Which civ was the most powerful in all history?

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Jayis Solis

And you know what, good for you for feeling that way, no matter what your view, pretty cool that you can share it in an open forum where you can be praised or chided by your peers. The concept of democracy and free speech, to my knowledge, first came into being in the Athenian city-state.

Your knowledge is flawed, because Athenian democracy was absolute majority-rule without individual rights. Free speech? I think not.

[Sun Zi 36]

"Reread my statement and you'll see that I'm talking about culture here and not military power."

um..... the question is about power, m i not right? But i will kindly broaden my exmaple to more precisely include ur "cultural influence".

"I do not understand why u try to dismiss this argument. Yes, it is conceded, i mean ppl outside US have a much clearer view, that the US IS the most powerful nation. U seriously think that anyone is going to challenge that point? But that is NOT the question. The question is in the past tense and referred to HISTORY. Do u think the poll maker is stupid? Whats the point of comparing cultural influence of ancient Babylonians who could hardly build brick roads and modern Russians who had planes and telecommunications that reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds? All i can see is a dismissal of clear logic in order to get to ur points."

BTW, ur main point:

"the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which was indisputably the first legal document in the history of the world to recognize unalienable human rights"

Is grossly misleading. By your standards, I could argue the Magna Carta recognised human rights.

From the Magna Carta
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

The US declaration of independence referred to "men" and used "he" as pronoun. So did the Magna Carta. At no point did they even use the word "humanity". While u could argue "men" and "he" are gender neutral in old English, what's the difference when it was effectively interpreted as gender (and especially racial) specific? Recognition on paper is far from recognition in action.

[Jayis Solis]

And kudos to you for correcting that flaw. Historical inaccuracy notwithstanding, the general sentiment I wished to convey was that the ideas inspired by Demosthenes and other Athenians live with us today.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

um..... the question is about power, m i not right? But i will kindly broaden my exmaple to more precisely include ur "cultural influence".

"...Yes, it is conceded, i mean ppl outside US have a much clearer view, that the US IS the most powerful nation. U seriously think that anyone is going to challenge that point? ..."

Okay, you concede the US has the most powerful culture, the most powerful military, and the most powerful economy. Great! What are you blabbering about?

But that is NOT the question. The question is in the past tense and referred to HISTORY.

Last year is history. Last month is history. Yesterday is history. Ten minutes ago is history. History includes the present. Throughout history, no other nation has been as powerful as the US is right now--not absolutely and not compared to contemporary powers.

Whats the point of comparing cultural influence of ancient Babylonians who could hardly build brick roads and modern Russians who had planes and telecommunications that reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds?

Don't confuse cultural power with technology. The point of comparing cultural power is to determine which civ is the most powerful. Or haven't you been listening?

All i can see is a dismissal of clear logic...

Yeah, me too.

BTW, ur main point:

Is grossly misleading. By your standards, I could argue the Magna Carta recognised human rights.

That's funny, because I don't remember seeing "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" in the Magna Carta. My "standard" is what's written down on paper. All it takes is a pair of eyes to observe it.

At no point did they even use the word "humanity".

At no point did they use the word "philharmonic" either, but I'm pretty sure they meant the Declaration to apply to orchestras, too.

While u could argue "men" and "he" are gender neutral in old English, what's the difference when it was effectively interpreted as gender (and especially racial) specific?

No, it wasn't interpreted gender-specific. Women had the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as men. They had the same constitutional rights. They could own property, etc., etc. The only right they didn't have was the right to vote, but that was changed. Even if your facts were correct (unfortunately, they are not), it was still a HUGE step forward--for the entire world.

As far as race is concerned, I've already discussed it. Basically, arguing that US unalienable rights "don't count" is like arguing that the TVs from the 1950's "don't count" as televisions because they didn't have colour.

Recognition on paper is far from recognition in action.

Yeah, that's one of my points, and the US did both--it was absolutely the first country in the world to do so.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Jayis Solis
And kudos to you for correcting that flaw. Historical inaccuracy notwithstanding, the general sentiment I wished to convey was that the ideas inspired by Demosthenes and other Athenians live with us today.

