NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think was the worst moment in the history of the world. Not for just YOU, but for the ENTIRE world.

The Black death. Killed about 1/3 of the entire human population.

What do you think was the worst moment in the history of the world. Not for just YOU, but for the ENTIRE world.
The day DNA was discovered.

I'm going with the Treaty of Versailles, started up all kinds of crap, including the Holocaust and the Cold War. Well, pretty much everything bad since then can be traced back to it.:sniper:

The day man learnt to use his thumb. :)

The day DNA was discovered.
ummm.....................explain:confused:

When Constantine heard voices in his head.

For some reason the world always seems to come out right in the end - perhaps because otherwise I wouldn't be here. :P There always seems to be a good moment in world history [Zama, the defeat of the Germans, et cetera]. The absolute worse moment in history, however, that I can think of would be the rise of Marxism in Russia, and later Soviet Union. Despite the fact that I don't absolutely hate communists, it would be the genesis of a series of problems which would put the world on the brink of nuclear war. Then again, one could claim that the same would be true when the states achieved political independence from Great Britain. I shrug.

The ABSOLUTE worst?

The creation of mankind as it is.

Really, as a spiecies, we could be so much better. Really. Physically and psychologically. Not trying to be a pessimist here.

the day leonardo dicrapio was born...

The day an ape fell out of a tree. Well, I'm sure that apes fell out of trees before this, but What I mean is, the day the first "Human being" walked the earth.

The day we stopped being playful water-monkeys and/or left the lowermost branches for the forest floor.

What do you think was the worst moment in the history of the world. Not for just YOU, but for the ENTIRE world.
The moment that humankind's collective mentality was subverted by fear, and more people who had been individuals instead reverted to a group paranoia of things they did not understand and betrayed the nature of curiosity and intellect, and instead chose to ascribe their own passive-agressive faults and traits on a universe that otherwise displayed no such tendencies.

Black Death killed a third of the European population. Killed far fewer in Asia, very few in Europe, did not touch the Americas.

I can't think of a possible "worst moment in history".

The day DNA was discovered.
Yah, provided for some annoying biology tests :( .

That time some giant object crashed into early earth....Admittedly, it was great for the moon, being born and all, but the world probably hurt in the morning for that one.

is it just me, or do a lot of you humans kinda think you suck. seems counterproductive to me.

The moment that humankind's collective mentality was subverted by fear, and more people who had been individuals instead reverted to a group paranoia of things they did not understand and betrayed the nature of curiosity and intellect, and instead chose to ascribe their own passive-agressive faults and traits on a universe that otherwise displayed no such tendencies.

Creation of religion?

When Constantine heard voices in his head.

not exactly pro-christian are we?

is it just me, or do a lot of you humans kinda think you suck. seems counterproductive to me.

Eh, looking from the position of not being a human, we suck...extremely so.

Black Death killed a third of the European population. . . . very few in Europe,. . .

wait. . . europe had two separate populations? :confused:

wait. . . europe had two separate populations? :confused:
You didnt know this!?

Eh, looking from the position of not being a human, we suck...extremely so.
but as a human, I can also provide copious evidence that we suck.

but worst moment in history? The day mankind made fire. It all went downhill from there.

not exactly pro-christian are we?
More pro-sanity.

but as a human, I can also provide copious evidence that we suck.

but worst moment in history? The day mankind made fire. It all went downhill from there.
fire->cooked meat->healther, smarter->social evolution->NS forums->good times, good times

but as a human, I can also provide copious evidence that we suck.

but worst moment in history? The day mankind made fire. It all went downhill from there.

But fire is cool to watch....like a bunsen burner....with a lithium compound over it...

There were many dark times in the history of humankind, and more to come. One I'm reading about now is Unit 731. *shudders*

The Black death. Killed about 1/3 of the entire human population.

The entire human population?

More pro-sanity.
ouch

The entire human population?

Yes, since white Europe is the only real place. The rest of the world aren't really humans. *kills himself*

Yes, since white Europe is the only real place. The rest of the world aren't really humans. *kills himself*
Europe = the world. Don't the rest of you alien space thingies know it? :eek:

The birth of man, that first time somebody decide to use a rock as a tool. That ruined the world

When I was born. No, seriously.

More pro-sanity.

that's impossible. sanity is relative.

Yes, since white Europe is the only real place. The rest of the world aren't really humans. *kills himself*
i bet he'll be back. because apparently humans suck so much that they probably can't kill themselves online

i bet he'll be back. because apparently humans suck so much that they probably can't kill themselves online

Touché.

Europe = the world. Don't the rest of you alien space thingies know it? :eek:
The Americans would say the same. Either way, we Canadians are screwed. :(

Whoops... meant to say "very few in Africa".

