Blaze The Great
-
Posts
910 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Blaze The Great
-
-
Gotta go with Steelix.
-
Skins someone you know, wears their skin and then uses the disguise to steal it when you aren't looking
-
Is male.
-
Rolls a boulder onto your head then steals the orb
-
27, 34, 66, 18, 22, 75, 89, 3
37
-
stop being so picky, you have 16 or so people you can choose from.
Woah, chill. I'm not saying I hate them all, I'm just saying none seem exemplary to me. I never even said I was Republican!
-
I like games with a linear structure. They don't have to be totally linear, but for the most part, I want to follow a storyline and have general progressions in a linear method.
-
Woops. I guess that explains why I've seen xeno- used to refer to "aliens".
Also, I was just saying that people laugh at Trump, but he probably laughs right back at them, thinking he is right. Either that or he's actually a bit smarter than he looks.
-
yeah there's a lot one can say about the mere fact that trump looks to poll well enough to enter the big boy's primary debate; i forgot where i read this, but there's a lot of stuff about how a lot of the GOP candidates are "appealing to the base". trump, however, is the base; he's the loudmouthed, xenophobic, racist idiot who goes to tea party rallies and sincerely believes obama was born in kenya, just that he has more money and worse hair. he's pretty much the base's id incarnate and that's why he's getting all the support he is
Wait, Obama's NOT born in Kenya?Isn't xenophobic like fearing different species? Maybe you mean genophohic?
i for one am shocked that an old man who gets, no, dives into twitter slapfights with people who laugh at him would do this.
Whoever deserves to be laughed at is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure he thinks that his opponents should be getting laughed at.
-
Heck yeah you want a Honchkrow. Those guys and Murkrow are literally my favorite Pokemon.
-
Yeah, Amelia should always be a generalYou let Raven die? How could you!?!? -
Between the GOP and Hillary I'd rather a meteor fell on America.
I don't have much to say about the race so far, but none of the GOP candidates stand out in a good way to me, and the less said about Hilary and the other Dems, in my opinion, the better.
-
A ridiculously fun game from another forum I was on. Basically, there is a golden orb, and you have to come up with a way to take it from the person who posted above you.
I'll start:
I hit the guy holding the orb with a bat, making him drop it before picking it up myself.
(Keep in mind you can do whatever you want to take the orb, so feel free to be creative)
-
in that case...what's different from what i said compared to dondon??
Umm...maybe I saw your post an hour after I saw his and had more time to consider the issue?
-
i think you missed a major point from the video, then. it's not just that big nations haven't fought, it's also that they all actively avoid it. war is diminishing in scale because if we follow your hypothetical we'll all die. nuclear arms are deterrents of war, not necessarily weapons of war. mutually assured destruction is not something any nation desires, since people like being alive above all else.
it's fair to think that major wars can happen in the future, but the point of that video (and by extension my view) was to challenge that view. because of the fact that the world has the capability to engulf itself in war on scales destructive enough to wipe out life on earth for the rest of time, we've begun to move away from that sort of thing almost entirely. thus, factually speaking, war has diminished in scale.
Yeah I'll concede that. I realize that I was kinda running off a hypothetical. I guess my thought process was more "our wartime capabilities are not diminishing in scale" and "hypothetical major wars are not diminishing in scale" as opposed to the conflicts that actually happen.
Also, yeah MAD is pretty much the greatest deterrence strategy ever.
-
you said:
"Lol how are wars diminishing in scale?"
and all of the evidence points to wars diminishing in scale, hypotheticals be damned.
No, the evidence is pointing to wars diminishing in frequency. There have always been minor conflicts, and obviously major ones are less frequently occurring. The only difference now is that the period with no major wars is somewhat extended when compared to most of recent history.
-
well, yes, that's precisely the point. after world war ii, developed nations have, for the most part, avoided fighting each other.
And my point for the most part is that if developed nations fought, the scale would more likely than not be catastrophic. So, in that case, it more served to display the peace that we have had rather than the smaller scale of wars.
-
i recommend watching to the end, but i think the point is introduced around the 12 minute mark, and by the end i think you might change your opinion
That was really interesting, actually, and it's good food for thought. But can't this be attributed to the fact that these wars have taken place between smaller warring parties/smaller countries?
I mean, that comparing to the ancient times and middle ages, the last century has been RELATIVELY peaceful. Earlier, there was barely a time when a country wasn't engaged in a war. Just a random example, the Roman empire: apart from the reign of Antoninus Pius and the very beginning of Marcus Aurelius there was barely a long enough peaceful time, and even in this specific period there were revolts and pressures on the borderlines here and there. Romans were constantly either attacking or being attacked.
What will happen in the future I have no idea. Surely, now we have the weapons with the potential to destroy the entire planet if used. I can only hope the politicians will be intelligent enough not to use them.
That's more addressing the issue that wars are happening less often. The advancement of civilization as a whole has made wars less of a necessity to our survival. But if we faced a war with the powers involved in one of the world wars, you can be assured that it's scale would be much grander in pretty much everything but length.
