Jump to content

Roflpotamus

Provisional Member
  • Content Count

    700
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Roflpotamus last won the day on July 15 2011

Roflpotamus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

18 Good

2 Followers

  1. To be fair the original "discussion" was only couched in the subject outline. The rest of Bor's post was about how the Monarchy = awesome and Paris = sexy while London = gay. Anyway, what factor would you like to consider? The fact that London enjoyed the industrial revolution before Paris? That they had probably the most developed textile industry in the world? The fact that they were a complete maritime power? The fact that they had a more egalitarian government with a monarch that hardly exercised any power when compared to the French one (pre-revolution of course). If after revolution then by what basis are we judging? OUTLINE a discussion if you want it had methinks :X
  2. Baled, you're being silly here if you're suggesting that the French monarchy is the reason that Paris is, in your eyes, more beautiful than London. Mind you, I've been to both many times and I have to say that Paris pales in comparison as a product of the hobo piss on literally every corner. London on the other hand is a far cleaner city that has a pleasant atmosphere. Moreover, to its credit, it is not filled with Parisians. :P But the last point does matter. There's France, and then there's Paris.
  3. This. Blizz also forgot about Falstad being the High Thane of the Wildhammers. Those fuckers forget tons o' shit.
  4. Man, you don't even know your lore! It was only he and Fairbanks who stood on that hill against the horde of Undead. Fancy magic tricks? He used the Light, what magic? He also used his pure might. Lore-wise, the man was a monster amongst monsters. Again, JUST BECAUSE Uther was the first =! make him the best. The first is NEVER the best: the first airplane pilot, wheels, cars, systems of government, and so on. As to who actually won battles, Mograine fought in all the major Second War battles (as many as Uther at any rate) and won those. On the other hand, Mograine fought the Undead for years after Uther had died. "I'll stick to Alexandros who actually won some battles and lived a li(f)e."
  5. Guys, the English here is devolving into all kinds of levels of ugly. Now then, please address my post at the bottom of page 5 APsyco. You seem to have this belief that the first of something = the best/strongest when this is never the case. I assure you that modern cars sure as fuckall are better than Model Ts, food and goods are more diverse, more plentiful, and of higher quality, and so on. TDLR: Respond to my post in page 5. Speculate all you want but the facts are that we have clear evidence showing how much ass Mograine kicked whereas Uther's documented ass-kickings pale in comparison. Mind you, it is canon that, "the blade is useless without the man who wielded it" (or something to that effect) and that "the blade and man were one". Alexandros was simply a stronger paladin that had a fundamentally strong bond to his weapon. Hell, if the blade was all then Tirion would have become a god of death and ownage but he honestly did fuckall after getting the blade other than get frozen for 45 minutes (random number) during raids at ICC.
  6. Just because Uther was the first Paladin does not make him the strongest. Yes he was pious and strong as hell, however, Alexandros' has clearly documented acheivements/kills that put Uther's to shame. For example: Now you can go ahead and SPECULATE as to how much ass Uther would have kicked but we KNOW that Alexandors has kicked far more ass than Uther. Ultimately, lore supports Alexandros > Uther. As per the whole, "He can only do that because of his weapon" sentiments I remind you to read the quote I posted above and note how Fairbanks said:
  7. Reavenz put it nicely. Also, Morgoth: If not for WoW lore we wouldn't have the fleshed out terrain we do now. While BC, WotlK, and Cata have gone crazy (BC the most by far) on the lore, Vanilla largely just fleshed it out and continued the existing lore. Take a care not to tie your arrogance so strongly to your ignorance. It makes you look bad to say the least.
  8. Give me a minute. I just got back home from Thailand the day before and have been sick ever since. Plus I just got a computer capable of running Portal 2 + Fallout: New Vegas. Don't you lose you tie your panties up in a knot! I'll respond a la' todays!
  9. Wait, what the fuck are you all talking about? 1. Dale get back in touch with me. You know how my laziness knows no bounds without your gentle touch. 2. The map makers have already made it clear in the past that no color changes will happen because it is a good heap of work. As an aside, BC is implementing color changes because we've been reworking everything and it DOES take a good heap o' time. Mind you all, Red is for the Horde, not any faction. :P
  10. Where the fuck do you go to school? Sounds gay wherever it is. Like Lenny Kravitz Greek gay even though it's most likely not Greek. I meant like butthole lube gay.