Yes, I am Shalaam.

that's impossible. sanity is relative.
I couldn't give a fuck. Hearing voices in your head and following it up by running around establishing a religion can hardly be described sane behaviour, by my standards anyway.

The Americans would say the same. Either way, we Canadians are screwed. :(
Americans? Canadians? What are these things you speak of? :confused:

I couldn't give a fuck. Hearing voices in your head and following it up by running around establishing a religion can hardly be described sane behaviour, by my standards anyway.
religon was already established, he just made it so the romans would stop going all holocaust on the catholics

Creation of religion?
IOW, yes.
*hands you a cookie*

I couldn't give a fuck. Hearing voices in your head and following it up by running around establishing a religion can hardly be described sane behaviour, by my standards anyway.

not to get off topic, but i think the move was political. he continue to pray to apollo even after his 'conversion'.

oh, and you are correct on the sanity part. i forgot the sarcasm warning.

Americans? Canadians? What are these things you speak of? :confused:
uh...rebellious child of Britain who bit the hand that fed it, and the non-rebellious child of Britain and France that ended up getting kicked out.

religon was already established, he just made it so the romans would stop going all holocaust on the catholics
It was one of the many, many small religions in the Empire, and it was illegal. He made it legal and paved the way for it to make it big. Theodosius can take some blame, too.

uh...rebellious child of Britain who bit the hand that fed it, and the non-rebellious child of Britain and France that ended up getting kicked out.
You mean to say Britain never went through with that abortion she was meant to carry out! :eek:

religon was already established, he just made it so the romans would stop going all holocaust on the catholics

oh god. that's a horrible combination of hilarious and offensive. should i laugh or delcare it a new phrase?

man, that team went all holocaust on em!!
(wow that sucked :p )

You mean to say Britain never went through with that abortion she was meant to carry out! :eek:
Actually, France got screwed in the ass by Britain, resulting in Canada.

ummm.....................explain:confused:
It was the discovery of DNA which opened the door to recombinant DNA, which has now become so commonplace that any idiot with a grudge can create a virus sufficiently obscure and powerful enough to kill us all. :(

The day someone decided to plant crops instead of just gather them.

Taking dinosaurs off that island. YOU know the one.

That may be the wrost idea in the long, sad history of BAD ideas. :D

Pre-Cambrian extinction comes to mind.

If we are to be limited to mere human history then I would argue the Mongol invasions of the 13th and 14th centuries.

Responsible for immense slaughter, the destruction of Islamic science (the library of Baghdad), the spread of the Black Death to Europe, and - by virtue of the renaissance brought about in part by the Black Death - the colonization and despoliation of the Americas.

Their famous defeat at the Sea of Japan even helped to inspire the infamous kamikaze attack.

All in all, bad for everybody.

Actually, France got screwed in the ass by Britain, resulting in Canada.
I should quote that one :p

The Americans would say the same. Either way, we Canadians are screwed. :(
Nawww! We wuvs da widdle Canucks! Cootchie, coochie! :D

IOW, yes.
*hands you a cookie*

Woohoo! second cookie of the day!

The Americans would say the same. Either way, we Canadians are screwed. :(

Don't worry ,for I'd protect Canada!...actually...it's too big...maybe just BC...or you could just move to Windsor, that's a lot closer...Want a cookie?

P.S. and Eut would help! With his drill sergant voice, no one would mess with BC.

Man the worst moment in history would definately be the first day of European worldwide colonization. Think about it: a bunch of the world conflicts happened because Europe screwed over their colonies and drew artificial borders. Things like the Hutu and Tutsi genocides might not have happened, and the bloody civil wars in former colonies definately wouldn't have happened. Everyone should have just stuck to their own continents.

It was the discovery of DNA which opened the door to recombinant DNA, which has now become so commonplace that any idiot with a grudge can create a virus sufficiently obscure and powerful enough to kill us all. :(
Ya know, the native americans really dug those blankets from "the benevolent Europeans" .... :(

Ya know, the native americans really dug those blankets from "the benevolent Europeans" .... :(
WTF brought THAT on? :confused:

It was one of the many, many small religions in the Empire, and it was illegal. He made it legal and paved the way for it to make it big. Theodosius can take some blame, too.
So you’re ok with religions being illegal? Interesting.

I don’t know why so many people are saying that the first time humanity invented something or evolved was the worst day in history. I love abstract thinking and I love the fact that all my time isn’t spent trying to survive, so I have the time to think abstractly. I’m also a little bit proud that are ball of dust is one of the few in our galaxy that was lucky enough to develop not only life, but sentient life.

I think the worst day in history was when Archduke Ferdinand’s driver took a wrong turn in Sarajevo.

