Star Trek Discovery

[Speaker to Animals]

You're probably right. Anyway, if two peoples from different planets came into contact, the chances that they'd be even remotely equal in tech are really small. So, it would be like Euros carving up the Americas.

Though, on the other hand, the specific scenario in Trek is that a benevolent, technologically superior race contacts us. I think we're brought along rather slowly. Maybe over a few generations, more people would come to see themselves just as humans, as contrasted with Vulcans and the lot. Not that the old divisions would vanish (and the don't totally vanish in Trek), but they might fade.

We always think of what happened in the Americas in that context but, most of the time in our history, it worked the other way: the more primitive peoples came to dominate the more sophisticated peoples. I think it could go either way. It depends upon the nature and disposition of the other species.

Can you provide one example of that happening?

Mongols versus China
Germans versus Rome
Saxons versus Romano-Celts

It's actually more prevalent in history than the other way around. It might have more to do with human nature, though, so maybe it wouldn't apply to another species. But with respect to us, I think it's actually possible for us to come into contact with a less advanced species and that species could come to dominate us instead.

[SuburbanFarmer]

We always think of what happened in the Americas in that context but, most of the time in our history, it worked the other way: the more primitive peoples came to dominate the more sophisticated peoples. I think it could go either way. It depends upon the nature and disposition of the other species.

Can you provide one example of that happening?

Mongols versus China
Germans versus Rome
Saxons versus Romano-Celts

It's actually more prevalent in history than the other way around. It might have more to do with human nature, though, so maybe it wouldn't apply to another species. But with respect to us, I think it's actually possible for us to come into contact with a less advanced species and that species could come to dominate us instead.

Each of those certainly managed to overwhelm weakened empires, but then fell back after a short time. Germans do not rule Italy, Mongols are not in charge of China, other than a brief dynasty, and... not sure if you'd say that Saxons were less advanced than Romano-Celts. That's a strange example.

[Speaker to Animals]

Can you provide one example of that happening?

Mongols versus China
Germans versus Rome
Saxons versus Romano-Celts

It's actually more prevalent in history than the other way around. It might have more to do with human nature, though, so maybe it wouldn't apply to another species. But with respect to us, I think it's actually possible for us to come into contact with a less advanced species and that species could come to dominate us instead.

Each of those certainly managed to overwhelm weakened empires, but then fell back after a short time. Germans do not rule Italy, Mongols are not in charge of China, other than a brief dynasty, and... not sure if you'd say that Saxons were less advanced than Romano-Celts. That's a strange example.

You are trying to move goalposts now. If the metric is that the less-advanced people have to rule for all-time, then I could apply the same new standard to the other side. To wit: the Mexica kicked out the Europeans about three centuries after conquest and control their nation to this day. Indeed, it's now the less-advanced Mexica who are slowly conquering the United States. So, even then, your newfound goalpost probably needs to get nudged to some other part of the field.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Mongols versus China
Germans versus Rome
Saxons versus Romano-Celts

It's actually more prevalent in history than the other way around. It might have more to do with human nature, though, so maybe it wouldn't apply to another species. But with respect to us, I think it's actually possible for us to come into contact with a less advanced species and that species could come to dominate us instead.

Each of those certainly managed to overwhelm weakened empires, but then fell back after a short time. Germans do not rule Italy, Mongols are not in charge of China, other than a brief dynasty, and... not sure if you'd say that Saxons were less advanced than Romano-Celts. That's a strange example.

You are trying to move goalposts now. If the metric is that the less-advanced people have to rule for all-time, then I could apply the same new standard to the other side. To wit: the Mexica kicked out the Europeans about three centuries after conquest and control their nation to this day. Indeed, it's now the less-advanced Mexica who are slowly conquering the United States. So, even then, your newfound goalpost probably needs to get nudged to some other part of the field.

You said:

the more primitive peoples came to dominate the more sophisticated peoples

.

Does "domination" just mean a temporary military victory? Sure, that could happen. It won't last, but a less-advanced army can certainly defeat a more advanced one, from time to time. Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.

Are we currently "dominated" by Afghanis?

[Speaker to Animals]

Each of those certainly managed to overwhelm weakened empires, but then fell back after a short time. Germans do not rule Italy, Mongols are not in charge of China, other than a brief dynasty, and... not sure if you'd say that Saxons were less advanced than Romano-Celts. That's a strange example.

