Of course it's taught in CROATIA, right next-fucking-door to Italy (where ROME happens to be, and Italy and Croatia used to be a part of the Roman empire)! And yes I realize that's geography, but I just looked it up in less than a minute, proving that I don't have to memorize it. But I don't happen to live anywhere NEAR Rome, and in my experience, I don't know ANYONE who has an education of ancient Rome unless they watch the History channel. So it's not nearly as common as you think, and I'm surprised you didn't know that. That's not very WORLDLY of you, is it?!

Who says I even benefit them "physically"? I'm not sure what you're insinuating. Anyway, I benefit myself by achieving my personal goals, which in ways are ambitious, though not necessarily occupationally, and also by experiencing the hobbies that I enjoy. Is that so wrong?

Yes, I am defensive, for one reason only: from the start of this thread, you've been insulting me unjustly, and so I'm defending myself against your ridiculous assertions and interpretations.

I'll admit that in some ways, this is true. Sometimes you have to go through grunt work of learning low-level or abstract things before you get to the really interesting stuff, because one can build on another. It's just that I think focusing only on breadth of knowledge, especially aimlessly, is not as important as depth within the areas that you really need. And that is, after all, logical. If you need to do a thing, learn how to do that thing, not 600 other things that have nothing to do with it!

This is in reference to the statement I made about aesthetics. I already gave examples. Clothing/fashion is largely aesthetic. Architecture is largely aesthetic. I'm sure there are other examples but I can't think of them right now because I don't really care anyway. But the point is, both of those things are generally considered to be of cultural significance.

I didn't actually say it was worthless, but there are only so many hours in a day and days in a year. If I were immortal, I'd probably research all these things eventually, just out of boredom. I actually do frequently browse Wikipedia pages just to look up things I'm curious about, but always with something in mind, not just randomly. So it's not hard to see why I wouldn't have stumbled upon that particular page about the wolf, given that there are I think about 4 billion pages on that site.

Again, I get the impression that you're implying an accusation against society, and by association, me (even though I barely consider myself to be a part of society - I hate it for completely different reasons than you) that we're all "culturally insensitive" which by your definition would probably amount to just PC BS.

That's not true, strictly speaking. There are ways to get a reward without a risk. And I didn't say that necessarily everyone should always stick to their comfort zones, nor that those zones must always be tiny. You're assuming that. And it also isn't true to say that nothing would be achieved. That is a fallacy based on the assumption that the comfort zones are so small that no innovation can possibly be performed within them. And again, I resent this constant assumption that I'm so materialistic, and that things are all I care about. I never said any such thing. I do inquire, wonder, gather knowledge and develop philosophy and technology (not so much for exploring though).

(Again, it didn't post the whole thing, so I'll post the rest later.)

A lot of that is WAY easier said than done, and sometimes it just simply CAN'T be done. Not all people have full control of the circumstances in their life, nor even have any good options. Sometimes all you have is bad options, and even making the most of it amounts to very little of anything good. I don't care whether the world cares for individual troubles or not. I am an individual, and I care for my troubles, whether the world acknowledges them or not. As I've said, I prefer to associate with the world to the extent I choose, and if we disagree, I go my own way. If you've had problems before, then you should know better. Shame on you for expecting everyone else to do something that you should realize isn't always feasible (and in some cases isn't desirable). You don't seem to have any respect for differences of opinion or perspective. What one person perceives as good and beneficial, another will perceive as bad and detrimental, just because to that person, the effect may seem much worse. But only that person has the right to judge how good or bad the effect is on him-/herself! If you had any empathy, you'd understand, and I must say again, this is very unworldly of you. Frankly, your opinions are often very cult-like.

