Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Liberosia wrote:They enslaved the Helots and contributed little to human progress

They only held back civilization for about a few hundred years, they are obviously the greatest. Oh, wait a minute.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:They only held back civilization for about a few hundred years, they are obviously the greatest. Oh, wait a minute.

Yeah.

Also Athens gave us philosophy and expanded human knowledge. #Aristotle

Liberosia wrote:Yeah.

Also Athens gave us philosophy and expanded human knowledge. #Aristotle

Socrates also came out Athens, he was a pretty important character in advancing in civilization

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Socrates also came out Athens, he was a pretty important character in advancing in civilization

Yeah true, but I prefer his student's student

Liberosia wrote:Yeah true, but I prefer his student's student

It's hard to believe he was able to keep his vow of silence for so long

My personal preference is Plato

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:My personal preference is Plato

Really? Why?

RRRG, I thought you were an objectivist?

Liberosia wrote:RRRG, I thought you were an objectivist?

It is literally in his name

Lack There Of wrote:It is literally in his name

Yes. The question was implicitly "why the hell do you like Plato?"

I didn't say I agree with him, oh gosh, no. I:

A) like his name

B) think his hair is cool

C) think he looks awesome in all of his paintings

That's literally it. But really I am probably against most of his beliefs so don't get me wrong, Airistotle is my dude, but… Plato. Plateu. Play-Doh. There is just so much fun to be had with that name. I also like his writings including but not limited to Timaeus and Critias, which could possibly be a real life account of Atlantis, which is awesome.

So my liking of Plato is mostly irrational, I understand that. Am I not aloud this one thing? AM I?

Liberosia why are you Don Corleone now lol

For the sake of making this easier to document and deal with. Since Ipian has voted for the other candidate, can he just formally concede so we can deal with this as a two-horse race. It would be much more efficient.

Humph that's a bit much to ask of him now isn't it? After all, he is feeling "moody" today, so there's that.

Aristotle is awesome. Inspired Descartes, Spinoza, even Rand.

Plato...well he gave us Socrates and the Cave allegory, but he was too...impractical.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Aristotle is awesome. Inspired Descartes, Spinoza, even Rand.

Plato...well he gave us *Aristotle* and the Cave allegory, but he was too...impractical.

Agreed

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:I didn't say I agree with him, oh gosh, no. I:

A) like his name

B) think his hair is cool

C) think he looks awesome in all of his paintings

That's literally it. But really I am probably against most of his beliefs so don't get me wrong, Airistotle is my dude, but… Plato. Plateu. Play-Doh. There is just so much fun to be had with that name. I also like his writings including but not limited to Timaeus and Critias, which could possibly be a real life account of Atlantis, which is awesome.

So my liking of Plato is mostly irrational, I understand that. Am I not aloud this one thing? AM I?

You are not allowed! Jk, I guess you're allowed one small momentary lapse from reason.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Liberosia why are you Don Corleone now lol

Why not?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Aristotle is awesome. Inspired Descartes, Spinoza, even Rand.

Plato...well he gave us Socrates and the Cave allegory, but he was too...impractical.

Objectivity and reason are my fav

Liberosia wrote:Why not?

Seems like good enough reasoning for me

http://mobile.rawstory.com/nation/2014-06-02-seattle-city-council-unanimously-approves-minimum-wage-increase-to-15-per-hour#1

What a fantastic step in the right direction . I hope the rest of the country follows suit so we can grow the economy

Lack There Of wrote:http://mobile.rawstory.com/nation/2014-06-02-seattle-city-council-unanimously-approves-minimum-wage-increase-to-15-per-hour#1

What a fantastic step in the right direction . I hope the rest of the country follows suit so we can grow the economy

I hope your kidding

Lack There Of wrote:http://mobile.rawstory.com/nation/2014-06-02-seattle-city-council-unanimously-approves-minimum-wage-increase-to-15-per-hour#1

What a fantastic step in the right direction . I hope the rest of the country follows suit so we can grow the economy

Is weed legal where you are?

I believe only medicinally.

Lack There Of wrote:http://mobile.rawstory.com/nation/2014-06-02-seattle-city-council-unanimously-approves-minimum-wage-increase-to-15-per-hour#1

What a fantastic step in the right direction . I hope the rest of the country follows suit so we can grow the economy

I hope the rest of the country follows suit so that we can just officially declare the United States to be dead.

I'm like defending our honor in the IRU. They are straight up trashing us.

Humpheria wrote:I'm like defending our honor in the IRU. They are straight up trashing us.

The who?

