Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
UKRAINE: PROTESTS AGAINST THE WITHDRAWAL FROM FUTURE WITH EU
Posts
Lato
View playlists
Close"declining standard of living"
Everyone gets to experience this these days. If people would just reduce armies, stop all the wars then America could actually have universal healthcare like other modern countries.
But things have to get worse before they are going to get better, and no sweet or clever words are gonna change that.
Everyone gets to experience this these days. If people would just reduce armies, stop all the wars then America could actually have universal healthcare like other modern countries.
But things have to get worse before they are going to get better, and no sweet or clever words are gonna change that.
Not really. On my end, our standard is so high, people who can't fly to some country somewhere else regularily are considered "poor". Yes, there is a paar part, but all very well able to survive without fear.
Anyhow, while I understand and accept your opinion,
Can be a very, very dangerous mindset to have. It was what brought Hitler to rise, and ironically, the changes "he" put his mark on were actually done beforehand, but would've just needed more time to actually be done.
Accepting that things may need to get worse before they get up is a reality in many parts. Does that mean that you are the one who has to enforce getting down before you get up? Not necessarily.
Aggression brings chance, but it is fucking unstable. You fight all those opposing your idea, you have a "union" .. what then?
Will all those who disagree just magically shut up? Will they just tolerate everything? Will you put pressure on them to accept it? Will you ignore them? Will someone else try to take the throne? What about the surrounding nations, the US and all else who don't want a huge powerful nation?
We even got a situation where you are not just chasing away your enforced president, leaving you without a real lead. It's still not going to be smoothly. Not to mention that aggression as means alone is a very controversial idea and can be deemed "immoral" and "barbaric" just by nature.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean to compare those two. But it's a major example of the fact that "bringing change" can very well go a democratic way, but can easily be credited to the wrong person because of official ambitions.
The biggest standard-of-living social change in Germany, our state-insurance system, was based purely on reforms. Granted, it was a dire situation (like, in all countries of the industrialization), also for semi-democratic political power, but it was enforced from above and has served us very, very well to this day.
A more or less balanced distribution of power will always result to a more stable system, because nobody could afford the losses when they don't even know whether they could actually win. But war is a system in itself, and a quite ridiculous, but powerful one.
Anyhow, while I understand and accept your opinion,
author=Lato
Aggression brings real change, and to idealize a man that brings real change and a country that is one of the oldest in the world is a good thing in my opinion.
Can be a very, very dangerous mindset to have. It was what brought Hitler to rise, and ironically, the changes "he" put his mark on were actually done beforehand, but would've just needed more time to actually be done.
Accepting that things may need to get worse before they get up is a reality in many parts. Does that mean that you are the one who has to enforce getting down before you get up? Not necessarily.
Aggression brings chance, but it is fucking unstable. You fight all those opposing your idea, you have a "union" .. what then?
Will all those who disagree just magically shut up? Will they just tolerate everything? Will you put pressure on them to accept it? Will you ignore them? Will someone else try to take the throne? What about the surrounding nations, the US and all else who don't want a huge powerful nation?
We even got a situation where you are not just chasing away your enforced president, leaving you without a real lead. It's still not going to be smoothly. Not to mention that aggression as means alone is a very controversial idea and can be deemed "immoral" and "barbaric" just by nature.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean to compare those two. But it's a major example of the fact that "bringing change" can very well go a democratic way, but can easily be credited to the wrong person because of official ambitions.
The biggest standard-of-living social change in Germany, our state-insurance system, was based purely on reforms. Granted, it was a dire situation (like, in all countries of the industrialization), also for semi-democratic political power, but it was enforced from above and has served us very, very well to this day.
A more or less balanced distribution of power will always result to a more stable system, because nobody could afford the losses when they don't even know whether they could actually win. But war is a system in itself, and a quite ridiculous, but powerful one.
What the hell is happening in the west?
