Were people in the Dark/Middle Ages dumber than other ages?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:32 pm

Neeek wrote: Therefore, the system his government ran under might not suck as bad as people like to claim. Especially once you stop killing people for no reason under it.

So Stalin's government was better than superstars like the tsars, National Socialists, and Khmer Rouge! Big fucking deal! What an incredibly high hurdle for people to jump!

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:35 pm

The system of government under Stalin did great things in spite of him. That does not indicate that Stalin was good in any way.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:15 pm

It was better than most democracies and republics as well, Lago.

Seriously.

-Crissa

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:50 pm

Still doesn't change the fact that Stalin needlessly murdered millions of people, Crissa.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this. If you have the ability to save three million people but only save two million of them and kill the other third you don't get to be a saint.

It's not even that hard to compare. Josip Tito was also a communist and did douchey things like accept being President For Life (to be fair, he was re-elected a ridiculous number of times, seven I think) and 'necessary' evils like the whole business of leading a guerilla army against German occupation. He also brought an equal amount of prosperity to the country without being an enormous dillweed.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:20 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Still doesn't change the fact that Stalin needlessly murdered millions of people, Crissa.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this. If you have the ability to save three million people but only save two million of them and kill the other third you don't get to be a saint..

That's because you are still missing the point. The point isn't about Stalin at all. It's about the system that was running under him.

Stalin = horrible, evil murderous dictator.

USSR under Stalin = insane growth and increase in quality of life.

Stalin = still evil.

The system of government Stalin ran: Actually phenomenally successful, even when ran by one of the worst people who ever lived.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:21 am

Can anyone point me to a better source on Aurangzeb? Wikipedia is engaged in obvious apologetics and Google isn't doesn't much better.

I mean, honestly, that article asserts that that dickhole was the first leader to impose Sharia over a non-Muslim country but also that he didn't force anyone to convert. Uh huh. Nice try, Wikipedos.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:28 am

Neeek wrote:The system of government Stalin ran: Actually phenomenally successful, even when ran by one of the worst people who ever lived.

My point was and remains that even though Russia did much better under Stalin than before IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER IF SOMEONE BESIDES HIM WAS RUNNING THE SHOW.

Stalin. Doesn't get. A Pass. He was in the driver's seat and managed not to fuck everything totally up even though it would have been easy for him not to fuck things up.

I honestly don't see what's so hard about this. Things got better on the whole, but they could have easily been much better than they were. The fact that millions of people died for no reason and the place still ended up better off is a testament to how shitty pre-Revolution Russia was, not how good of a leader he is.

So he's better than Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler, leaders who didn't manage to bring anything but misery. Big. Fucking. Deal. Stalin is still a royal douche and Russia would've been better off if nearly anyone was in the hot seat at the time, including dumb shits like Winston Churchill--if for no other reason than reforms would've happened above his head.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:01 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Neeek wrote:The system of government Stalin ran: Actually phenomenally successful, even when ran by one of the worst people who ever lived.
My point was and remains that even though Russia did much better under Stalin than before IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER IF SOMEONE BESIDES HIM WAS RUNNING THE SHOW.

And you continue to miss the point.

My response to that is "duh". That's the ENTIRE point of the argument: The government Stalin ran was amazing despite having one of the worst people to ever run a government running it.

The entire point is Stalin's government did amazing things despite having a complete loon running it. Maybe that form of government is actually pretty good, and would be even better if ran by sane people.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:32 pm

Can we get back to the Dark Ages?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:59 pm

You're really a kind of unaware self parody aren't you Tzor?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:19 am

Yes, but you can count the US presidents on one hand who didn't murder a million people for money, in the last hundred years, too.

So what, Lago?

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:44 am

Crissa wrote:Yes, but you can count the US presidents on one hand who didn't murder a million people for money, in the last hundred years, too.

So what, Lago?

-Crissa

Yeah, but they don't kill millions of Americans. Just "Injuns" and "For'ners". Neither did Stalin, but that isn't the point.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:03 am

tzor wrote:
Can we get back to the Dark Ages?

Trust the Catholic to say we need to go back to the dark ages :p

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:07 pm

Koumei wrote:Trust the Catholic to say we need to go back to the dark ages

Discussing, I was implying can we get back to discussing the Dark Ages. That's the title of this thread, Dark Ages and being Dumb, not comparing modern tyrants and how evil they were. I know there is a bug in the forum in that when you are replying the title of the thread is not visible anywhere on the screen, but ignorance of the thread topic is not an excuse.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:52 pm

tzor wrote:I know there is a bug in the forum in that when you are replying the title of the thread is not visible anywhere on the screen, but ignorance of the thread topic is not an excuse.

It is on the screen. Very top, above first post.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Kaelik wrote:
tzor wrote:I know there is a bug in the forum in that when you are replying the title of the thread is not visible anywhere on the screen, but ignorance of the thread topic is not an excuse.
It is on the screen. Very top, above first post.

Not in the "post a reply" mode. Above te post a reply are only the forum links: "The Gaming Den Forum Index -> MPSIMS" and it does not appear in the "topic review" section.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:34 pm

It's the topic line of the page. It should show up perhaps atop your window or something.

If your browser doesn't show the topic line, maybe you should get a new browser...

Besides, it was just an ironic joke, tzor.

-Crissa

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:45 am

Tzor's right. I'm running Firefox and when I go to the postreply or preview all it says is "The Gaming Den :: Post a reply". A quick check shows Safari does the same.

The thread title, or even "Were people" is not in the source of the page. It should take maybe 5 seconds to check to see if it does happen rather than "It should show up perhaps atop your window or something."

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:57 am

I can see it on my window now.

Wait, you expect it to be in the edit-reply page?

-Crissa

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:38 am

Crissa is right: I was just making a dumb joke.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:20 pm

Koumei wrote:Crissa is right: I was just making a dumb joke.

I know, I know, but you realize how many times I have been in the "Post a reply" mode and started to wonder, "what the hell is this topic anyway?" Short term memory is always the ... what was that agian?

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:13 pm

Koumei wrote:Crissa is right: I was just making a dumb joke.

I laughed.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:31 am

Koumei wrote:Crissa is right: I was just making a dumb joke.

I think PhoneLobster's might have been funnier.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:47 am

Aurangazeb - god haven't studied this since 6th standard history in India. Without looking for material -- off the top of my head, probably one of the worst Mughal rulers in India. He pretty much wasted the good work of his predecessors.

The priors were a little less despotic than him. Akbar is still called one of the greatest Indian rulers even though he was part of the conquering elite.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:47 am

Edit: double post