Lack There Of wrote:http://mobile.rawstory.com/nation/2014-06-02-seattle-city-council-unanimously-approves-minimum-wage-increase-to-15-per-hour#1

What a fantastic step in the right direction . I hope the rest of the country follows suit so we can grow the economy

......Lawmakers....

STAHP Raising the MW.

Just STAHP

Albenia wrote:The who?......Lawmakers....

STAHP Raising the MW.

Just STAHP

International Republican Union. CI's region.

Abolish the minimum wage!

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Abolish the minimum wage!

No, minimum wage should be kept, a mcdonald's employee should not make 20 dollars an hour.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:No, minimum wage should be kept, a mcdonald's employee should not make 20 dollars an hour.

Can't tell if joking.

Minimum Wage should be kept. However it should be Below $8

Albenia wrote:Minimum Wage should be kept. However it should be Below $8

Personally I feel that we should keep minimum wage, but put it strictly at $0.

That way, we can say we have one, but we really don't.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:No, minimum wage should be kept, a mcdonald's employee should not make 20 dollars an hour.

What are you even saying?

Humpheria wrote:What are you even saying?

I'm am saying that minimum wage should be kept, but that it should not be raised about seven dollars.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I'm am saying that minimum wage should be kept, but that it should not be raised above seven dollars.

Minimum wage was not meant to be a permanent job, it is why the pay is so low. Instead of blaming others for you being able to scrape by, take initiative and fix the problem yourself

I remember when I thought it was cool to have a third party influence a labor contract by means of force. Those were the days

Lack There Of wrote:I remember when I thought it was cool to have a third party influence a labor contract by means of force. Those were the days

Hahaha, that was a good one

Let the market decide minimum wage.

Keep a low MW under $8 preferably between $5-7

Agreed. Mcdonalds workers should not make 20 dollars an hour, that's ludicrous.

Albenia wrote:Keep a low MW under $8 preferably between $5-7

I'll be real here, I think you're missing the point. The dollar amount is honestly irrelevant. Any set minimum wage is already artificially inflating the value of labor. Furthermore, if you really wanted a minimum wage why would you stop at such a low, and seemingly static, number? What does that help?

Muh Roads wrote:Let the market decide EVERYTHING

I thought I would help you out a bit

Lack There Of wrote:I thought I would help you out a bit

We should let the market decide whether or not we should let the market decide things.

Miencraft wrote:We should let the market decide whether or not we should let the market decide things.

We should let the market decide whether we should let the market decide whether or not we should let the market decide things.

The New United States wrote:We should let the market decide whether we should let the market decide whether or not we should let the market decide things.

We should let the market decide how to go about deciding whether or not the market should be making decisions involving whether or not the market should be making decisions about the market making decisions.

I am a nineteen year old man sitting in my grandmothers' plush living room watching Zoey 101 and eating cheezits. I just suddenly burst into tears and I don't know why.

Lol: http://www.nationstates.net/region=nazi_europe

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Lol: http://www.nationstates.net/region=nazi_europe

*cheers*

One day, the people eliminating such bastions of tyranny will be us.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:One day, the people eliminating such bastions of tyranny will be us.

*cheers more*

WESAAA LOMAAAAA!!!!!

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Lol: http://www.nationstates.net/region=nazi_europe

That made this day less depressing for me.

EU4 is surprisingly easy at the start when you go with Muscovy in the late 1400s after the war with Latvia settles down.

Miencraft wrote:EU4 is surprisingly easy at the start when you go with Muscovy in the late 1400s after the war with Latvia settles down.

What is EU4?

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Fontes Iuris Germanici Antiqu wrote:What is EU4?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/236850

you play that all the time.........

Miencraft wrote:http://store.steampowered.com/app/236850

Looks sweet.

The Amarican Empire wrote:you play that all the time.........

Yuh bro.

I alternate between this and TF2 though. EU4 in the afternoons, TF2 in the evening. Perfect.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Lol: http://www.nationstates.net/region=nazi_europe

Whoooooooooppp!!!!!

Did anyone else get WatchDogs? It's basically GTA with hacking, which automatically makes it better. It's so awesome I'm in love.

just started playing forge of empires. Is it good?

Hallo Island wrote:just started playing forge of empires. Is it good?

Meh.

If you don't format your town correctly right at the start, you're basically screwed later on since you won't be able to get adequate resources.

Also, it's pay-to-win.

What good games like it are free?

Hallo Island wrote:What good games like it are free?

Honestly, FoE is the best free game in that vein that you'll find. It gets really annoying in the later game if you don't buy stuff, but you can technically play through the entire timeline without ever buying things.

