blah the Prussian
-
Posts
3,269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blah the Prussian
-
-
The thing I can think of now was a novelist ion of Awakening on DA that I read when the game first came out that changed a few things about the story which I thought were improvements, though my opinions on writing have changed quite a bit since then and I don't know how I'd think about it now.
-
I might be giving the article too much credit but there is a difference between Social Democracy and Democratic a Socialism. Social Democracy is what much of Europe has. It still has private ownership of the means of production. Venezuela has Democratic Socialism(which is increasingly becoming less democratic).
-
14 hours ago, Lushen said:
None of what I was saying has anything to do with health care. I was responding to your comments on Capitalism being "a zero sum game", which is untrue. You didn't mentioned healthcare and so neither did I.
Either way, there is another huge misconception that US healthcare sucks. It doesn't. It may not be as available to the public as it is to other countries and it may not be as affordable, but it is certainty one of the most innovative. It is known as health care's world leader when it comes to new medicine and innovations. As this innovation continues, you can expect health care to be cheaper and cheaper much like the innovation of TVs brought 50' 1080p tvs down to only $300.00.
Let's actually use TVs an example. Not too long ago, you would be considered rich if you had more than one TV. These TVs were crap by today's standards and most people could only afford to have one, if any.
- Socialist/Communists are able to mass produce these TVs like crazy which would bring the cost down considerably. But, they would still use cathode ray tubes and use considerably more materials than TVs do today. They would still look ugly in a living room and the screen would still look terrible. And really, they would be reliant on sweat shops because their automation systems are not as good. This is because Socialists/Communists are very good at mass production, but they don't innovate well.
- Capitalists made entirely new TVs. These TVs looked better and were considerably cheaper. Eventually this drove TV prices down a lot more than mass production ever would have. They also invent new robots that are capable of manufacturing TVs quicker than ever before with less human labor.You can expect the same with medicine. You say Western Europe is economically dependent on the US and that's very true. The entire world is very dependent on the US when it comes to health care which is why the US's system is so expensive - we're doing all the work when it comes to innovation. Then other countries mass produce products and practices originally invented in the US which are used to treat and detect disease which brings down their cost because many of them aren't financing innovative medicine like the US is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html
These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.
If you look at South Korea and Japan you're right that they are innovators and you're right that they have socialistic health care systems. But you know what? They are not innovative when it comes to health care, because their healthcare is socialistic.
Sorry for late response, had to sleep.
Anyway, none of what you said explains why Capitalism is a zero sum game; in Calitalism you can do nothing wrong but still lose out because your competitor did stuff more right, and you shouldn't be left in the cold because of it. The analogy between TVs and healthcare doesn't work; you don't need a TV to live(I should know, I don't have one) but you absolutely need healthcare to live. I don't think better quality healthcare is worth it if it puts a large percentage of the citizens of this country in debt. The US can and should encourage innovation, but you'd have to find another way than "fuck over the poor so the rich can get even better treatment". Innovation might be slower, sure, but I don't believe it would stop.
-
1 hour ago, Lushen said:
Capitalism is the exact opposite of a zero sum game. The 'fact' is that capitalism promotes innovation more than any other form of economy. Plenty of socialistic/communism countries benefit from mass production, but no one comes close to capitalism when it comes to the creation of new products. There seems to be a misconception with "Everything is made in China". Well...yea, everything is manufactured in China. But which companies are being truly innovative? Let's look at computers. The vast majority of computers are powered by either Intel or AMD processors. Both american. Without American innovation, you wouldn't have these and computers would be much more expensive and much less productive (and they actually are outside of the US). You like Video Games? AMD and Nvidia, American companies. Xbox 360 (American) and PS4 (Powered mostly by American AMD APUs)
Let's look at smartphones. The majority of smartphones originate from America. Android is based on Google software which is an American company. Samsung may make the phones, but many of the innovated parts come from America (such as Qualcomm Processors and Google's software). IPhones are manufactured (and their software created) by Apple, another American capitalistic company.
America has more medical patents than any other country.
America has the longest 5 year cancer survival rate.
Who benefits from these innovations? Everyone. I can buy a Google Home for $100.00. If you saw a Google Home only 5 years ago, you would have said it's "Rich people crap". But it's fairly cheap. IPhones are being handed out by the Gov't to the poor. Farms are benefiting from genetically altered crops which means more food which means cheaper food for everyone. EVERYONE benefits from innovation which is encouraged by capitalism more than any other economy.