But, what's your point?

[Arent]

Sun Zi:

I implore you: ignore him!

Best military today awards goes to:
China
(Dictatorship, nukes and huge population)

Best military in History awards goes to:
Rome
(Sparta had not much population, sorry)
(... as well as Prussia)

Arent

[Fozzie]

If your definition of a powerful military is sheer size then yes the Chinese will win by default due to their huge population. However if you define military power by the ability to use your power throughout the world then America has to be the top. Yes China would win if we were to invade them, but they don't have the ability to mobilize their military the way we do. The United States could mobilize its entire military power and deploy it anywhere in the world in a short amount of time, China just doesn't have that ability. Large numbers of troops and weapons is fine, but unless you can use them somewhere other than your own geographic area then that power is less effective.


For Sun Zi, yes today there are alot of cultures with similarities to ours but I don't believe any modern culture is truly unique. If you have contact with other peoples throughout the world then it is impossible to remain completely unlike those you meet. I don't believe any culture today is as unique as they were in the past. Even countries on the list that nobody argues against such as France, England, Russia, Japan, etc. who have made it to modern times are no longer totally unique, but they are allowed by those opposed to the US being on the list due to the fact that they once had a unique culture. Now if having a unique culture in the past is qualification enough then the US should definitely be in. The western united states is full of unique culture and heritage all its own, unlike anywhere in the world. The era of cowboys and indians and settlers traveling west was unlike anything else I'm aware of.

Even if our past isn't enough to make us unique, how about the fact that we are not unique? I for one believe it's our differences that makes us unique. The fact that we can have people from every single country in the world come here and identify themselves as American and be welcomed as Americans is unique. The fact that in under 250 years of history a vast number of people from all creeds and races came together to form what is said by many to be the most powerful country at this time is an amazing thing, unlike anything that has happened in history. I'm not one to chest beat or boast or anything like that but I am truly proud of this fact, it makes me proud to be part of it. And if that doesn't qualify us as a unique culture then I don't know what else we can do to try to appease you.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by IncreduloDriver

Considering that this is impossible, not to mention terribly foolish and completely pointless, I think we can safely put a rest to this part of the discussion.

Ok, this was my last attempt to make a rational and emotionless discussion with you. Your constant insults hurled at anyone you disagree with is not only annoying, but indicative of glaringly bad manners.

Following some hunch, I checked your profile - however, quite expectedly, you refrained from posting your birth date. As you are likely some bad-mouthed teenager, I don't find continuing this tedious discussion to be worthy of my time. If you are older, it paints much more sadder picture of your mental condition, otoh. Please grow up and mature a bit. Even if you think you are right, it doesn't entail you to be an annoying troglodyte

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

This just showed a complete failure to understand the word "culture". This will be the last time I will explain it. U say Jazz originated from the country America so it is American culture. Is it not viable also to say that Jazz originated from the state Louisiana so it is only Louisainian culture? Jazz originated from the city New Orleans so it is culture solely for the New Orleans people? Jazz originated from the continent North America so it is North American culture? Jazz originated from the Western Hemisphere so it is Western Hemisphere culture?

Thank you so much for presuming to teach me what culture means. There is East Coast Jazz, West Coast Jazz, ragtime, big band, bebop, ad infinitem. If you had bothered to investigate properly the links I put up you might have undrstood why jazz developed in America and nowhere else, and is distinctly American. They play Northumbrian pipes in North-East England; are you seriously suggesting it is 'only' North East English culture (whatever that might be) and not English culture?

"Culture is everything. Culture is the way we dress, the way we carry our heads, the way we walk, the way we tie our ties -- it is not only the fact of writing books or building houses."

Aime Cesaire, Martiniquen writer, speaking to the World Congress of Black Writers and Artists in Paris [source: Petras and Petras]

"Culture is like the sum of special knowledge that accumulates in any large united family and is the common property of all its members. When we of the great Culture Family meet, we exchange reminiscences about Grandfather Homer, and that awful old Dr. Johnson, and Aunt Sappho, and poor Johnny Keats."