I should quote that one :p
I feel proud. :D
Nawww! We wuvs da widdle Canucks! Cootchie, coochie!
I love you too, in a sisterly non-sexual way. :p (don't you even think about bringing on the trout!)
Don't worry ,for I'd protect Canada!...actually...it's too big...maybe just BC...or you could just move to Windsor, that's a lot closer...Want a cookie?

P.S. and Eut would help! With his drill sergant voice, no one would mess with BC.
I get a cookie? sweet. But I don't think Eut would help after my above comment anymore. :(

WTF brought THAT on? :confused:
virulogical warfare, in a fashion. Not deliberate manipulation of DNA, but just giving a time reference/contrast.

WTF brought THAT on? :confused:

The fact that we didn't have to know about DNA to use biological warfare!

Man the worst moment in history would definately be the first day of European worldwide colonization. Think about it: a bunch of the world conflicts happened because Europe screwed over their colonies and drew artificial borders. Things like the Hutu and Tutsi genocides might not have happened, and the bloody civil wars in former colonies definately wouldn't have happened. Everyone should have just stuck to their own continents.
Then we'd all be living in Africa or wherever man was said to originate from.

The fact that we didn't have to know about DNA to use biological warfare!
Seconded. *bows*

Seconded. *bows*

*Returns the bow with an enlightenment flourish*

The fact that we didn't have to know about DNA to use biological warfare!
Never said we did.

Smallpox was never universally fatal, or even 50% fatal. Some new, "designer virus" easily could be.

I love you too, in a sisterly non-sexual way. :p (don't you even think about bringing on the trout!)

I get a cookie? sweet. But I don't think Eut would help after my above comment anymore. :(

I'm sure you could convince him...http://67.18.37.17/2107/60/emo/goumoticon0bk.gif

Seconded. *bows*
Figures you would jump all over that strawman. Sigh. :p

The worst moment came at the same time as the best moment in history, because after that, there's nowhere to go but down.;)

Never said we did.

Smallpox was never universally fatal, or even 50% fatal. Some new, "designer virus" easily could be.

Do you really want to get into this on this thread?

The level of fatality is irrelevant. The use of a biological agent in a conflict of culture, land ownership and/or religious belief is enough of a similarity.

Fall of the Roman Empire.

I love you too, in a sisterly non-sexual way. :p (don't you even think about bringing on the trout!)

I get a cookie? sweet. But I don't think Eut would help after my above comment anymore. :(
"SISTERLY?" OMFG!!! The kiss of death! Aieeeee! [ faints ]

Yes, I would most definitely help, even after being so verbally castigated! I do, after all, know how to soldier, and I bear no grudges. :)

The worst moment came at the same time as the best moment in history, because after that, there's nowhere to go but down.;)
But you could only judge the best at the end of time. Because theres allways the possiblity that another great event will happen.

Do you really want to get into this on this thread?

The level of fatality is irrelevant. The use of a biological agent in a conflict of culture, land ownership and/or religious belief is enough of a similarity.
So you say. You've kicked up a strawman because you realize your argument is weak. Tsk! Go play elsewhere.

"SISTERLY?" OMFG!!! The kiss of death! Aieeeee! [ faints ]

Yes, I would most definitely help, even after being so verbally castigated! I do, after all, know how to soldier, and I bear no grudges. :)

See, he'll help.
You sure though? I mean, I could get a video camera...Wait...I don't want to see you, bleegh, nevermind.

The worst moment came at the same time as the best moment in history, because after that, there's nowhere to go but down.;)

thanks. now i'm really confused, mr. philosophizer!!!

(no really though, interesting . . . .)

So you say. You've kicked up a strawman because you realize your argument is weak. Tsk! Go play elsewhere.

Calling it a strawman does not make it one. Prove to me that the association between the fear of the potential use of genetically engineered viruses and the historical use of the smallpox virus does not exist.

Figures you would jump all over that strawman. Sigh. :p
What? I started that reference. Explain how that's a "strawman"? It's not. The reference served it's purpose, AND it actually happened, AND i qualified it, AND AB Again understood what i was getting at. Perhaps you want to use a different term?

Calling it a strawman does not make it one. Prove to me that the association between the fear of the potential use of genetically engineered viruses and the historical use of the smallpox virus does not exist.

This:
The fact that we didn't have to know about DNA to use biological warfare!
... is a strawman because I never once mentioned anyone using "biological warfare."

If you had simply restrained yourself from what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to anyone mentioning anything related to recominanat DNA, you might have actually read my post. Either that or have allowed your free-floating anger about God only knows what to cloud your intellect ( providing such existed in the first place ) to the point that 2+2 =/= 4.

