afghanistan. Thirteen were killed and 30 injured.

However, there were suggestions that some of the dead might have been shot by the authorities in their attempt to stop the gunman.

Hasan is now under guard in hospital where he is unconscious and on a ventilator.

Hasan, a Muslim by birth, was born in Virginia, and his family is believed to have come from Jordan.

A former colleague, Col Terry Lee, said Hasan had fallen out with other soldiers on the base. He claimed that Hasan said he was �happy� when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June.

However, Hasan�s cousin said that he had been the victim of harassment but had never expressed violent sentiments.

�He never went to Iraq. He was dealing with people coming back, trying to help them with their trauma,� Nader Hasan said. �He was just normal, loved sports, never got into trouble.� He said his family was �shocked and baffled� by the incident.

Ten of the victims were soldiers and one was a civilian police officer. The identities of the other two are not known.

Earlier, gunfire erupted around the base as two men, thought to have been accomplices, were captured. Police feared there may have been more than one gunman but the two soldiers were later released.

More than 500 soldiers were deployed to lock down Fort Hood as helicopters hovered overhead. Lt Gen Bob Cone, the base�s commander, said: �It has been a terrible tragedy, it�s stunning.

�Soldiers, family members and the civilians that work here are absolutely devastated.

�The shooter was killed. He was a soldier. There were eyewitness accounts that there may have been more than one shooter.�

The shootings took place in the 'soldier readiness center', a former sports dome, where soldiers are sent for final checks before being sent overseas. As well as soldiers about to be deployed, those returning and undergoing medical screening would have been there.

The attack happened shortly before a graduation ceremony for soldiers was due to start at the base.

President Barack Obama, speaking from Washington, described the attack as a �horrific outburst of violence.�

He said: �These are men and women who have made the selfless and courageous decision to risk, and at times, give their lives to protect us. It�s difficult enough when we lose these brave men and women overseas. It is horrifying when we lose them on American soil.�

Officials are examining the possibility that some casualties may have been victims of "friendly fire" according to a senior US official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Hasan had transferred to Fort Hood in July from Walter Reed Medical Center, where he received a poor performance evaluation, according to an official who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said generals at Fort Hood told her that Hasan was about to deploy overseas. Retired Col Terry Lee, who said he had worked with Hasan, told Fox News he was being sent to Afghanistan.

Fort Hood is one of America�s most important bases for training its forces and tens of thousands of soldiers go through every year.

It covers an area of 340 sq miles near Killeen, some 50 miles from Waco, Texas. There are up to 65,000 people, including military families, on the site at any one time.

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said: �Our dedicated military personnel have sacrificed so much in service to our country and it sickens me that the men and women of Fort Hood have been subjected to this senseless, random violence.�

John Carter, a local Republican congressman, said: �I had a man on the scene, who is the former chaplain at Fort Hood. He was waiting to go to a graduation ceremony when a soldier came running up to him saying somebody was shooting. He heard small arms and rifle fire.�

Fort Hood has also been working to rehabilitate many soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, Mr Carter said.

Base commanders and the Pentagon said they had no early indication of a motive for the shootings.

The base has seen other violence in recent years. In September last year a 21-year-old 1st Cavalry Division soldier shot dead his lieutenant and then killed himself.

Five American soldiers also died in Baghdad earlier this year in a shooting by one of their comrades at a combat stress clinic. It had been set up following criticism that the US military had not done enough to treat soldiers who had undergone repeated tours of duty.

Fort Hood is close to the site of one of the worst mass shootings in American history. On October 16, 1991, George Hennard smashed his pickup truck through a window of Luby's Cafeteria window in Killeen, Texas, and fired on the lunchtime crowd with a high-powered pistol, killing 22 people and wounding at least 20 others.

Terrible news.
Kind of ironic that he happened to be a psychiatrist.

Joe Arpaio must be destroyed

Captain Cornflake — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:34:51 GMT

This was a topic on another board I go to, and we discussed it in IRC awhile back. Now I'm copypasting it here. Have fun, kids.

Quote:

Joe Arpaio is a disgusting piece of **** who rules over the largest county of Arizona. In the American media, he is considered a hero who is TOUGH ON CRIME. In reality, Joe Arpaio is almost a feudal warlord, oppressing those in his fiefdom with brutality. He has a little tank that costs taxpayers millions, and sees no problem with burning down someone's house because he does not like them. If you are imprisoned in Maricopa County and have some sort of medical problem, you will very likely die, even if you are only staying for a night.