I'm glad you brought this up. These are scientific examples, and as we've been saying all along, that's not the same thing as cultural/humanitarian or general knowledge. The laws of physics are immutable and any specific technology should be created in an exact way. Each individual component, when reduced either to the smallest possible - or at least a very simple - part, may then be understood, and constructed into something larger an more complex. This is different than the extrapolation that you're trying to apply to things like history, because in that case, you can't examine each part independently, because the parts are acted on by people, who are part of the system, and therefore will behave differently in response to complex combinations of circumstances, so looking at one event and trying to compare that to other similar events doesn't have nearly as much significance.

A smirk is a sort of smile, like someone might give in response to a JOKE. It was speedy and uninterested, because it was just a little off-the-cuff remark that I really didn't care about. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by insulting your precious wolf. I'm sure you two will be very happy together. And I'm all for freedom of expression in art, but that doesn't mean it's not perversion merely because it's art. Perversion is perversion. You can't have a double-standard.

See a different comment I made above.

Again, see an above comment. But I notice that you didn't reply to my theories about your beliefs that people should be forced into cooperative scenarios against their will, or that I am a bigot. I would be curious to know whether I'm on the mark or not.

Again, see an above quote. also, I realize that learning scientific principals could be considering history, since they were discovered historically, but come on. That's not the same thing as what I referred to as "learning from history's mistakes".

This was in reference to the nonlinear systems of differential equations. I believe you can solve differential equations, but I somehow doubt that you can solve them in nonlinear systems, because that's something that very few people can do. If you can, bravo. Also, I didn't mean to imply that they constituted general knowledge. I only meant that if you were going to call me ignorant because I didn't know some specific thing, I would do the same to you, just to prove my point.

(We can continue this discussion if you want, but we need to abbreviate it somehow. It just takes too long.)

Rome was the largest empire of its time and the leading force in the then-known world in Euro-Asia. And even all Europeans know at least a thing or two of American history as well, so checkmate there :P

Then are you intent on improving yourself, your horizons, skills and knowledge to better yourself, and therefore your surroundings?

You are overly aggressive to a set of posts I'm trying to make in order to, as weird as it might sound, help enlighten you. It would be a waste of time and effort otherwise. At first I (like emperorsfist, the other guy) was stumped by your initial two posts, but now that I got your proper attention, I see there's intelligence in you, but intelligence that wants to limit itself and look down upon what isn't immediately important to it.

I used to be aggressive towards general knowledge and self-improvement myself, until I saw it led me nowhere.

Like I said earlier, no knowledge is worthless. Of course you'll put the stress on what you immediately need to know, but not expanding on other areas is a bit on the blindsighted side. Why do you think intellectuals try to grasp as many things as they can that are unrelated to their main careers?

(Architecture, for one thing, isn't just aesthetic, it's also functional. Different areas and periods devised different functional solutions and spatial organization.)

But generally, I think you're looking just on the superficial part of things, like the architecture and art (Capitoline Wuff...) examples. Unless made with the actual intent of making art for art's sake (which is virtually meaningless unless the goal is to improve the way the art is made), everything has a meaning beyond superficial - functional, symbollic, scientific, you name it.

That's a good practice, and I'm not sure if anyone uses Wikipedia randomly unless they're really bored.

I did not try to imply cultural insensitivity (where did you even get that from?), but simple shortcuts that can help you interact with different cultures faster and more efficiently, in ways that are not limited to avoiding inadvertent insults to people from another culture.

Comfort zones, by their nature and intent, involve enclosing into things you already own/know, and while they are not inherently negative, sticking to them and not exiting them is. There is only so much you can do within them, and nobody discovered anything by staying in them.

Then I am puzzled by your condescending attitude towards things and views you do not (want to) know and do not (want to) explore, and the way you wish to limit yourself to a set of interests exclusively while not inquiring what truly exists beyond them.
Um, back at you?

Perspectives are one thing, facts are another, so things can be objectively good/bad/good-and-bad as well.

Often you can examine every part of a situation, because many factors that led to it and that follow it are quite predictable. (Like

In more ways than one, it came out quite disrespectful (for someone who keeps using that word with varying success).