What? I started that reference. Explain how that's a "strawman"? It's not. The reference served it's purpose, AND it actually happened, AND i qualified it, AND AB Again understood what i was getting at. Perhaps you want to use a different term?
What have I ever done to you that you insist on climbing all over anything I say? It is indeed a strawman:


Description of Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

It was the discovery of DNA which opened the door to recombinant DNA, which has now become so commonplace that any idiot with a grudge can create a virus sufficiently obscure and powerful enough to kill us all. :(

... is a strawman because I never once mentioned anyone using "biological warfare."

Um, no, you never used the words 'biological warfare' but you sure as hell introduced the subject. Now that the strawman charge is clearly refuted would you care to enlighten us as to the problem you have with Straughn's post?

See, he'll help.
You sure though? I mean, I could get a video camera...Wait...I don't want to see you, bleegh, nevermind.
WTF is this? Beat up on Eutrusca night? Jeeze!

What have I ever done to you that you insist on climbing all over anything I say?
You said something pretty specific about it here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10658695&postcount=68
What did you expect me to do? There's not much to argue about here, but it certainly isn't a "strawman". I'm not "attacking" you, i provided an exception to your post, historically accurate, that PRECEDES the issue you had in a temporal fashion.
I even specified the difference between virulogical warfare by intent and designer virus weapons. What else is there to argue?

WTF is this? Beat up on Eutrusca night? Jeeze!

Not my fault you decided to get old...I mean, people certainly like those old photos of you, If'n you still looked like that, maybe La dame would be more than sisterly, and I could turn quite a profit distrubuting the video.

Um, no, you never used the words 'biological warfare' but you sure as hell introduced the subject. Now that the strawman charge is clearly refuted would you care to enlighten us as to the problem you have with Straughn's post?
That doesn't concern you.

The straw man "charge" is most assuredly NOT "refuted." You really are rather ... challenged. And you apparently either still have not read the original post, or are incapable of understanding English. Straughn is the one who introduced the "biological warfare" strawman. Nowhere in my post did I either mention it, or allude to it, or even hint at it. Do yourself a favor and sit this one out.

WTF is this? Beat up on Eutrusca night? Jeeze!

No, just good old fashioned self defense. If you want to accuse someone of using a strawman, first make sure they have.

Not my fault you decided to get old...I mean, people certainly like those old photos of you, If'n you still looked like that, maybe La dame would be more than sisterly, and I could turn quite a profit distrubuting the video.
ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...I stand corrected when I say you need your brain cleaned.

Not my fault you decided to get old...I mean, people certainly like those old photos of you, If'n you still looked like that, maybe La dame would be more than sisterly, and I could turn quite a profit distrubuting the video.
Ahhh. Ok. I understand this now. Go play in traffic, little one. I have neither interest nor time nor inclination to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

No, just good old fashioned self defense. If you want to accuse someone of using a strawman, first make sure they have.
Look, oh intellectually challenged one: that post wasn't even in the "discussion" about recombinanat DNA, and most certainly was not directed at you. Please refrain from dragging in extraneous issues if you still insist on spreading around the garbage you mistake for logic.

That doesn't concern you.

The straw man "charge" is most assuredly NOT "refuted." You really are rather ... challenged. And you apparently either still have not read the original post, or are incapable of understanding English. Straughn is the one who introduced the "biological warfare" strawman. Nowhere in my post did I either mention it, or allude to it, or even hint at it. Do yourself a favor and sit this one out.

Now Eutrusca, I have taken real exception to your unnecessary ad hominems. If you can't answer the point attack the person. It has always been a favorite hasn't it?

I have read your post, I have quoted your post and it clearly refers to the use of biological agent to kill large numbers of people. If you do not understand this to be a reference to biological warfare then you need to explain what you understand biological warfare to be and how it is in any significant way different to the creation and use of "a virus sufficiently obscure and powerful enough to kill us all."

"The Night they Drove Old Dixie Down"

Worst moment ever.

Straughn is the one who introduced the "biological warfare" ...Okay, so far that's right.
...strawman. That's where it gets messed up.
Nowhere in my post did I either mention it, or allude to it, or even hint at it.What are you saying with this sentence, if you don't mind. Perhaps you're not arguing with me much, other than making assertions of strawmen that don't exist on my part. It would help if you clarified.

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...I stand corrected when I say you need your brain cleaned.

What? You've seen those photos right? Smunkee, or Cabra, or summat was fawning over 'em.

Now Eutrusca, I have taken real exception to your unnecessary ad hominems. If you can't answer the point attack the person. It has always been a favorite hasn't it?

I have read your post, I have quoted your post and it clearly refers to the use of biological agent to kill large numbers of people. If you do not understand this to be a reference to biological warfare then you need to explain what you understand biological warfare to be and how it is in any significant way different to the creation and use of "a virus sufficiently obscure and powerful enough to kill us all."
Ahhh. Whose puppet are you? Cannot think of a name?

