Jump to content

blah the Prussian

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,269

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by blah the Prussian

  1. blah the Prussian
    And could turn him away because she knows at that point that the war has gone on for too long, and her people would never accept having to give food to the people who invaded their country.
  2. blah the Prussian
    OH HELL NO. You can have a Marxist look at history without having the a asinine, watered down look at it that Zinn has. He simplifies history to an absurd degree by focusing it into the oppression of a nebulous lower class by a nebulous upper class that always has the same motives. Honestly, I'm opposed to all history that claims a consistent narrative over the course of centuries. I stopped reading at around the time Zinn argued that dropping the Bomb was a mistake; it skirts too damn close to Axis apologia for my taste. No Communist, ever, should side with Fascists over Capitalists. Zinn is a good political commentator but he's a terrible historian.
  3. blah the Prussian
    Pfft, pussy Velociraptors? Give me Dakotaraptors any day. Also, give GKs Giganotosauruses.
  4. blah the Prussian
    So WWII officially has better writing than Conquest, then.
  5. blah the Prussian
    I know this is supposed to be satire, but having Cavaliers and Paladins ride Dinosaurs would be the greatest thing FE has ever done.
  6. blah the Prussian
    Those borders are an abomination. An Islamic Spain is superior to a Spain riddled with enclaves!
  7. blah the Prussian
    In the Czech Republic we call it "Kurva Dubna".
  8. blah the Prussian
    I would;dn't say so. If we have a situation where a massive amount o people don't consent to the nation, then the nation has already done something terribly wrong. However, these wrongdoings in and of themselves would be the factors making the nation illegitimate, not the lack of consent. Consent, if reasonable, will be withdrawn for a myriad of reasons. If consent of the governed doesn't exist on its own without a reason, then the people are in the wrong. In short, the lack of consent of the governed is a good indicator of when a nation is failing, but on its own is not sufficient to destroy the legitimacy of a nation.
  9. blah the Prussian
    What year is it now, again?
  10. blah the Prussian
    ...do I say it? ...do I REALLY say it? ...fuck it I'll say it. Unfortunately, it seems the anti vaccers might be right in this case.
  11. blah the Prussian
    Thanks, good to know.
  12. blah the Prussian
    So quick question, for those in the know: I live in the Czech Republic. If I were to buy a Switch there would it and games associated with it have an English language option?
  13. blah the Prussian
    Humans pre civilization were apex predators. There are records existing of early human tribes fighting turf wars in the Ice Age; hell, that even goes back to Australopithecus with Lucy. When you're in an environment when you need literally all the food you can get, it makes logical sense to chase other tribes out of your territory, or absorb them and work together. However, that would usually necessitate conquest, or at least single combat between leaders. It really isn't until you have agriculture, when you have a surplus of food, that not removing competing predators in the form of other humans becomes viable, and even then nation states still went to war over farmland. My question to you is: you say that you don't think that ancient humans were cruel because they didn't have that luxury. However, evidence does exist of human tribes massacring each other, as well as Neanderthals. So, this being the case, how does cruelty not exist in nature, if you think that's cruel? As for crimes committed by prehistoric humans? I don't think they should be punished, because laws hadn't been developed yet. I don't support punishing people for acts that are now illegal when they did them before that act was outlawed.
  14. blah the Prussian
    Yeah, that's why I said I misspoke. Killing some wolves, or even wiping out a human tribe because they're competition, isn't moral but it isn't immoral either. Although it should be noted that cruelty has been observed in species such as Chimps, so it's likely that Cro-Magnons had it too.
  15. blah the Prussian
    Pillars of modern warfare such as faceless industry producing row upon row of machines of death to be thrust into the hands of young men hardly out of high school who could not afford college, who will die alone in some battlefield far from home so that the military industrial complex continues to thrive have no place in Valentia.
  16. blah the Prussian
    Enabling doesn't have to entail malice. If one party is getting voted in when their leader is Donald Trump the other party screwed up.
  17. blah the Prussian
    Eh, fine, I sort of misspoke. However, if you don't have a steady supply of food, you don't have the luxury of not killing baby animals, for example. Maybe humans had moral concepts before civilization, but I can't see them acting on them before civilization.
  18. blah the Prussian
    Morality is created by civilization. Morality happens because people don't have to be cruel in order to survive anymore. Homo Erectus certainly didn't have a concept of morality, but Homo Sapiens maybe did. I have this whole crackpot theory about this that is WAY off topic, so I'll leave it there.
  19. blah the Prussian
    Honestly I don't mind Game Theory, but Film Theory rubs me the wrong way between essentially plagiarizing R+L=J and claiming that The Matrix is a "perfect movie".
  20. blah the Prussian
    Evolution and Christianity aren't technically mutually exclusive. I mean, God could have started the Big Bang and then let evolution take its course, or something. In fact, that seems to basically match perfectly with Deism.
  21. blah the Prussian
    I guess if He was the Old Testament God I wouldn't be happy, where if He was the New Testament God I would be fine with it. I mean, God ruling would basically be a benevolent Monarchy with no chances of things going tyrannical, as long as He's the New Testament. I suppose a second question is, will He actually do anything, or just continue on letting humans tear each other apart?
  22. blah the Prussian
    Holy crap, that cut it close.
  23. blah the Prussian
    Hey, I actually ran a DnD character like that once. That also reminds me of Michael Kain's character in Dirty Ritten Scoundrels, although it's not a perfect fit. That could work!
  24. blah the Prussian
    Well, I'd say that at the very least in terms of legal authority he'd definitely be King. Most monarchies in exile also consider their exiled heads to be the legitimate monarchs even though they were never coronated (as do I, but that's for another thread). So yeah, Ephraim would be King even without coronations.
  25. blah the Prussian
    Well, Medeus really doesn't have much of a plan beyond conquering, Hardin doesn't know he's being used so the Wolfguard don't have to either, Eldigan is a straight example then if the only bad thing Shagall wants to do is conquer, Ishtar is really spotty as a Camus anyway, FE6 has been discussed, Lloyd and Linus don't know what Nergal is planning but they disapprove of him and know their father is his puppet, so I'd say it counts, Selena knows something is off about Vigarde, Ashnard tells Bryce to his face that he murdered the entire Daein Royal Family to take power, and Zelgius knows full well what Sephiran plans to do.
×
×
  • Create New...