Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Luis, post: 558168, member: 17336&quot;]You&#039;re being to contemporaneous, Ruben. To say that NYC is better than Rome (for example) because it has no slaves is the same as saying my little town in Portugal is better than Rome because we have no slaves. By the same token, probably every little hell hole in 200 years would be better than NYC today. That makes no sense. If you&#039;re doing an &quot;all time&quot; comparison you can&#039;t be stuck on modern criteria.</p><p><br /></p><p>Don&#039;t get me wrong, I have a lot of admiration for NYC and I am extremely eager to get to know it first hand, but I can&#039;t help but to compare the american fascination with their own society with the high school students that think they know everything already (here I am being too broad and not aiming your point).</p><p><br /></p><p>My point is that NYC is still an adolescent compared to some of the cities you mentioned and many more such as London, Baghdad, Alexandria, Moscow, Istambul, Athens, and many others in China or India that I don&#039;t know as well. What I&#039;m saying is that ancientness does not confer you any special status in and of itself, but all these places and some others were as vibrant, dynamic and progressive in their own time or even throughout time as is NYC today (and yes, that would include all those things you mention, but of course relative to its own time). I would argue perhaps even more, due to the fact that the world today has many more such places (in several degrees), but that perhaps would be too unfair because it&#039;s just the way world is now, and NYC stands out in its own right.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in