There is a vast difference between biological terrorism ( or a biological agent which escapes its creator's intent to cause local harm ), and what you refer to as "biological warfare."

The worst moment in history?

The first pocketwatch is invented.

Nothing has contributed more to the decay of mankind than the portable timepiece. *nod*

Ahhh. Ok. I understand this now. Go play in traffic, little one. I have neither interest nor time nor inclination to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Well, you're not that old, you certainly have the time to "engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man."

Look, oh intellectually challenged one: that post wasn't even in the "discussion" about recombinanat DNA, and most certainly was not directed at you. Please refrain from dragging in extraneous issues if you still insist on spreading around the garbage you mistake for logic.

Learning how to debate from the shrub are we.

how is it that a post that starts
It was the discovery of DNA which opened the door to recombinant DNA, which has now become so commonplace

is 'not even in the "discussion" about recombinant DNA"?

And as to who it was directed at. It was directed at all the readers of this forum. If you want to direct a comment to someone in particular then TG them.

Well, you're not that old, you certainly have the time to "engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man."
I see the vultures have gathered once again. Don't you dimbulbs ever tire of this crap?

Ahhh. Whose puppet are you? Cannot think of a name?

There is a vast difference between biological terrorism ( or a biological agent which escapes its creator's intent to cause local harm ), and what you refer to as "biological warfare."

I am no ones puppet. I am Alien Born returned from the dead. We have crossed swords in the past, and you should remember that I am not someone that you can browbeat.

Does "War on terror" mean anything to you? War is terrorism, and terrorism is war. Being British I have lived with this my entire life. It is something the US residents are only just discovering. Be grateful that you escaped it for so long.

Ahhh. Whose puppet are you? Cannot think of a name? Grendel, what's the fun in having a puppet that expresses the same POV as yourself? ;)

There is a vast difference between biological terrorism ( or a biological agent which escapes its creator's intent to cause local harm ), and what you refer to as "biological warfare."Terrorism is the mental construct of intent to harm, with occasional instances to make the victim assume there is more harm to come.
If you mean to say that terrorism is a function of the attacker involved LOSING control over their weapon, that is something else, seeing as how the control of said terror shifts from the attacker to the device or instance itself - attacker loses leverage.
Biological warfare is as simple as utilizing negative biological consequences upon a target through a biological medium.

So is this what you're getting at?

What? You've seen those photos right? Smunkee, or Cabra, or summat was fawning over 'em.
actually no. Do you have a link or something?

I see the vultures have gathered once again. Don't you dimbulbs ever tire of this crap?

What? I said you weren't that old this time...You're like...60-something right? Meh, I hope you haven't been takin' me seriously this time around, focus on that AB character.

I am no ones puppet. I am Alien Born returned from the dead. We have crossed swords in the past, and you should remember that I am not someone that you can browbeat.

Does "War on terror" mean anything to you? War is terrorism, and terrorism is war. Being British I have lived with this my entire life. It is something the US residents are only just discovering. Be grateful that you escaped it forso long.
Uh ... no. Terrorism is terrorism, not war. That's why they created an entirely separate word for it.

actually no. Do you have a link or something?

Err....hold on...I shall look for them...

Uh ... no. Terrorism is terrorism, not war. That's why they created an entirely separate word for it.

You are entitled to believe that, but you would be wrong. Try looking at the history of warfare and see how often the "war" was actually a campaign of terror aimed at the local population. What was the idea of the Blitzkreig? To terrify the opposition into capitulation to the demands of the Nazis. What was the idea of the bombing campaign of the IRA? To terrify the opposition into capitulation to the demands of the IRA. Where, my ancient and ossified opponent, is the difference? In the declaration of war? That makes no difference to the actions that are carried out, itmakes no difference to the strategy used. Al-qaeda have declared war on the USA, so are they a terrorist group or an army? ETA declared war on Spain, FARC declared war on Colmbia etc. Is it that these groups are not governments. In which case the french resistance movement were a terrorist group, they were not at war.

Sorry Eutrusca. War is terrorism and terrorism is war. If you believe otherwise it is because you do not wish to believe (or remember, as the case may be) that war is terrifying.

You are entitled to believe that, but you would be wrong. Try looking at the history of warfare and see how often the "war" was actually a campaign of terror aimed at the local population. What was the idea of the Blitzkreig? To terrify the opposition into capitulation to the demands of the Nazis. What was the idea of the bombing campaign of the IRA? To terrify the opposition into capitulation to the demands of the IRA. Where, my ancient and ossified opponent, is the difference? In the declaration of war? That makes no difference to the actions that are carried out, itmakes no difference to the strategy used. Al-qaeda have declared war on the USA, so are they a terrorist group or an army? ETA declared war on Spain, FARC declared war on Colmbia etc. Is it that these groups are not governments. In which case the french resistance movement were a terrorist group, they were not at war.