Miencraft wrote:Honestly, FoE is the best free game in that vein that you'll find. It gets really annoying in the later game if you don't buy stuff, but you can technically play through the entire timeline without ever buying things.

Well, that is good, I am poor.

If you're ever gonna start considering paid games, Age of Empires and Europa Universalis are both great choices.

Miencraft wrote:If you're ever gonna start considering paid games, Age of Empires and Europa Universalis are both great choices.

Victoria 2 and Hearts of Iron 3 as well.

I like your new flag Hallo

BTDubs, I am still temporary president as Pev is going to be fairly inactive. But, have no fear. Me and Liberosia have it under control.

Humpheria wrote:BTDubs, I am still temporary president as Pev is going to be fairly inactive. But, have no fear. Me and Liberosia have it under control.

Uh oh, Humpy is in charge. This could be bad

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Uh oh, Humpy is in charge. This could be bad

*mumbles hateful slur about the civil war*

Humpheria wrote:*mumbles hateful slur about the civil war*

Are you still angry at that?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Are you still angry at that?

Incredibly. You damned Yankee fool.

Come on Humpy, it's what happened.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Come on Humpy, it's what happened.

No, no it wasn't. You were just brainwashed.

Humpheria wrote:No, no it wasn't. You were just brainwashed.

I was not brainwashed, it's what happened.

It's funny because technically the Civil War wasn't actually a civil war.

'Cause, like, a civil war is, like, factions within the same country, but, like, the Confederacy was its own country, and stuff.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I was not brainwashed, it's what happened.

You poor confused boy.

Humpy, the main focus of the war was slavery.

Miencraft wrote:It's funny because technically the Civil War wasn't actually a civil war.

'Cause, like, a civil war is, like, factions within the same country, but, like, the Confederacy was its own country, and stuff.

He thinks the civil war was based entirely on slavery and is incapable of understanding that the North's main interest was the economic impacts, not the social implications.

Humpheria wrote:He thinks the civil war was based entirely on slavery and is incapable of understanding that the North's main interest was the economic impacts, not the social implications.

Man I can go for hours on this how it wasn't totally about slavery.

And I'm from the North. Still live up here, even. Yay north, 80 degrees in the sun is "hot" here during the summer. That's how cold it is here. THAT'S HOW MUCH NORTH WE'VE GOT UP HERE.

I don't know where I was trying to go with that. Injection of pointless conversation in an attempt to bring out Libertatem At Night, I guess.

Humpheria wrote:He thinks the civil war was based entirely on slavery and is incapable of understanding that the North's main interest was the economic impacts, not the social implications.

Come on Humpy, everyone knows both sides of the north and south. The south believe that the north was violating state rights and they thought they were going to lose their primary economic activity which was slavery. The north believed that slavery was against the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. "All Men are created equal" and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" was contradicted by slavery. Humpy, slavery was actually legal in the north, but slavery was not an important part of the economy because they weren't as dependant to farming like the south was. So when you say that the north's motive was economic, that's not the case because the north wasn't dependent to slavery as a major economic activity. So the north's motive to was to end slavery because it was immoral and wrong.

Miencraft wrote:Yay north, 80 degrees in the sun is "hot" here during the summer. That's how cold it is here. THAT'S HOW MUCH NORTH WE'VE GOT UP HERE.

Southeast Georgia. Winter is almost non-existent. Summer is unbearable. 91°F tomorrow. 61% humidity.

:'(

Right-Winged Nation wrote:So the north's motive to was to end slavery because it was immoral and wrong.

No institution should ever do something based on morality, and if anything the excuse that something is "immoral" and should be stopped actually harms one's argument.

Perfect example: Hitler. He thought what he was doing was morally fine. Does that make it justified? Nope.

Also, I require torpidity, so I shall leave.

Today I learned that "torpidity" is a word that's a synonym for rest and lethargy and whatnot.

Miencraft wrote:No institution

Also also, yes I realize what I said here and I stand by what I said.

Miencraft wrote:No institution should ever do something based on morality, and if anything the excuse that something is "immoral" and should be stopped actually harms one's argument.

Perfect example: Hitler. He thought what he was doing was morally fine. Does that make it justified? Nope.