It isn't perversion if the intent wasn't perverse, and was merely depictory of a legend/symbol instead.

I must have missed what you refer to in our textwalls...

___________________

And to resolve these post your edit:

I didn't call you personally a hipster, but the overdependency on technology itself that is prevalent among them.

It constantly changes/vanishes and is not reliable in all situations, and I'm not even talking about apocalyptic scenarios.

Geography in a wider sense, perhaps?

Isn't intelligence, rather than intellect, measurable in percentiles?

How so, if I'm trying to promote intellectual principles?

Not from a resume, but sometimes interviews alone can deliver.

I don't consider that checkmate at all. Firstly, if you are implying that I'm from anywhere in America, where are you getting that stereotype? Secondly, if you're implying that I should know a thing or two about European history, that doesn't mean that I would know that specific thing. Thirdly, I'm telling you for a fact that I was not taught that in school. And honestly, it may be useful information to some people but I hardly see how it's something that should be in the standard education, since you do have to be somewhat selective. As I said, there's only so much time to learn all that must be learned. And can you honestly give an example of how knowing about that wolf could directly or even indirectly be of practical use to anyone (and don't say because it could inspire a discussion like this one - that's too easy)?

I'm not really in a position to better my surroundings, if by surroundings you mean the society in which I live. I don't have authority over it. As for bettering myself, I think I've already answered that, but yes.

Perhaps you misunderstand me to an extent. I have no intention of limiting my intelligence, nor am I even trying to imply that there is anything wrong with learning however much "general knowledge", as you call it, that you would like to know. I'm sure there are even some benefits to it, but more so for some people than for others; it depends largely on circumstance. I find it ironic that you keep accusing me of having such a narrow view, when actually your view is quite narrow to prescribe a method that you automatically assume will be best for everyone even if you don't know their particular circumstance. That's what seems cult-like about you - this not only following your method, but blindly spamming it like you want it to take over the whole world. That's the problem I have with it: not the method itself, but the fact that you're trying to push it on me or anyone else, saying that your point of view is definitely the right one and then having the nerve to accuse me of not being open-minded enough. Do you see the irony? If I am overly aggressive, it's not because you presented your method, but because you told me that I should/must/need to follow it, rather than just saying "here's something you might like to consider as a possibility."

Look, I don't restrict my knowledge to a single area; I study, learn about and experience (for lack of a better word) many things that I find interesting (math, physics, computer science, literature, film, music, video games, food, etc.), which I consider all together to be a fairly diverse collection of topics, but of course it doesn't include everything. It's not like I go out of my way to avoid learning about other things, I just don't go out of my way to learn them either. I pick up a few bits of information here and there and I realize that it may or may not come in handy at some point in my life, but studying it all is hardly the most efficient way to go about trying to understand things. And it's hardly my fault if I wasn't taught something in elementary school. Besides, do you know how long ago that was? I'm sure I don't remember most of it anyway (I have a pretty bad memory for things like that, except math and science, which I use regularly anyway). It's possible I even learned a bit about Roman history at some point, but it wouldn't have been enough to make any impression and I swear I didn't recognize that wolf! But you just want to claim that I"m stupid, ignorant, naive or otherwise mentally inferior just because I don't happen to recognize a stupid wolf. Can't you admit that's a little excessively judgemental?

Well I would have thought of that more as engineering than architecture, but now that I think of structural features like columns and arches, you're right, I guess they are considered architectural. But my point is still valid, because a large part of architecture (or at least considerations to a building's design, whatever you want to call that) actually is aesthetic.

I agree that it's best not to inadvertently insult people (like you've done with me, or maybe that was intentional), but frankly, in my life and work I just don't interact much with other cultures and haven't found the need to go out of my way to do so. Sure that are sometimes people who have immigrated from somewhere foreign, but believe it or not, I get along with them fine. Not one has ever accused me of saying or doing anything insulting to them, nor have they behaved as though they had any resentment toward me in any way. Do you know why? Because I use common courtesy, I don't poke my nose into places it doesn't belong, I don't make assumptions or have prejudices about them, I treat them like the equal that they are, and it's always clear that my intentions are honorable. So they have no reason to feel insulted by me.