Sorry Eutrusca. War is terrorism and terrorism is war. If you believe otherwise it is because you do not wish to believe (or remember, as the case may be) that war is terrifying.

war (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/war)

1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.


ter·ror·ism (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/terrorism)

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

What do you think was the worst moment in the history of the world. Not for just YOU, but for the ENTIRE world.

The Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I.

The Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I.
IIRC, that's *already* seconded.

Yes, they are different words, but their refferent is the same state. A state of conflict between two groups.

War is not lawful, and nothing in the definitions you provided claims that it is. (It would be nice Eutrusca if you would provide your interpretations of the terms, not those of someone else.) I also notice that the definition of war that you provide says nothing about the motives for such states of affairs existing. What would you argue that these are if not "ideological or political reasons".

Let us also look at meaning 2 from the webster for war, which you conveniently chose not to include. (Oh it would help if you would cite your sources you know.)
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>

Now how does terrorism differ from a "state of hostility, conflict or antagonism"?

Yes, they are different words, but their refferent is the same state. A state of conflict between two groups.

War is not lawful, and nothing in the definitions you provided claims that it is. (It would be nice Eutrusca if you would provide your interpretations of the terms, not those of someone else.) I also notice that the definition of war that you provide says nothing about the motives for such states of affairs existing. What would you argue that these are if not "ideological or political reasons".

Let us also look at meaning 2 from the webster for war, which you conveniently chose not to include. (Oh it would help if you would cite your sources you know.)

Now how does terrorism differ from a "state of hostility, conflict or antagonism"?
The definitions are the commonly accepted ones and from a reputable source. They stand on their own. I linked to the source. Quoting from reputable sources is a perfectly valid way to clarify terms.

war-violence against military(s)
terrorism-violence against civillian(s)

As for the worst moment in history, I don't know which one:
the day communism was invented. Hard to pick something that could be easier to abuse and distort. Just look at what Stalin did with it.

The day oil was dicovered.

The day black powder was invented and/or discovered. No black powser invention means no guns or tanks.

war-violence against military(s)
terrorism-violence against civillian(s)



While I wish your distinction were true, it simply is not. How many civilians were killed in the second world war?

While I wish your distinction were true, it simply is not. How many civilians were killed in the second world war?
Like, by stray fire or terror tactics used by regimes? Because terror tactics counts as terrorism in my book.

The definitions are the commonly accepted ones and from a reputable source. They stand on their own. I linked to the source. Quoting from reputable sources is a perfectly valid way to clarify terms.

Sorry. I missed the links in the headings. I retract that accusation.

Quoting from a reliable source is a valid way of clarifying terms true. However your 'reliable' source chose to deal with the two terms in unsimilar ways. Thus making a comparison from that source ineffective. One refers to the state of affairs, the other refers to the causes of the state of affairs and not to the state itself.

Could you please tell me the difference, in your view, between war and terrorism?

The day man found religion...

Like, by stray fire or terror tactics used by regimes? Because terror tactics counts as terrorism in my book.

The argument here is as to whether there is a significant difference between war and terrorism.

Killing of civilians happened wholesale and intentionally in the second world war
(Dresden, Coventry, Nagasaki, Hiroshima - to name the most obvious cases) and this is considered to be warfare, not terrorism.

In my view there is no difference between the two. It is a political game that is played to deny legitimacy to the opponent. That is all. Note, however, I am not saying that the opponent deserves legitimacy in all cases.

When Germany broke its treaty with Russia. I would of loved to see the U.S. and Germany slug it out. :sniper: :mp5:

The day man found religion...
Hmmm....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10658484&postcount=13

Agreed, in a way.

the invention of the gun or the nuke.

When I went back in time and jerked off into the primordial ooze.

The witch hunts in Europe. Whole villages were depopulated and domestic cats were nearly wiped out because they were witches' "familiars" - because of this, the rat and mouse population exploded providing a fertile breeding ground for the fleas that carried bubonic plague.

The introduction of organized religion. By no means am I knocking spirituality, but the sheer number of genocide victims due to organized religion is fncking ridiculous.

The introduction of organized religion. By no means am I knocking spirituality, but the sheer number of genocide victims due to organized religion is fncking ridiculous.

Many may argue that it was the introduction of organized religion that got us to stop throwing spears at one another, at least for short periods.

More have died because of human flaws such as greed and desire of power than religion has killed.

