Are you seriously comparing fast food to pedophilia? :dry.gif:
I facedesked. Very hard. Please read my post, very very closely, and then ask me that again.
While you're re-evaluating that really dumb question, let me ask one of my own: are you seriously trying to make some grand, oversimplifying statement of a nation based entirely on a single video?
This is nothing about economy and crap >.> Japan has better technology than America, I'm American and I say so.
I don't feel like making this a giant political debate, because frankly a 3D anime girl isn't something to start that. It wasn't my intention, either.
Nationalism? Pah. People talk as if nationalism is bad, but the popular nationalist movements of the day was for freed independence not "my race is better than yours" crap. I never saw nationalism as a prime starter of WW1, considering the people in power really didn't give a damn about their race, rather, they cared for their position of power and wealth.
Well, I'd say the government, for the most part anyway, didn't give a damn about their race. You'd be hard pressed to say the average Frenchman didn't want Alsace-Lorraine back, or the Serbians, Croats, and other Slavs in the Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted independence only for "power and wealth".
After studying the topic extensively, I conclude that the German military command and aristocracy are the ones to blame here. Did the other powers have ideas of war? Sure. Who striked first? Germany. That is where I am basing this post on; so don't incline to believe Germany was the only aggressor, but it developed detailed plans first and urged her allies to attack more so than anybody.
I encourage you to read the first few dozen pages of John Keegan's The First World War. Ultimately yes, the greatest chunk of the blame can be thrown at Germany, and war was inevitable, but there was so many opportunities before the war and after Ferdinand's assassination, and not all of them were thwarted entirely from the Germans.
2) Germany thought a colonial empire would bring them superb wealth and power, they only had to look at Great Britain for an example. (It turned out however, as the British had millions of acres of bankrupt land. In the 20th century, colonialism was a lost cause thanks to the economic practices of the day - where the colonists were so poor they couldn't buy the crap they produced)
Yep. The loss of Germany's overseas colonies did not impact them that much at all, economically anyway.
Germany had great confidence in their ability to quickly win a war against Russia and (their ally) France. This was so because this new generation of Germans were, to be blunt, cocky. Their fathers united Germany (1871) and won a war against France very quickly (Franco-Prussian War).
Don't forget the smaller but still significant Austro-Prussian War before that.
In the end, they needed a cassus belli: a reason (to declare) war.
Pessimism and Nihilism isn't the same thing.
Nihilists can not think they are 'the wisest people on the planet' because they don't hold any value for anything, including themselves.
The people you're describing fit much more closely to egocentricism than nihilism. They seem to believe that their life is the only life of meaning in the world, and their life's events define the value of everything else in the world. Therefore, if bad things happen to them, they'll think the world is a bad place and it is worthless.
If good things happen to them, they'll see a lot of good things in the world. If some good things happen and some bad things happen to them, they see the good things as valuable and everything else as worthless.
They also live only in the moment and praise themselves above all others, because they are short-sighted and believe they are inherently better than others at all things.
There are TONS of people in the world like that, and they are all pretty stupid... but they aren't nihilists. Not if they hold value to anything.
In that definition, then, I can't say I've met many nihilists. However, I was under the impression that nihilism and pessimism, while not synonymous, are closely related. Is pessimism different simply because they hold meaning, even if they're negative?
I love it, and playing Co-op is hugely entertaining. The only thing I didn't like was the campaign was nothing like the emotional and deep narrative we got from the teaser trailer. It was really just a bland "quest A quest B oh let's throw in a few side quests" storyline. But graphics, gameplay and overall fun factor is fantastic.
Depends. Deus Ex is a story driven shooter, and you can approach it stealthily or guns blazing. Dead Island is an RPG which is nothing like Left 4 Dead or Dead Rising and is loads of fun.
Get Deus Ex first if you like a damn good narrative. Get Dead Island first if you want to play an RPG where you cave in ghoul skulls in 150+ different ways. But really, you gotta get both.
I'm a natural optimist, so I have an inherent dislike for nihilists, but also because most of my experience with them is from people who had a bad relationship, or was arrested by the police, or some other relatively minor event, and believes that they're the wisest people on the planet and has been to Hell and back. No, not all nihilists are like these individuals, but I have yet to meet a rational nihilist, if such a person exists.