As for the supposed accusation of cultural insensitivity, that wasn't an accusation or assumption, but merely a theory on my part, for why you might be acting this way. It's just that I've known various people who think similarly to you in this respect (that everyone must make it their life's mission to learn as much as they can about all other cultures, etc.) and almost invariably, here are some things that those people have had in common, all of which severely irritate me:

- They thing that anyone who is lacking in absolute and complete knowledge of every worldly issue is not only culturally insensitive, but some kind of a provincial bumpkin.
- They accuse such people as myself of being bigots, racists, sexists, etc. based on no evidence supporting the accusations, and then become annoyed because of their own misconceptions.
- They believe that math and science are for "robots" and people that have no true intelligence and live like their brain is just a computer (which technically it is), and they might as well not even be conscious; they view us as soulless automatons.
- They think that all people should work together for a common goal, never mind if they can't agree on what the goal should be because of differences in individual prerogatives, then they should just be forced to cooperate.
- They're so unbearably liberal that it becomes full-blown communism. By the way, if you think I'm a conservative, you're wrong (except economically, in which I'm reactionary). I hate all the main parties. I'm an extreme libertarian, if not an objectivist.

(to be continued)

(continued from the post at the end of the previous page)

Well if you want to define comfort zones as requiring familiarity, then I suppose you're right. I define them more literally as "doing what's comfortable". Just because something is unfamiliar doesn't necessarily make it less comfortable, especially if you understand it conceptually well enough without having any direct prior experience with it. Then if you know it's safe, you may be comfortable with it anyway. And about that - safety is important, whether it's from physical harm or just any other negative effect, so there is often a good reason for caution.

Perhaps, but facts deal with provable criteria, such as "how tall is this thing?", whereas opinions deal with the perception of an individual, such as "does this taste good?", so if every effect on an individual, no matter how generally universally agreed upon (i.e. it's bad to lose an arm) can be reduced to the perceptions how how pleasant or unpleasant it is, taking into account long-term consequences and issues of ethics when it affects anyone else as well, then ultimately the only people ever truly qualified to judge how good or bad anything is are the people that it affects.

Like..... what?

Well I'm sorry if I seemed disrespectful in my initial comment. That wasn't my intent - I was just bored and said the first thing that came into my mind. However, I thought it was pretty obvious that I didn't know much about the wolf (otherwise I wouldn't have posted the question), so I don't see why anyone would take it so serious anyway. People really should lighten up and not consider every little thing to be disrespectful, or to use the phrase I've been throwing around, "culturally insensitive", because it's just more of this overly politically correct nonsense.

And how do you know that the legend itself, which is being depicted, is not perverse?

Yes technology changes, but I don't know of many examples in which is loses functionality or capabilities. It just gains new ones or becomes more efficient or user-friendly in some way.

From Wiktionary: "Intellect - the faculty of thinking, judging, abstract reasoning, and conceptual understanding; the cognitive faculty (uncountable)." How is that different than intelligence?

* laughs *

Any half-decent game about ancient Rome (as the Caesar series undoubtedly is, at the very least) is going to have at least some references to ancient Roman culture. Those who have no interest in ancient Roman culture might as well not play such games.

So you're implying that the only possible reason to play the game is for interest in Roman culture?

Besides, I haven't played the game. I was only commenting on the image that advertizes the game. The game itself is irrelevant to this comment.

Not the only one, but as far as I know, it's the biggest difference between Caesar and SimCity.

If you don't care about the Roman setting, why not just play SimCity?

Well, you obviously didn't read the second part of my post.

I've been in quite several internet keyboard fights, so it felt good to see this. Thanks guys!