Arpaio's most well-known achievement is the venerable TENT CITY. The American media enjoys mocking those imprisoned there, being made to wear layers of pink clothing in the baking sun. This fits with the psychotic American belief that criminals must be punished, rather than rehabilitated.

What they do not tell you is that Arpaio does not operate an actual prison, where criminals go. He runs a jail, which you might not be aware of, is host to people who are awaiting trial, and those who have committed very minor offences. Joe Arpaio, then, is doing these things to people who have not been proven guilty in a court of law.

You should read this <---------------- read it

It documents in full how disgusting this man is. Here are some excerpts:

He'll kill your dog and burn your house down if you get in his way (while simultaneously crushing your neighbor's car with an armored personnel carrier).

Your tent-mates are the least of your worries, however. Joe will beat you death even if you're blind (and destroy evidence in a cover-up attempt), although to be fair to Joe he really only beat that guy partway to death- he only died after being left unattended in a cell for 6 days from the perforated intestine and broken neck he got from the beating- last time he gets picked up for shoplifting.

Don't count on a wheelchair earning you any sympathy from America's Toughest Sheriff, either. If you go to jail as a paraplegic on a 1-gram marijuana possession charge and ask for a catheter to piss in, you might just leave as a quadruplegic after you get a 6-hour ride in a restraint chair followed by a guard breaking your neck.

Mentally-handicapped? Too bad, you might get killed in the chair too- on a loitering charge.

Hope you don't have diabetes, cause you might not get insulin even if you go and die on him, like Deborah did.

My next Arpaio fun fact really stretches the imagination. He staged his own assassination attempt, involving blowing up his personal $70,000 armored vehicle with a pipe bomb. He created an elaborate sting culminating in a televised arrest of the "assassin," who was quickly released when courts saw that he had been entrapped and most of the plot was in fact fabricated by Arpaio.

Joe brags on TV that he only spends 40 cents a day on each inmate, and it's true; but only because in Arizona when you go to jail you have to pay the government $70 in rent for each day you spend in there. This is in addition to "fees & surcharges," and in addition to any fines or restitution.

You have to pay $70 a day to go to jail in Arizona.

Joe Arpaio's jail does not meet federal standards for accreditation by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. His NCCHC accreditation was revoked, which means that he is operating his jail in violation of state law and health department guidelines. Arizona does not provide a remedy or punishment if and when these laws are broken, so Joe just gets away with it.

Read the whole ****ing thing instead of just what I quoted here. You must be fully aware how horrible Joe Arpaio is.

It is not enough that he is killed. He has many cronies who can simply take over for him. The whole lot of them must be rounded up and driven into the sea.

A couple of links are broken I think, but that's more reason for you to actually look this **** up rather than take what is said here at face value. Seriously, read up.

Also, don't expect the local media to pick up any stories, such as the Arizona Republic, where Arpaio's son-in-law works on the editorial team to make sure potentially harmful stories get buried or discarded altogether.

Money and Social Divide

The Sword Guy — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:56:54 GMT

This is my first thread in this section, so here goes:

Do you think money as a measure of your social standing is still present in society? I think it is, even if people won't admit it.

I go to a grammar (selective) school, so most of the people who go there are pretty rich. The school itself is in a pretty rich area far from the city. It seems to me that people who live in poorer areas are the butt of jokes and seem to be mistrusted by a few of the richer people.

For example, I have heard several people (both teachers and students) say how people who live in flats and on council estates (the equivalent of you Americans) are a dangerous bunch of drug dealing yobs who will knife you for no reason. As someone who lives in a flat in a not-so-nice area, it saddens me to see how people can be so prejudiced.

I'm not saying all rich people are like that; indeed, some of my best friends are very well-off. I'm just asking, do you think money is still a divide among people?

United States of America Still a Nation of Conservatives

Black_Mamba — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:27:27 GMT

First, Republicans swept a series of elections last night . . .

As I am ignorant to the specific players and circumstances of these races, I won't say too much about them, aside from saying that this is a bad sign for President Obama. They are being interpreted--by those eager to do so--as a referendum against the president. Whether or not these races are indicative of a larger trend remains to be seen, but it cannot be promising that the democrats lost the governorship of solidly blue New Jersey.