Redistribution of wealth would be the definition of a zero sum game because it does not create new wealth, it just redistributes it.
edit: Also it doesn't even really matter that Samsung makes phones, because Samsung is based in South Korea - another Capitalistic society. Sony is also based in Japan (Capitalism) and they make the PS4 (with American APUs)
What I am proposing is Capitalism. I am not proposing redistribution of wealth, I'm proposing slightly higher taxes and more public works. You're also over-ascribing innovation to low taxation. Japan and South Korea are innovators, yes, but both have more liberal healthcare systems than the US(In Japan for example you pay less if your income is less and if you're sufficiently poor you don't pay at all); it's not free, but it's also more than what America has. As for Western Europe, the reason less innovation exists there is not because they have free healthcare. Western Europe has been economically dependent on the US since after WWII. Of course American corporations would outcompete them. You're using correlation, not causation. Give me a logical argument why free healthcare and higher taxes leads to less innovation; keep in mind that you still have the reward of getting rich at the end.
-
1 hour ago, Lushen said:
There seems to be a misconception that Liberals are the only ones who talk about equality. Actually this isn't true. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity - that High School should be a public service, for example. Conservatives, in my view, has always been the party of equality of opportunity, while liberals are the party of equality of race, gender, etc. They don't seem to care as much about opportunity, they care more about equality between races (hence, Affirmative Action which gives whites less equality of opportunity than blacks)
1 hour ago, Res said:Equality of opportunity doesn't mean shit if the thing you're having the opportunity to do is work all your life and fail because someone else was a little better than you. Capitalism is a zero sum game; that isn't an opinion, it's a fact. To not be prepared to deal with the implications of that is foolishness. I'm not saying the competent shouldn't be allowed to succeed, I'm saying those that fail shouldn't be punished for it.
-
6 hours ago, Res said:
Rape and genocide were merely a product of Columbus's time, eh?
The funny thing is that they clearly WEREN'T, because the Spanish crown punished Columbus for his abuses and throughout the reign of Charles V attempted to reign in the excesses of the Cinquistadors. It was only under Phillip II that they gave up. So the actions of the Conquistadors were hardly "products of their time" when people in that time recognized them for the atrocities they were.
6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:What were the compromises?
The most famous one is the Fugitive Slave Act, which I'm sure you know about, but basically there were a bunch of compromisises that boiled down to "Slavery cannot be extended" until the FSA, which said "Northern states now need to recognize the South's slaves" which is pretty ironic given that it kind of flies in the face of the idea of state's rights.
-
Atheism, Code Geass(the fanbase is far, far too willing to ignore its many, many flaws) and Libertarianism, as well as Communism.
-
On October 28, 2017 at 3:54 PM, KPOP said:
animal killer
HOLD ON THERE BUDDY
Define "animal killer", firstly, because a lot of people kill animals. Does it include farmers, hunters, hell, veterinarians who put down animals?
Secondly, how do you justify the death penalty for even someone who kills an animal entirely without provocation? In many cases, actually, people who do this have serious mental disorders, and need help much more than they need death. Killing animals isn't some act of ultimate evil. Animals die all the time. The main issue of significance with killing animals is that the perpetrator might be a sociopath, and obviously if they kill someone's property they should be severely punished. A wild animal, though? Hardly worthy of death.
Worth mentioning also that serial killers, too, are often mentally ill.
-
On October 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Watchman said:
It's a fun archertype to play with but the problem is IS is more likely to play the chosen one archetype painfully straight.
Even if it's played straight, it can work if it's well written. Better a well written but cliched story than whatever Fates was supposed to be.
-
Middle School. I had just gotten Awakening. See, the thing about me in Middle School was that Iw as kind of an edgelord asshole, but I still wanted friends. Awakening helped me connect with more people, and it was actually the first fandom I was really in. I accept its many flaws now but will always have a special place in my heart.
-
On October 26, 2017 at 7:37 AM, MetalAmethyst said:
Even if the chosen one was evil?
Hey, that's my idea! But seriously, people don't hate chosen ones, people hate chosen ones who are done poorly. The chosen one doesn't mean that said person is guarenteed to defeat evil; look at Luke Skywalker. Hell, in A Song of Ice and Fire one of the main mysteries is the identity of the chosen one; it could be Jon Snow, it could be Daenerys Targaryen, it could even be Victarion Greyjoy. Stories like Fates and Harry Potter do the Chosen One poorly, but that doesn't mean it has to be done poorly not is it fair to say you hate all chosen ones.
-
11 hours ago, Lushen said:
I always disliked this excuse. The question here is - is prostitution moral? If the answer is no, you don't legalize it to make it occur less often. First off, you have to have a high level of confidence in the government's ability to regulate things efficiently, of which I have none. But more importantly, you don't legalize things that are wrong. If they came out with a study that legalizing murder would decrease the overall murders, I still would not want to legalize murder.
If our solution to problems in the country is to legalize them, where does that end? In my view, it should never have started. You don't legalize something because it's hard to prevent. That's not the way laws should work. They're laws. We make rules for our kids. We don't teach our kid that if they break the rules enough we will get rid of the rules... Kids understand, why can't we?