You are trying to move goalposts now. If the metric is that the less-advanced people have to rule for all-time, then I could apply the same new standard to the other side. To wit: the Mexica kicked out the Europeans about three centuries after conquest and control their nation to this day. Indeed, it's now the less-advanced Mexica who are slowly conquering the United States. So, even then, your newfound goalpost probably needs to get nudged to some other part of the field.

You said:

the more primitive peoples came to dominate the more sophisticated peoples

.

Does "domination" just mean a temporary military victory? Sure, that could happen. It won't last, but a less-advanced army can certainly defeat a more advanced one, from time to time. Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.

Are we currently "dominated" by Afghanis?

Oh, Jesus Christ, you are dumb.

It is more frequent in history for the more primitive peoples to dominate the the more sophisticated people. This is just a matter of record. Everybody fixates on the conquest of the Americas, but the examples on the other side are more numerous. Whether or not people dominate another group for all time is irrelevant and a fucking asinine point to quibble over.

Nor does it mean every last primitive tribe has to dominate the more advanced civilizations, you fucking tard. The comment about Afghanis dominating us is doubly retarded. Jesus.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You are trying to move goalposts now. If the metric is that the less-advanced people have to rule for all-time, then I could apply the same new standard to the other side. To wit: the Mexica kicked out the Europeans about three centuries after conquest and control their nation to this day. Indeed, it's now the less-advanced Mexica who are slowly conquering the United States. So, even then, your newfound goalpost probably needs to get nudged to some other part of the field.

You said:

the more primitive peoples came to dominate the more sophisticated peoples

.

Does "domination" just mean a temporary military victory? Sure, that could happen. It won't last, but a less-advanced army can certainly defeat a more advanced one, from time to time. Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.

Are we currently "dominated" by Afghanis?

Oh, Jesus Christ, you are dumb.

It is more frequent in history for the more primitive peoples to dominate the the more sophisticated people. This is just a matter of record. Everybody fixates on the conquest of the Americas, but the examples on the other side are more numerous. Whether or not people dominate another group for all time is irrelevant and a fucking asinine point to quibble over.

Nor does it mean every last primitive tribe has to dominate the more advanced civilizations, you fucking tard. The comment about Afghanis dominating us is doubly retarded. Jesus.

Well, since you're autistic, I'll go ahead and spell it out for you.

Your definition of "dominating" is shifting to match whatever you feel like defending. You went from "we will dominate alien invaders", to "we could probably defend the planet", to "we might win", over the course of 3-4 posts. You're posting examples of temporary domination, mixed with a military victory, and a pyhrric one - not even trying to make a coherent point, but just rejecting anything that I say.

You are most definitely a special guy.

[Speaker to Animals]

Don't try to tell me what I meant to get out of being wrong. Take your goalposts and walk on out of here. It's obvious that this goes both ways, and history suggests it's most often the more primitive people who come out ahead.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Don't try to tell me what I meant to get out of being wrong. Take your goalposts and walk on out of here. It's obvious that this goes both ways, and history suggests it's most often the more primitive people who come out ahead.

Ok. Technology is a disadvantage in warfare. You win, fella.

[Speaker to Animals]

Don't try to tell me what I meant to get out of being wrong. Take your goalposts and walk on out of here. It's obvious that this goes both ways, and history suggests it's most often the more primitive people who come out ahead.

Ok. Technology is a disadvantage in warfare. You win, fella.

LOL

Straw man and moving goal posts.

What a fucking tard.

[Hwen Hoshino]

You are trying to move goalposts now. If the metric is that the less-advanced people have to rule for all-time, then I could apply the same new standard to the other side. To wit: the Mexica kicked out the Europeans about three centuries after conquest and control their nation to this day. Indeed, it's now the less-advanced Mexica who are slowly conquering the United States. So, even then, your newfound goalpost probably needs to get nudged to some other part of the field.

You said:

the more primitive peoples came to dominate the more sophisticated peoples

.

Does "domination" just mean a temporary military victory? Sure, that could happen. It won't last, but a less-advanced army can certainly defeat a more advanced one, from time to time. Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.

Are we currently "dominated" by Afghanis?

Oh, Jesus Christ, you are dumb.

It is more frequent in history for the more primitive peoples to dominate the the more sophisticated people. This is just a matter of record. Everybody fixates on the conquest of the Americas, but the examples on the other side are more numerous. Whether or not people dominate another group for all time is irrelevant and a fucking asinine point to quibble over.

Nor does it mean every last primitive tribe has to dominate the more advanced civilizations, you fucking tard. The comment about Afghanis dominating us is doubly retarded. Jesus.

Who cares. Everything was different, literacy rates, communication etc...