  11. Just the same morality has evolved with the times for every culture as well. So you're applying your personal view of morality based off of a brief fancy in a recently semi-united cultural unit that will undoubtedly morph given not much time. If you unbashedly admit this and that you're not trying to offer an objective definition of "just" then there is no argument, I am guarding against the possibility of an objective view of morality. Hot damn I did, let me repost the log just so you can look over it again and respond to it if you so desire: You can't recognize that justice is not absolute and then treat it as though it is. That's... well ridiculous. Short of a world with only a single human on it, one person applying work to a piece of nature will affect another human. How do you define "free"? If not by the view of property rights then what? Moreover, with the view of the ability to reign over one's property as one sees fit everyone will naturally own the most important property of them all: themselves. If you bring up the case of slavery then please note how it infringes upon one's self, the basis from which one thereafter defines one's property, and is thus the most "unfree" situation that one can find one's self in. I haven't a clue why you bring up how people are starving in the world. Please note that the world is very much not an Anarchicistic society and therefore not the position I am arguing from. Moreover, neither does the world have a totally equal system of property right for all, an indication for the economic development of a country the author feels. I personally feel that such a position is inherently impossible as a product of human nature and the heirchys that come about. A master smith naturally teaches novices and is recognized for his skill. There is no avoiding such a situation if anyone is to have any skills or even exist. If two things exist they are by their nature different. This even applies to subatomic particles and quantum entanglement if you look into it (there are SO many misconceptions about subatomic particles and ESPECIALLY when it comes to quantum entanglement!). Just because a butterfly flaps its wings and an earthquake then happens in Tokyo does not give the Butterfly the right to claim that his action caused the earthquake unless he actively pursued such a path and found such a flap to be his best chance at playing Mothra (big dreams lil' guy). If the connection is hard to draw, just because one person's life is affected by the actions of another does not mean that they all have equal claim in the tools that affected such a change. Moreover, while there are countless joint ventures (about every single business is composed of many individuals working together) please note that all successful ventures as defined by output in gdp all have forms of heirchy associated with them. I am of the position that no society can avoid heirchy and it should therefore be channelled to promote effeciency and market ideals (providing the best service at the lowest price) instead of other factors such as who owns the most guns, who is the most sensational, and so on.
  12. Lol what? The Caribbeans were some of their most lucrative colonies. The U.S. very much not so. Plus the crown was amazingly benign and hands off when it comes to taxation and laws on the U.S. Because of this the U.S. largely set up many democratic institutions before the revolution that basically safeguarded against the power vacuum to follow.
  13. As is sex with many men for a handful of women in other cultures. How you are defining just is based off of your perception that is completely removed from the situation, context, and culture at hand. It is plain unfair. Like an unseen arbiter from above decreeing whether the foolish savages live up to the objective ideal you set out. How is justice absolute? In one country the culture very much views rape as "boys will be boys" whereas in another the culture views it as one of the most deplorable actions possible. There is no absolute justice unless you believe in a higher power and if you do then you are A. Not as good a Communist that I thought and B. Have no basis for such a belief either way. Please explain how there is a finite amount of ways work can be applied. Let's say the stone in a quarry starts to run out. As it does so, the mason/stonesmith begins experimenting with other materials, and so on. Just because one natural resource (oil) is beginning to run thin does not mean that there are not others. In fact, with the law of conservation of energy there will forever be other sources/resources that work can be applied to. This is a rather fatalistic view on the world that ignores the steps of scientific progress. Mind you, there is a great amount of luck involved as well but please note how when the need runs high so does the innovative quality of humans in finding a recourse.
  14. Not it does not trace the origin of property but it does not set out to. In all honesty, property is intrinsic in animal and human nature: this is MY meal. This is MY pack. This is MY thought. This is MY argument. And so on. I find it insufficient to merely claim that if one has more of good X than another than an unjust situation exists. A mere sentence ago you were decrying the paper because it did analyze the origin of property yet you provide a blanket statement thereafter that offers no context whatsoever. Context being the origin and background of a situation, of course. Also: The man defines property as what one applies one's own work to, and in a voluntary contract if others are involved. One cannot claim the property of the other without voluntary consent. That's a heavy drum that Anarchists beat by the way: Voluntarism.
  15. You do know that the paper I linked has its own position for defining property that largely addresses your concerns. Don't pretend that Shieks are not their own separate culture group and entity. Honestly, it's like saying that all Muslims are the same. The Middle East is as much a subcontinent as India itself. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth/household_income.html for the data. Asians earn 65k median income in 08 whereas Whites earn an average of 55k.
×
×
  • Create New...