What I'm more concerned about is this:

Maine Overturns Same-Sex Marriage

For me, the most disturbing fact from that article is that out of 31 states that have had a popular vote on the issue, not ONE has voted in favor of gay marriage.*

I've long held that gay marriage is a rather trivial issue in itself, but strongly reflective of a deeper cultural divide.

From my standpoint, the perspective of hate, ignorance, and superstition is clearly winning the "culture wars" in America. At the center of this--let's be clear--is religion. That's why I am hostile towards religion, even "moderate" religion. Rationalists cannot remain idle and indifferent if they hope to preserve a secular society. Christians will never stop their "missions", which means rationalists cannot either. They must engage them in discussions and confront them politically. And they must do a better job of making their voice heard.
__________________________________________________ _

*I spoke with my fairly conservative grandma shortly after same-sex marriage became legal in Iowa. She was obviously disappointed and wished the state would simply give the citizens a chance to vote. That's the only "fair" thing to do, right? Sounds reasonable, until you consider the days of slavery and legalized segregation. How barbaric would it be to have a popular vote on these matters? It is not much less so with same-sex marriage. As they did with slavery, the federal government needs to realize that the doctrine "majority rules" is sometimes broken. There needs to be federal protection of same sex marriage

Women in the Military

Ysionris — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:28:44 GMT

I've brought this up in the feminism debate topic earlier, but I thought this could be a separate debate topic on its own.

All across the world, the military forces of developed nations - and even some developing nations - are beginning to incorporate women into their armed forces. On the other hand, most of these roles occupied by women are far from the frontlines, and women are encouraged to take on support roles rather than frontline combat roles. The question, of course, therefore, is how you feel about women in the armed forces, and what you think about the decision of the armed forces across many countries keeping women away from the frontlines.

Please forgive my copy and paste. ^_^;

Quote:

This brings me to a topic that a friend of mine in the United States Navy and I were talking about before. The United States armed forces has a policy of keeping women out of frontline combat where the action would be heavy, and there would be a lot of bullets flying about. But consider this hypothetical situation: A female non-commissioned officer of the United States Army is captured by terrorists in Afghanistan demanding a ransom; to show they are serious, they release a video tape to the press showing the woman being raped. At the same time, a male non-commissioned officer of the United States Army is captured by terrorists many miles away in Iraq, who also demand a ransom; to show they're serious, they also release a videotape of the man being very brutally tortured and mutilated. The question, of course, is this: Who do you think is going to get more media coverage?

Personally, I don't necessarily disagree with the Department of Defense's policy of keeping women out of combat zones. In a world where most soldiers are men, I think it's actually a rather genre-savvy decision; we can also guess and fear what happens when a female soldier is captured by a male-dominant armed force with a lack of respect towards the Geneva Convention. But let's be honest here: Especially in a military force where service is voluntary and the nation doesn't have a draft, every man or woman should know the risks. Every man and woman should know that there is a chance that they may have to suffer or pay the price - some of them great and ultimate - as a sacrifice for their nation. So while I'm neither trying to downplay rape or torture (mercifully, none of them have ever happened to me), I must ask: What makes one more horrible than the other? And why is it that we have such differing reactions to them?

Of course, because he's an enlisted man and thereby forbidden to speak out of turn about policy-making about the Department of Defense (which is also why I will also decline to specify who he is), he didn't (or, really, couldn't) speak much on the issue. He did, however, make a point: He personally, as a private citizen (this part is important, so don't put the DoD on his case, please~), feels that he wouldn't have any problem with women serving in combat roles if they can displace the same weight (meaning they're physically as strong) as men.

Let the debate begin. ^_^

Feminism - why is it so despised?

Astarael — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:15:07 GMT

Personally, I think if you truly believe that men and women should have equal rights in all areas of life, then you're a feminist. It's a very simple concept, and I feel no hesitation in applying the word to myself.

However, there seems to be a widespread misconception that feminists hate men, or want women to have greater power than men in society. As a result of this backlash, people often shy away from callling themselves a feminist, due to the word's negative connotations. "Feminism" has truly become a dirty word.