Clinton Presidency with a doubt. And 9/11 which he let happen

Worst event for Homo Sapiens: probably the Toba supervolcanic eruption, around 74,000 years ago. I seem to recall something about the... ah, yes, Wiki is even kind enough to provide a page on the Toba catastrophe theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory). :)
Worst event for life on Earth: probably the mass extinction at the end of the Permian (~251 million years ago), though the Snowball Earth hypothesis is another potential candidate
The worst event in our stellar neighborhood: the development of life on Earth more than four billion years ago... okay, this one's a joke. :D

Clinton Presidency with a doubt. And 9/11 which he let happen
Not to mention the asprin factories he bombed...

This might sound strange, but I think the single darkest moment people (or at least Western people) have endured in history was the Germans in the last weeks of WWII, and I suppose by that logic the same goes for the Japanese.
That was the sort of thing you could call armageddon-like, physical, mental and in terms of their whole world view being destroyed.

Cuban missile crisis-The world was so close to turning Earth into a mass grave, because of the Americans and Russians

Cuban missile crisis-The world was so close to turning Earth into a mass grave, because of the Americans and Russians

And yet it lead to limiting nuclear arms between the two nations.

So you’re ok with religions being illegal? Interesting.
Haha, no. Way to twist my words.

Ugh...never mind...

The introduction of organized religion. By no means am I knocking spirituality, but the sheer number of genocide victims due to organized religion is fncking ridiculous.


... got to allow for the possibility that genocides are not the result of an organisation ( as in organised religions ) but rather as a result of human nature itself. People pretty much do as they please whenever feasible. The stated motives ( say, receiving an order from the Pope ) just serve as an excuse for doing what they wanted to do anyway...

( The underlined is pretty much my view of human behaviour - and it leaves any detailed research into the why's and how's as rather irrelevant ).

Oh.. yeah.. 'fore I forget:

Worst moment in human history: invention of written communication ( making all subsequent organised disasters possible ).

Previous to the invention of writing, man's ability to do mischief was severely limited.

Dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - introduced a new method of warfare, one that led to much of the developed world (and the USSR :p ) living in fear for the next half-century.

Election of Hitler to position of Chancellor of Germany - a downward spiral towards war from then on.

I'd also have to agree with Nadkor on the legalisation of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

Black Death killed a third of the European population. Killed far fewer in Asia, very few in Europe, did not touch the Americas.
Very few in Europe? :confused: Between one and two third of Europes population died and thats very few?

Anyway. I think it was the founding of the United States.

Anyway. I think it was the founding of the United States.
Hrmm that had some conceptual attraction to it (secession and so on), but yeah I agree. :)

I'd also have to agree with Nadkor on the legalisation of Christianity in the Roman Empire.
People should agree with Nadkor more often :p

The day socialism was devised.

When Constantine heard voices in his head.
I would actually change that to when Abraham heard voices in his head. Because of him, we have Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The worst day in history was the day someone came up with the whole idea of religion. Religion is THE number one cause of everything wrong with the world throughout history and even today, if not more so. We really were a promising species, but ever since the priets and traders got hold of us it's just been a very long extinction, and as we circle the drain, the end just comes faster.

The worst day in human history: The day we invented AI and spawned the computer generated construct known as the Matrix. Actually, it was religion without a doubt.

The Black death. Killed about 1/3 of the entire human population.

Actually, the black death directly stimulated the economy of the time, pulling much of Europe out of some pretty terrible conditions. Also, it led to better work conditions throughout(lower workforce led to higher demand for labor-competition to have better conditions set in).

So, although the Black Death did cause many deaths, in the end it was actually helpfull as a whole.

And it killed 1/3 of Europe, not the human population.

30th January 1933- The day Adolf Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany.

The destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the sacking of Baghdad immediately come to mind. There is absolutely no way of knowing just how much those two events set the world as a whole back... We would live in a very different, and I'd wager better, world if we had retained that amount of collected knowledge through the ages.

IMO those are the most massive "what if" moments in history.

The destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the sacking of Baghdad immediately come to mind. There is absolutely no way of knowing just how much those two events set the world as a whole back... We would live in a very different, and I'd wager better, world if we had retained that amount of collected knowledge through the ages.

IMO those are the most massive "what if" moments in history.

Which sacking of Baghdad are you referring too?

I can agree with the Library of Alexandria though.

The destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the sacking of Baghdad immediately come to mind. There is absolutely no way of knowing just how much those two events set the world as a whole back... We would live in a very different, and I'd wager better, world if we had retained that amount of collected knowledge through the ages.

IMO those are the most massive "what if" moments in history.
Legend has it that the Library had the only remaining documents from Atlantis.