Aldous Huxley [source: Flesch]

"Culture is but the fine flowering of real education, and it is the training of the feeling the tastes and the manners that makes it so."

Minnie Kellogg, Iroquois leader [source: Petras and Petras]

I would suggest it is you who has trouble in recognising what culture is.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

Maybe that is bcos i define culture with cultural aspects rather than politcal borders or nationalistic feelings. There are certainly more cultures in the world than countries. I understand that it would require a very broad veiw of culture indeed to define America as a cultural entity. Simply put, if it is a single culture then it is not a multiple of cultures, if it is a multiple of cultures then it is not a single culture.

Again... look up the DEFINITION(s) of culture. No one cares how YOU define it.

[vovan]

I'll tell ya which civ was the most powerful in all history: Israel. They've never lost a single war! And they've had quite some wars! Of course, they were helped somewhat... But, oh well...
Voted for Germany, though.

[dexters]

I give up. no one is willing to engage in civil discussion.

[Sun Zi 36]

Arent, Martinus and Frozzie:
I feel so much pity not being able to get an informative discussion going. Theres always these people stirred up by their personal feelings and disturb the discussion by going on about non-issues.

Dexters:

"I give up. no one is willing to engage in civil discussion."

thats what typically happens when u start a discussion about America.

Martinus:
Forget about looking up profiles. Will u really believe what people say about themselves here? Thats why i dont even bother putting in any profiles. Besides, their age doesn't really tell anything. It's their arguments. And the polls. Do u really think someone wouldn't try to create 10 accounts and boost their votes?

IncreduloDriver, IncreduloDriver..........:

"Okay, you concede the US has the most powerful culture, the most powerful military, and the most powerful economy. Great! What are you blabbering about?"

bcos thats not even the issue me and martinus was arguing................ I find it unbelievable indeed that u did not understand.

"Last year is history. Last month is history. Yesterday is history. Ten minutes ago is history. History includes the present. Throughout history, no other nation has been as powerful as the US is right now--not absolutely and not compared to contemporary powers."

Sigh........ that's what we told u to not do. do not assess power absolutely and compare to contemporary powers.

"Don't confuse cultural power with technology. The point of comparing cultural power is to determine which civ is the most powerful. Or haven't you been listening?"

Hahahaha..... i haven't actually. bcos i cannot commit myself to read arguments that are so illogical. Sigh.... there seems to be a clear failure to understand. The question isn't even just about cultural power. How can u spread "cultural power" without adequate communications technology? Again i ask u "The poll maker is not stupid. Whats the point of comparing cultural power of ancient Babylonians who could hardly build brick roads to spread them and modern Russians who have planes and telecommunications that reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds to spread them?"

Pls try and think about other peoples opinions first b4 going straight into ur own outbursts. I cannot be bothered to argue the other point i raised against u.

Mollyboom: sorry if u think that was offensive. i was trying to indicate how there's no immediate direct association between geographic loaction and culture. For example, Christianity originated from Palestine. But it is not Palestinian culture. The same goes for ur Jazz. What matters is who is practicing the culture at any point in time.

The difference between ur methiod of defining culture and the method by Frozzie in his previous post is that Frozzie identified the culture first, and then associated with it the people in the geographical location who are practising it. Ur method involved identifying the people in the geographical location first, and then attribute culture to them, which i think is wrong. Ur method would undermine the true meaning of culture.

Frozzie:

"Even if our past isn't enough to make us unique, how about the fact that we are not unique? I for one believe it's our differences that makes us unique."

This is one argument people often raised which i think is flawed. it implies that "the fact that it is ten cultures means it is one culture." The argument ignores the definition of culture again in favour of some other divisions.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
IncreduloDriver, IncreduloDriver..........:

bcos thats not even the issue me and martinus was arguing................ I find it unbelievable indeed that u did not understand.