-
I know. That's why I agree with people who state that no matter whether we consider wars a "right" or "wrong" thing, given the current state of things on the planet, it's impossible that the wars don't happen. Maybe not as often as in the Middle Ages for example, but still. However, since the quantity of wars and their scale tend to diminish with time (except for WWI and WWII), maybe (just maybe) there is hope that one days they will end, even though I don't think it will happen any soon.
Lol how are wars diminishing in scale? It follows that as more people populate the planet (and you don't have to be an expert in demographics to know that our current population growth is exponential), the wars will be larger in scale. In addition, with our new technologies (high-powered tanks and aircraft, drones, nuclear weapons), the entire world is basically a powder keg waiting to be set off. I don't follow how wars are going to be diminishing anytime soon, even if we are having a time of "relative" peace now.
-
Why? They are adult intelligent people, they understand they may have to kill innocents if they fight for their country. Why making this choice at all if your country isn't the one on the defense? And even then, if your country WAS initially on the defensive, and then passed on the offensive, why pillage, kill and rape foreign citizens who haven't done anything? Like for example the Russian/Soviet army that was initially defending from nazi Germans, but when it passed through Germany on its way to Berlin, it committed many horrible things.
Err, because they respect that their country has done good things for them and they want to fight for it? Also, even if something is morally wrong doesn't mean you can always tell at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, friend.
As for the Soviet example, if you think it is morally wrong (and in my mind, it is), don't so it. No one is forcing you to rape or pillage women and children.
You may still try to avoid it: feign illness, move to the other country (I know this sounds extreme, but so is killing even ONE innocent). I really don't want to get personal, but it seems like we are discussing Fire Emblem here, not a real-life war with real dead innocent people.
Feigning illness? If it's not a severe illness, it won't get you out. And if you did feign a severe one, you would probably need medical documentation to prove your illness. Otherwise you might be charged for evading duty, etc. And moving to another country to escape a war where you MIGHT have to do something immoral is just plain silly. That is seriously a ridiculous proposition. (Sorry if that's a bit harsh,just my opinion)
I have no idea what you mean by Fire Emblem here. I take this seriously. But there is definitely a line between obeying orders and needless killing.
-
How does the soldier justification differentiate from a hitman justification? A hitman (many professional ones are former soldiers by the way, and it's not just a coincidence) can also say he was "stressed" and "forced" to do the job; for a debt, or whatever else. He can say that, hadn't he done the "job", he would have been killed, or his family would have been killed, or he would have been framed by the police, or whatever. It may legally be considered as "extenuating circumstances" maybe, so he will be given less than a life sentence or given an elegibility for parole, but still, killing is still killing (if we talk from a "moral" point of view, not just "legal"), and the action is still a horrible thing, even if there is an explanation (but not justification) for it.
And I wouldn't be there in the first place, responding to your last question. I am not American, but as far as I know in the USA military service isn't mandatory for every person? There is always the possibility to refuse, even if it will create you problems.
Because a soldier is fighting for what the country has deemed as its interests? Even if there is a failure on part of the country, that doesn't mean the soldier himself failed. If we don't like killing, then we need to tell our governments not to go to war. Of course, that's never gonna happen, but still. It's immoral, but in war, YOU ARE FORCED TO KILL. That's the number one fact of war. If you sign up or are picked for that, that's part of what happens.
You personally might not be there, but some people feel like they are obliged to fight for their country after what it has done for them. Kinda like the social contract. Military service is not mandatory, but it is mandatory for a male to sign up for the draft when he is 18. So in a way, yes it is.
-
In war, a soldier does it out of necessity to follow orders.
In a contract killing scheme, a hitman does it likely out of personal motivation or debt.
The difference is that in war, a soldier is duty bound to do his job. Failure to follow orders will resort in charges of insubordination, military court, and the like. In a killing scheme, the person follows their desires or they made a conscious choice that got them into debt. Big difference there.
Yes, an innocent would be killed, but would YOU be making that thought process in the middle of war? Especially as war becomes more and more modernized, the difference between innocent and enemy becomes a thinner and thinner line.
-
I agree with Chiki completely. While I am never good at providing "proof" by pure logic and incontrovertible facts, I don't understand why defending the rights of innocent people to live and condemning the ones who deprived them of life should even need that. Whatever "logical" explanation for the soldiers' actions there may be, scattered pieces of a child's body torn apart by a bomb imo are the best argument agaist any justification of violence, whether this violence is due to soldiers being "stressed by circumstances" or not.
Then blame the government for getting involved in the war. Or the officers for giving the orders. Soldiers just follow orders. Unless they are sociopathic, it's highly unlikely that they will go out of their way to kill innocents. They're just following orders, as messed up as they may be.
-
Every single army has committed "war crimes". Are the soldiers in those armies considered war criminals? It's terrible that innocents die, but it is a fact of war. And unless a soldier goes out of his way to kill innocents or the like, he's not a "war criminal", he's following orders. Now, it's different if an officer gives orders to kill innocents. THAT person should be charged. But the grunts doing the dirty work are not any worse than the next one, for the most part.
Let's Play Super Thracia (Co-Op)
in Let's Play/Streams
Posted
Lol you can never escape Kitty.
Also, you missed a side quest. I'll explain it if you want me to.