Let me give a proper answer that isn't "society", or "human nature".
You can't really put the blame of World War I at any particular nation's feet. The war was caused by many things: nationalism, especially in multi-national Austria-Hungary. A desire to regain lost territory (Alsace-Lorraine was a historical grievance, taken by the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War). The tangle of alliances that began to spring up following the unification of Germany and Italy, but mostly Germany.
Looking closer at the tangle of alliances: Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary shot and killed by Serbian nationalists in Sarajevo. Austria gives demands to Serbia, who refuse, so they declare war on Serbia. Russia declares war on Austria-Hungary because they support Serbia. Germany declares war on Russia because they're an ally of AH, and then France, because they're an ally of Russia. Britain declares war when the Germans invade Belgium to get to France.
The Ottomans joined when the French and British declare war on them since the Ottomans were blatantly lying about being "neutral", when they were in fact harboring German naval ships. Also, the Allies didn't "steamroll" the Ottomans until 1917. And by Allies I mean the British and Russians mostly. The French only had the Army of the Orient in the Balkans and did send units to the Gallipoli campaign, but not much else.
I could go on for paragraphs and paragraphs, but really you can't really answer who was entirely responsible for WWI. It's easy to put the blame on the Central Powers alone, but that isn't really a satisfactory answer.
0
I facedesked. Very hard. Please read my post, very very closely, and then ask me that again.
While you're re-evaluating that really dumb question, let me ask one of my own: are you seriously trying to make some grand, oversimplifying statement of a nation based entirely on a single video?
0
AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
oh good one, it's almost as if you were serious
Japanese culture promotes pedophilia is like saying American culture promotes fast food. It's grossly oversimplifying.
0
Well, I'd say the government, for the most part anyway, didn't give a damn about their race. You'd be hard pressed to say the average Frenchman didn't want Alsace-Lorraine back, or the Serbians, Croats, and other Slavs in the Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted independence only for "power and wealth".
I encourage you to read the first few dozen pages of John Keegan's The First World War. Ultimately yes, the greatest chunk of the blame can be thrown at Germany, and war was inevitable, but there was so many opportunities before the war and after Ferdinand's assassination, and not all of them were thwarted entirely from the Germans.
Yep. The loss of Germany's overseas colonies did not impact them that much at all, economically anyway.
Don't forget the smaller but still significant Austro-Prussian War before that.
Agreed.
0
In that definition, then, I can't say I've met many nihilists. However, I was under the impression that nihilism and pessimism, while not synonymous, are closely related. Is pessimism different simply because they hold meaning, even if they're negative?
1
0
Get Deus Ex first if you like a damn good narrative. Get Dead Island first if you want to play an RPG where you cave in ghoul skulls in 150+ different ways. But really, you gotta get both.
0
0
You can't really put the blame of World War I at any particular nation's feet. The war was caused by many things: nationalism, especially in multi-national Austria-Hungary. A desire to regain lost territory (Alsace-Lorraine was a historical grievance, taken by the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War). The tangle of alliances that began to spring up following the unification of Germany and Italy, but mostly Germany.
Looking closer at the tangle of alliances: Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary shot and killed by Serbian nationalists in Sarajevo. Austria gives demands to Serbia, who refuse, so they declare war on Serbia. Russia declares war on Austria-Hungary because they support Serbia. Germany declares war on Russia because they're an ally of AH, and then France, because they're an ally of Russia. Britain declares war when the Germans invade Belgium to get to France.
The Ottomans joined when the French and British declare war on them since the Ottomans were blatantly lying about being "neutral", when they were in fact harboring German naval ships. Also, the Allies didn't "steamroll" the Ottomans until 1917. And by Allies I mean the British and Russians mostly. The French only had the Army of the Orient in the Balkans and did send units to the Gallipoli campaign, but not much else.
I could go on for paragraphs and paragraphs, but really you can't really answer who was entirely responsible for WWI. It's easy to put the blame on the Central Powers alone, but that isn't really a satisfactory answer.
0
Fixed.