When Nazi Germany invaded Poland and Europe was pulled into World War II

It has always been my opinion that religon has been a good thing. It established a reason for people to do good instead of bad. Before people thought they could go to a "hell" they often saw no reciprocation. Though fanatics, and it really is just the fanatics, messed up the world, religon, overall, has helped, not hindered. Worst moment: Treaty of Versailles

It was one of the many, many small religions in the Empire, and it was illegal. He made it legal and paved the way for it to make it big. Theodosius can take some blame, too.

As a christian I have to agree that the day our religion was legalized sucked big time. It paved the way for all the fake assholes that make all the rest of you hate (disaprove of) us so much.

Legend has it that the Library had the only remaining documents from Atlantis.
A shame that we'll never know... :(

The destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the sacking of Baghdad immediately come to mind. There is absolutely no way of knowing just how much those two events set the world as a whole back... We would live in a very different, and I'd wager better, world if we had retained that amount of collected knowledge through the ages.

IMO those are the most massive "what if" moments in history.
You know I wasn't sure what to put, but this just seems right.

I agrees, The destruction of the Library of Alexandria definetley has to be the worst event. If it wasn't destroyed, hell, Columbus could've been sailing to the moon.

Æthelstan dieing without a proper heir

I would actually change that to when Abraham heard voices in his head. Because of him, we have Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The problem existed long before that. The day the first person saw something they couldnt explain, like a volcano or something, and instead of doing some research, formulating a hypothesis, testing it and coming up with a theory, they just made something up. probably some super volcano god. And stuck with that explanation regardless.

Mankinds tendency to make up stupid things, and then actually believe them, is a greater problem than anything else. even the terrorist problem we have now is caused by this.

Imagine what Saudi arabia could be like without religion. Civilised, thats what it could be like. habitable maybe. a place where women can walk the streets. Damn You Abraham!!! I dont care whether he was mentally ill or just a damn liar, he really has pissed me off.

Yes, since white Europe is the only real place. The rest of the world aren't really humans. *kills himself*

nah white america is cool too

lol

the day Jesus Christ was crucufied:(

the day Jesus Christ was crucufied:(
Why?

I don't honestly think there is anything so bad as to qualify as the "worst" event in the world; virtually everything bad that has occured has also had an upside to it.

the day Jesus Christ was crucufied:(

wasn't that a good thing? considering he died for your/our sins?

The worst moment?

March 26th, 1944.

The worst moment?

March 26th, 1944.

What is so bad about that date?

What is so bad about that date?

3,261,944 is his unlucky number?

The worst moment in human history is the instant when people started to use or skew their religion as an excuse to murder, persecute, torture, beat, exclude and otherwise attempt to destroy other people who don't agree with them.

The worst moment in human history is the instant when people started to use or skew their religion as an excuse to murder, persecute, torture, beat, exclude and otherwise attempt to destroy other people who don't agree with them.

Wouldn't really be a moment would it? Sorta like a time period from the creation of religion to....Now-ish?

The date when man invented religon.

Worst event for Homo Sapiens: probably the Toba supervolcanic eruption, around 74,000 years ago. I seem to recall something about the... ah, yes, Wiki is even kind enough to provide a page on the Toba catastrophe theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory). :)
Worst event for life on Earth: probably the mass extinction at the end of the Permian (~251 million years ago), though the Snowball Earth hypothesis is another potential candidate
The worst event in our stellar neighborhood: the development of life on Earth more than four billion years ago... okay, this one's a joke. :D

I was thinking along those lines too. Though it could be argued that Toba is responsible for our evolution into homo sapiens sapiens.

.

The date when man invented religon.


Why is that such a bad thing? Giving people hope, morals, standards and so on is bad? I don't think so... heck, one could argue science and "logic" has brought some bad things onto mankind. I beleive that both however are necessary for mankind. So yeah...im bored:p

Why is that such a bad thing? Giving people hope, morals, standards and so on is bad? I don't think so... heck, one could argue science and "logic" has brought some bad things onto mankind. I beleive that both however are necessary for mankind. So yeah...im bored:p
WHORE-A for boredom!!!

Why is that such a bad thing? Giving people hope, morals, standards and so on is bad? I don't think so... heck, one could argue science and "logic" has brought some bad things onto mankind. I beleive that both however are necessary for mankind. So yeah...im bored:p


Except that religion is not the source of morals and standards. At best it codified them into "law", at worst it coopted them and used them to oppress people.

Why is that such a bad thing? Giving people hope, morals, standards and so on is bad? I don't think so...

Hope, morals, and standards exist without religion. One does not lead to the other.


heck, one could argue science and "logic" has brought some bad things onto mankind.

Agreed.


I beleive that both however are necessary for mankind.

Neither are necessary. They have their uses, but humanity would continue to exist just fine without them.

.