I hope this doesn't become 1942 again.
We all know who's going to suffer when that happens: everyne that is not involved.
Why can't these countries be like, say Canada or Sweden? >.<
I hope this doesn't become 1942 again.
We all know who's going to suffer when that happens: everyne that is not involved.
Why can't these countries be like, say Canada or Sweden? >.<
I'm with Kyalia in this one, the standard of living in my current country of residence is stable, even slightly better than it was say a decade ago, but that's not really the point. I do have to pull you up on the fallacy of Russia being one of the oldest countries in the world though, if you're going to start spouting comments you really do need to back them up.
Russia was founded either circa 860 with Rurik though most scholars would argue for the later 1480 date when Mongol rule was eventually overthrown. However since what we are talking about here is a people's representation of themselves as belonging to a particular place, no matter who 'rules' it, I'll be kind and grant the 860 date, which means Russia as a nation is what 1150 years old or so?
So, let's see (rounding to the nearest half century) as first unified as a nation date (accepting most of these are circa)
Iran f. 3200 BCE 5200 years
Egypt f. 3100 BCE 5100 years
Vietnam f. 2879 BCE 4900 years
N. Korea f. 2333 BCE 4350 years
Georgia f. 1300 BCE 3300 years
Sudan f. 1070 BCE 3100 years
Israel f. 1020 BCE 3000 years
Greece f. 800 BCE 2800 years
Sri Lanka f. 377 BCE 2400 years
India f. 322 BCE 2350 years
S. Korea 300 BCE 2300 years
China f. 221 BCE 2250 years
Mongolia f. 209 BCE 2200 years
Somalia f. 200 BCE 2200 years
Armenia f, 190 BCE 2200 years
Ethiopia f 50 1950 years
San Marino f. 301 1700 years
Japan f. 400 1600 years
Bulgaria f. 681 1300 years
Oman f. 751 1250 years
That's the top 20, it could also include the UK since the Kingdom of Wessex which went on to be the unified Kingdom of England was founded in 519, but I said I'd be kind and I think the 927 unification date is more appropriate. So see Russia there anywhere? Nope, because it comes in at 27, tied coincidently with Ukraine. Given there is arguably 195 countries in the world that means Russia isn't even in the oldest 10%, let alone 'one of the oldest'.
Yes this is being ridiculously pedantic, I was aiming for that as the point I am desperately trying to make is if you are going to spout your opinion as fact, then back it up with actual facts. Otherwise you are going to be seen, as Kentona rightly pointed out, as childlike in your arguments.
Russia was founded either circa 860 with Rurik though most scholars would argue for the later 1480 date when Mongol rule was eventually overthrown. However since what we are talking about here is a people's representation of themselves as belonging to a particular place, no matter who 'rules' it, I'll be kind and grant the 860 date, which means Russia as a nation is what 1150 years old or so?
So, let's see (rounding to the nearest half century) as first unified as a nation date (accepting most of these are circa)
Iran f. 3200 BCE 5200 years
Egypt f. 3100 BCE 5100 years
Vietnam f. 2879 BCE 4900 years
N. Korea f. 2333 BCE 4350 years
Georgia f. 1300 BCE 3300 years
Sudan f. 1070 BCE 3100 years
Israel f. 1020 BCE 3000 years
Greece f. 800 BCE 2800 years
Sri Lanka f. 377 BCE 2400 years
India f. 322 BCE 2350 years
S. Korea 300 BCE 2300 years
China f. 221 BCE 2250 years
Mongolia f. 209 BCE 2200 years
Somalia f. 200 BCE 2200 years
Armenia f, 190 BCE 2200 years
Ethiopia f 50 1950 years
San Marino f. 301 1700 years
Japan f. 400 1600 years
Bulgaria f. 681 1300 years
Oman f. 751 1250 years
That's the top 20, it could also include the UK since the Kingdom of Wessex which went on to be the unified Kingdom of England was founded in 519, but I said I'd be kind and I think the 927 unification date is more appropriate. So see Russia there anywhere? Nope, because it comes in at 27, tied coincidently with Ukraine. Given there is arguably 195 countries in the world that means Russia isn't even in the oldest 10%, let alone 'one of the oldest'.