I've wondered how this came to be. Could it be that people believe feminism is unnecessary - that women have already achieved equality (oh, if only!), so by continuously campaigning for equal rights, feminists are actively seeking to belittle men? Do people well and truly believe that feminists are aggro, man-hating lesbians with hairy legs and armpits? Or is there some deeper reason - could it be that people are actually still uncomfortable with ancient beliefs about gender being challenged?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Comparison of Ancient Rome and Modern America

sage_of_fire — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:16:24 GMT

This more or less comes straight out of my World Civ. class.

We've been studying the Roman republic/empire as of late and I noticed that my professor has a bad habit of comparing Rome with America. She's one that believes the America (nay, many civilizations before and after Rome) follow a strict order of sequences beginning with their rise (duh) and ending with their timely demise (more duh).

Here's where we differ. She believes that America is on the downward slope in that sequence of events. In other words, that America has since seen it's hay day and is now just winding down. She does believe that it will be sometime before it actually happens, but she says it still. In her defense, there are some striking commons for the Roman civilization and the American one. To cite a short summary of events (very short) for Rome...

Quote:

The Monarchy:

c. 753 B.C. Founding of Rome (April 21, 753)

The Republic:

c. 509 B.C. Republic established (Res Publica)

c. 509-350 B.C. Wars with surrounding tribes (Etruscans, Latins, Gauls, etc.)

c. 490-281 B.C. The Struggle of the Orders (Patricians vs. Plebeians)

c. 450 B.C. Law of the Twelve Tables

c. 390 B.C. Rome captured by the Gauls

c. 350-338 B.C. Rome subdues the Latin League

341-264 Rome�s conquest of Italy

341-280 B.C. The Samnite Wars

264-146 B.C. Rome�s conquest of the Mediterranean world

264-146 B.C. Wars with Carthage:
1st Punic War (Conquest of Sicily): 264-241 B.C.
2d Punic War (Hannabalic War): 218-202 B.C.
3rd Punic War (Carthage destroyed): 149-146 B.C.

200-146 B.C. Wars in the East:
1st Macedonian War: 215-206 B.C.
2d Macedonian War: 200-196 B.C.
War with Antiochus the Great of Syria: 191-188 B.C.
3rd Macedonian War: 171-167 B.C.
Achaean War (Corinth destroyed) 146 B.C.

133-31 B.C. The �Roman Revolution� (from Republic to Empire)

133-121 B.C. The Gracchi brothers attempt reforms - murdered

112-31 B.C. Foreign Wars of the Late Republic:
Jugurthine War (112-105 B.C.)
Cimbric Wars (113-101 B.C.)
Wars against Mithridates of Pontus (89-63 B.C.)
Caesar�s Conquest of Gaul (58-50 B.C.)

88-82 B.C. First Period of Civil Wars (Marius and Sulla)

49-45 B.C. Second Period of Civil Wars (Caesar and Pompey)

44 B.C. Caesar assassinated (March 15, 44 B.C.)

43-31 B.C. Third Period of Civil Wars (Octavian, Brutus, Antony)

31 B.C. Battle of Actium (Octavian defeats Antony) - end of Civil Wars

The Empire:

27 B.C.-A.D. 68 The Julio-Claudian Emperors (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero)

69 �Year of the Four Emperors� (Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian)

69-96 The Flavian Emperors (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian)

96-180 The �Five Good Emperors� (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius)

180-193 Commodus, Pertinax, Didius Julianus (Empire auctioned off by Praetorian Guard)

193-235 The Severan Dynasty (Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Severus Alexander)

235- c. 270 The "Time of Troubles"
Germanic tribes breach northern frontiers
Persians seize East (Zenobia of Palmyra)
Gaul breaks free into separate empire
Economy collapses.

270-275 Aurelian - �Restitutor orbis�

284-305 Diocletian and the �Tetrarchy� - Four co-emperors rule Empire

312-337 Constantine the Great reunites the Empire

330 Constantinople founded

376 Visigoths cross the Danube.
Battle of Adrianople - death of Emperor Valens (378)

378-395 Theodosius the Great - last ruler of united Empire

406 Germanic tribes invade the Western Empire

476 Last Roman emperor in the West deposed (Romulus Augustulus)

527-565 Justinian the Great

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

1453 The Ottoman Turks capture Constantinople
May 29, 1453 - Death of Constantine XI

Just for those who might not be up on the subject ;)

Anywho, the commons can be varied depending on who you ask. For a good example of this look at the trait in later Rome of having totally insane rulers filled with greed, corruption, and lust. Caligula, Nero, ect. Some would go so far as to compare these two our three most recent leaders, Bush, Obama, and Clinton (to match the previous adjectives). Again though, that is a matter of opinion and depends greatly on who you ask.