There is a fine line between genocide and ending bondage of another human being. Slavery was unjust and wrong, Lincoln knew the issue was going to tear the country apart. Let me give you an example, Andrew Jackson had the opportunity to expand American territory even more under his presidency. He didn't do it, and do you know why? Because of the dispute of whether or not slavery would be allowed. You see, Lincoln was trying to end racism, while Hitler was performing genocide. Hitler also happened to murder anyone who got in his way, so that comparison is a bit off.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Come on Humpy, everyone knows both sides of the north and south. The south believe that the north was violating state rights and they thought they were going to lose their primary economic activity which was slavery. The north believed that slavery was against the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. "All Men are created equal" and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" was contradicted by slavery. Humpy, slavery was actually legal in the north, but slavery was not an important part of the economy because they weren't as dependant to farming like the south was. So when you say that the north's motive was economic, that's not the case because the north wasn't dependent to slavery as a major economic activity. So the north's motive to was to end slavery because it was immoral and wrong.

I'm gonna have fun with this one.

The South did believe the North was becoming oppressive because the North had already begun laying economic sanctions on slave states because their agricultural economy could not compete with the plantations. The South was thus justified.

The North believed that slavery was against their pocketbooks. This may be hard for you to understand Jack, but not everyone has the best goals for humanity in mind with every decision they make. The North would of course say that the war was about morality. The wars in Arabia are being labeled as freedom fighting, but there are countless economic and military benefits that are not publicly shouted from the rooftops. The weren't going to say that they were going in a war to increase their economic standpoints. They had to create a positive public image. And not to mention, that history is written by the victors and of course they will make history show the "moral" implications. On that point, morality is subjective and you can't really make an argument on it. And for the record, slavery was not actually legal in the north. Our state, Indiana, outlawed slavery in 1816. New York did it in 1817. Fifty years before the war.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:There is a fine line between genocide and ending bondage of another human being. Slavery was unjust and wrong, Lincoln knew the issue was going to tear the country apart. Let me give you an example, Andrew Jackson had the opportunity to expand American territory even more under his presidency. He didn't do it, and do you know why? Because of the dispute of whether or not slavery would be allowed. You see, Lincoln was trying to end racism, while Hitler was performing genocide. Hitler also happened to murder anyone who got in his way, so that comparison is a bit off.

I beg to differ about your first point. Lincoln knew the economic tension was going to make the South more powerful. That isn't relevant, but Andrew Jackson did not have the authority to decide on slavery issues. Newly founded states hold referendum, the President does not dictate slavery. You really need to learn the facts before you just recite a high school text book. Lincoln was much more concerned about unification then slavery and racism. There is actually notified evidence that for quite a while he was neutral o the subject merely taking an economic viewpoint.

Miencraft wrote:Also also, yes I realize what I said here and I stand by what I said.

Again, Hitler committed genocide while Lincoln tried to stop racism. You do also realize that southerners were going into to northern states in which slavery was illegal and capturing runaway slaves and while they were at it they kidnapped free african americans in northern states. So isn't that an example of institution of the south overstepping the limits?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Again, Hitler committed genocide while Lincoln tried to stop racism. You do also realize that southerners were going into to northern states in which slavery was illegal and capturing runaway slaves and while they were at it they kidnapped free african americans in northern states. So isn't that an example of institution of the south overstepping the limits?

How is that even remotely relevant to the topic at hand: the cause of the war? Honestly man.

Wasn't their the slave runaway Act that allowed them to do that?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Again, Hitler committed genocide while Lincoln tried to stop racism. You do also realize that southerners were going into to northern states in which slavery was illegal and capturing runaway slaves and while they were at it they kidnapped free african americans in northern states. So isn't that an example of institution of the south overstepping the limits?

That's not my point. My point is that morality should not be used as a casus belli for the sole purpose that morality differs from person to person.

The Union thought they were doing something morally correct.

The Confederates thought they were doing something morally correct.

Hitler thought he was doing something morally correct, as do the Palestinians and many others.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Wasn't their the slave runaway Act that allowed them to do that?

Yes, but he is basing the actions of a few private citizens to argue a point which is unrelated.

Miencraft wrote:That's not my point. My point is that morality should not be used as a casus belli for the sole purpose that morality differs from person to person.

The Union thought they were doing something morally correct.

The Confederates thought they were doing something morally correct.

Hitler thought he was doing something morally correct, as do the Palestinians and many others.

Thank you.

Humpheria wrote:Get stomped.

Humpheria wrote:How is that even remotely relevant to the topic at hand: the cause of the war? Honestly man.

Minecraft was discussing why institution should never stop something because of morality, and I was responding to that. I do understand that not everyone in the north was gung ho on ending slavery. Humpy, Andrew Jackson did not want more conflict about if slavery should be permitted or not depending on who founded it because like you said, the new state could decide. Also to consider, before the civil war started there was violence in Kansas about slavery. Cities were burned down and people were killed because of the laws on slavery. Humpy, what you are saying can't be proven. You say that i'm brainwashed and to look past the written word, but what you are arguing can't be proven.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.