Yes this is being ridiculously pedantic, I was aiming for that as the point I am desperately trying to make is if you are going to spout your opinion as fact, then back it up with actual facts. Otherwise you are going to be seen, as Kentona rightly pointed out, as childlike in your arguments.
author=nhubi
I'm with Kyalia in this one, the standard of living in my current country of residence is stable, even slightly better than it was say a decade ago, but that's not really the point. I do have to pull you up on the fallacy of Russia being one of the oldest countries in the world though, if you're going to start spouting comments you really do need to back them up.
Russia was founded either circa 860 with Rurik though most scholars would argue for the later 1480 date when Mongol rule was eventually overthrown. However since what we are talking about here is a people's representation of themselves as belonging to a particular place, no matter who 'rules' it, I'll be kind and grant the 860 date, which means Russia as a nation is what 1150 years old or so?
So, let's see (rounding to the nearest half century) as first unified as a nation date (accepting most of these are circa)
Iran f. 3200 BCE 5200 years
Egypt f. 3100 BCE 5100 years
Vietnam f. 2879 BCE 4900 years
N. Korea f. 2333 BCE 4350 years
Georgia f. 1300 BCE 3300 years
Sudan f. 1070 BCE 3100 years
Israel f. 1020 BCE 3000 years
Greece f. 800 BCE 2800 years
Sri Lanka f. 377 BCE 2400 years
India f. 322 BCE 2350 years
S. Korea 300 BCE 2300 years
China f. 221 BCE 2250 years
Mongolia f. 209 BCE 2200 years
Somalia f. 200 BCE 2200 years
Armenia f, 190 BCE 2200 years
Ethiopia f 50 1950 years
San Marino f. 301 1700 years
Japan f. 400 1600 years
Bulgaria f. 681 1300 years
Oman f. 751 1250 years
That's the top 20, it could also include the UK since the Kingdom of Wessex which went on to be the unified Kingdom of England was founded in 519, but I said I'd be kind and I think the 927 unification date is more appropriate. So see Russia there anywhere? Nope, because it comes in at 27, tied coincidently with Ukraine. Given there is arguably 195 countries in the world that means Russia isn't even in the oldest 10%, let alone 'one of the oldest'.
Yes this is being ridiculously pedantic, I was aiming for that as the point I am desperately trying to make is if you are going to spout your opinion as fact, then back it up with actual facts. Otherwise you are going to be seen, as Kentona rightly pointed out, as childlike in your arguments.
That's all you got? Really? A top 20 out of how many countries have existed in the last oh 2000 years?? Well that just doesn't impress me at all.
@Karins You are correct everyone not involved will suffer to different degrees, of course this was already caused by the economic meltdown cause by the US. Oh and the best part of that was italy was actually the country that called out america to the world saying this was not caused by any natural disaster and blamed america.
But you are VERY wrong about Canada, they are in the war on terror with us! They even have Tim hortons dounts in Kandahra airbase in Afghanistan. But to be fair they have the best coffee and chocolate donuts I have ever tasted in a war:)
author=Kylaila
...and I'm ignored? Thank you kindly.
Ah sorry, but replying to just 2 ppl took a lot of room, didn't want to do a novel.
author=Lato
That's all you got? Really? A top 20 out of how many countries have existed in the last oh 2000 years?? Well that just doesn't impress me at all.
And you missed the point, entirely. Impressing you was never the intent, but it appears you are either unwilling or unable to see that. However your response does indeed reinforce the argument for previously stated conclusions, so I do appreciate you clarifying your level of discourse.
I'm done. Enjoy yourself.