Okay, if you're not arguing the issue of the most powerful civ in history, what the heck are you doing? Maybe you didn't see the poll? Maybe you haven't been reading the thread?

Sigh........ that's what we told u to not do. do not assess power absolutely and compare to contemporary powers.

Okay, you don't want me to compare civs' power to their contemporaries. You don't want me to compare civs' power to modern civilisations. Thus, you've told me not to assess which was the greatest civ in history. But wait, that's what the poll asks us to do....

Hahahaha..... i haven't actually. bcos i cannot commit myself to read arguments that are so illogical.

Okay, so you've admitted that you haven't read any of my arguments (never mind the fact that you can't determine if an argument is logical or not without reading it). What's the point of attempting to discuss anything if you're not willing to read other people's statements?

Sigh.... there seems to be a clear failure to understand.

The question isn't even just about cultural power.

Earlier in the thread, we defined pretty well what the question is. Since you've already stated that you don't read my posts, I guess that explains your ignorance of it.

How can u spread "cultural power" without adequate communications technology?

Should we make communications technology the standard of power now? Or should we throw out all forms of communications and rely on cultural power as measured by Sun Zi's personal, arbitrary standard of worthiness?

Again i ask u "The poll maker is not stupid. Whats the point of comparing cultural power of ancient Babylonians who could hardly build brick roads to spread them and modern Russians who have planes and telecommunications that reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds to spread them?"

Asked and answered, several times.

Pls try and think about other peoples opinions first b4 going straight into ur own outbursts. I cannot be bothered to argue the other point i raised against u.

You've never raised any points against anything I've said, so I suppose that won't be a problem. But at least I give you the respect of reading your posts.

Please, somebody make an argument here. I've posted everything I need to say in my previous posts. Re-read them if necessary (or for the first time, in Sun Zi's case). Read the beginning of the thread where we talked about what cultural power is. Then make an arguement--anything other than "do nt mesure civ powre by cultre pls bcos communicaton technologe"

[Sun Zi 36]

"Sun Zi:

I implore you: ignore him!"

Arent, I understand ur feelings. It is just really a waste of time to argue against some people. However, i m on holidays right now, what i got is time. For the welfare of the people who read this board, I wont be deterred.

"Okay, if you're not arguing the issue of the most powerful civ in history, what the heck are you doing? Maybe you didn't see the poll? Maybe you haven't been reading the thread?"

In case u don't realise, this is an insulting statement. People who are polite would apologise. However, do u think I will be deterred by such rudeness? u will be mistaken if u do. I would advise u to restrain ur rudeness if u want to continue to enjoy live from these forums.

"Okay, you don't want me to compare civs' power to their contemporaries. You don't want me to compare civs' power to modern civilisations. Thus, you've told me not to assess which was the greatest civ in history. But wait, that's what the poll asks us to do.... "

The things that are deduced in the argument is just unbelievable. The first and second sentences just doesn't lead to the third as claimed.

"Okay, so you've admitted that you haven't read any of my arguments (never mind the fact that you can't determine if an argument is logical or not without reading it). What's the point of attempting to discuss anything if you're not willing to read other people's statements?"

Again, the way arguments are deduced here is just amazing. It does not even realise a statement preceded by "Hahaha..." means it is an ironic joke.

"Earlier in the thread, we defined pretty well what the question is."

And then there is this amazing claim that his definition were agreed upon by others when it clearly was not.

"Should we make communications technology the standard of power now? Or should we throw out all forms of communications and rely on cultural power as measured by Sun Zi's personal, arbitrary standard of worthiness?"

Again the level of imagination shown by the arguments is just out of hand. It is able to deduce from an example using telecommunication to the fact that it should be the standard of power. And then there is a criticism about other people's standards by just branding it as "arbitray".

"Please, somebody make an argument here. I've posted everything I need to say in my previous posts."

And then theres an urge for people to argue against him when all the arguments raised were non-issues. All the lack of logic in the arguments, as shown above, explains why no-one bothered to counter-argue.