Some of the un-commons, to me, are even more striking on this subject. For instance, Rome was rather famous for expansion. America how ever, is *technically* not an expanding country in terms of taking land and keeping it.....except...one might argue, for the many military bases set up throughout the world. Again, up for debate (yay!). So perhaps this un-common is actually a common.

The same can be said about Romes ability to peacefully attain land instead of taking it by force. They would go into a foreign land and the locals would have already heard about the great positives about being a Roman citizen and willfully would give themselves over in a trade off for Roman citizenship.

How does America do this you ask? Mcdonalds, Starbucks, Nike, ect. ect. The millions of illegal (and legal) immigrants crossing into our country can be proof of how many people would want to be American citizens. This, to me at least, seems to be an obvious common.

A lot of this is up for debate and civil discussion however...so......eh?

Western Society, Nuclear Arms, CCTV, and other fun stuff

Mooncalf — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:08:03 GMT

Not sure how this will really end up but whatever.

CCTV is an interesting thing. It psychologically replicates in a society that is noticeably more agnostic/atheistic than it's predominantly religious counterpart the idea of being watched and punishment for "wrong" actions.

Last time I checked, Dallas has this system publicly implemented as well as London.

Major department stores of course have been using them for some time.

Now, lets say this western society thing continues to work.

Great.

Lest say it doesn't.

Not so great.

China is becoming increasingly westernized which can be observed in the major cities of Shenghei, Beijing, and Honk Kong.

Lets say this system becomes less "effective" both at either preventing and/or discouraging crime in a largely atheistic society.

Anarchists begin popping up everywhere who not only want to see the system fail but decide that they need to make it go away for a bit.

The only trick here is: oops the government has nuclear arms. :B

Kind of hard to rebel against the threat of that, both psychologically and physically. There might be a bluff stand-off, but what happens when the bluff is called?

or is there no bluff? :arch:

This scenario would probably only be applicable after the cold war ripple effect wears out and if open rebellion becomes geographically concentrated (like for example, the succession of states from the union.....)

Notice how "smaller" countries are still eager to gain WMD's and people are still flipping ♥♥♥♥ about it. (mostly in the west it seems.)

This is probably why my political psychology text book argues that the global political spectrum can currently be described as being in a Hobbesian state as is described in the Leviathan.

Anyway, I was going to ramble further but that's basically the gist of it.

Rebellion seems like it will never come in the west so long as the powers that be have nuclear arms at their disposal.

Sorry to be a wet blanket. =B

What are your guy's thoughts.

Once the fear of foreign attack (relative to the reader's perspective of course) dies down, shouldn't the world powers be obligated to get rid of them in order to preserve the balance of power between the people and their governments?

What is the Purpose of Life?

FreezeFlame — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:44:57 GMT

I know this is one of the cheesiest questions to have been asked, but I really must know. I have remained clueless for the past few years of my life on why biological existence is present. I've thought that each level of maturity prepared us for the next level. Like this:

Toddler's get taught on how to walk, talk and socialize, which prepared them for Preschool. Preschool, then prepares them for Elementary school, which prepares them for Middle School, then High School, Then College. After college the individual works for their survival and retirement. Then you reach the end. What does retirement prepare you for? Everything stops when death arrives. And when you die, then what? Has everything you worked for over the past lifetime gone to naught? You become a blatant memory.

So I ask you people. Why do you believe we are here?

A Religion Theory (help)

__Link__ — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:04:18 GMT

Okay, so I am learning about world religions in my history course. We have been studying them for the longest time.

So far we have looked at:

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i Faith, Wicca, Naroin, Neo-Druidism, Heathenism, Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Buddhism, and Ayyavazhi.

Each of these religions are very similar in beliefs with one another, but obviously the way we practice are very different and so are our views of who God is.

So, do you think we all can get to Heaven? Explain why you think as you do, please. I don't know what to think, and I need your opinions for help.