So again, the question is whether it is moral? As I said, it should be legal in my opinion because it is no more harmful to people than pornography and perhaps even less harmful than drunken sex.
Okay, hold on a second, the law is not (or shouldn't be) based on morality. For example: taxation is morally wrong, but is needed for the greater good, so is legal. Conversely, it is morally okay to steal food to feed your family, but we still can't let everyone who needs food steal, because that system is easily abused, so stealing should always be illegal. Prostitution, whether or not it is morally wrong, should be ultimately legal in my opinion, but the idea that laws are based on morals is incorrect.
-
16 hours ago, Rezzy said:
You have to give equal treatment under the law. You can't legalize it for one side, but not the other.
That's like saying you decriminalize drugs for the drug dealers, but not for the people buying them. Most johns are just guys who want to have sex. Why ruin their lives for wanting sex, but not the girls selling it? It could also lead to blackmail on the prostitute's end, since she is not the one who broke the law.
You mean assisted suicide? That's a pretty big topic of discussion in medicine.
Well, yes I can. I'd decriminalize it for one side but not the other because the goal is to crack down on sex trafficking. They should be brought to trial and acquitted if it's found that there was nothing untoward about the brothel they went to; if the prostitute wasn't trafficked there's no problem but if she was, it's rape, although unknowingly raping someone is quite the gray area.
-
9 hours ago, Rezzy said:
I think the very act of making it legal will do much to clear up the corruption. People will be more likely to go to the police, if they aren't afraid of getting arrested themselves.
All you need to do for that is decriminalize it for the women though, right?
-
19 hours ago, Rezzy said:
There are two main reasons to have a law.
Necessary evils, like taxes. I don't think tax evaders are breaking a law that is moral, but it's needed to keep the government going.
Laws that keep people from harming or depriving one another of their rights. Laws against murder may not actually prevent anybody from killing each other, but we still need the laws to punish them. I'm not sure how much laws as a deterrent actually work.
Prostitution should be legal with regulation within reason. Like California's "you can infect people with HIV and get a slap on the wrist" law need to get reformed, but it should be as easy as doing pornography. The only different between prostitution and pornography is a camera.
If a girl is needing money and knows a guy who's willing to give a few hundred dollars for a few minutes work, what's wrong with that? Sex is not a taboo in and of itself. I've had sex I've regretted before, but if you do it for money, you know what you're getting into, and you can have an emotional detachment that you don't have when you're having sex for pleasure so to speak. It also has the benefit above pornography, in that if you become a professional, like a doctor, you won't have patients finding videos of your porno shoot years later. The guy you had sex for money might tell people, but you can have plausible deniability there.
By that same token, prostitutes should be able to unionize, but it should not be required. Free lance girls in college working two jobs should be able to get some cash on the side without having to join the prostitute union and make that their primary job.
I don't think the government should be in the business of legislating morality. I don't smoke or do drugs, and don't like hanging around people who do, but I think those should still be legal.
I agree with this, I just think that practically speaking the prostitution industry has much more corruption in it than the pornography industry. If prostitution is completely legalized it absolutely needs to go hand in hand with a strong offensive against the corruption. It's an industry that needs to be purged, and only then can it be made legal.
-
8 hours ago, Rezzy said:
What if the prostitute is on birth control or gets her tubes tied?
I don't see how you can fault one side and jot the other, if it is illegal. If anything, being illegal would make the hookers more culpable than the johns, if you think of it like drug dealing, but I think they should all be legal to be honest.
Let me put it this way, if it is to be legal all the shitty stuff about it, which includes the lack of birth control, needs to be cracked down upon. Decriminalizing it for the prostitutes themselves is the way to purge the bad pimps and to, if needed, properly regulate prostitution, with stuff like birth control and sex worker's unions. The industry, however, is not ready for that now, and if prostitution was legalized now with no strings attached it would do more harm than good.
-
Should be criminalizes for the buyer and the pimp but not for the seller herself. In general we should si pirate prostitution because in practice it leads to a bunch of unwanted babies born into the poorer strata of society.
-
"He loved Big Brother."
-1984
-
I have to echo Jotari here; a possessed Rudolf I'd say goes too close to my main pet peeve with FE-that everything the villains do isn't really there fault, it's the fault of some evil dragon. I'd say having Rudolf do this plan but acknowledge it was bad could get into a lot of interesting stuff, like how he was really trying to feel as if he was doing something rather than actually doing something productive.
-
17 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:
I really have no idea how you can consider SoV the best-written FE game unless by "written" you're just focusing on prose and/or dialogue or something because its plot is absolutely riddled with serious flaws (many of which have been addressed by your and snek's proposed rewrites, all of which would do the plot favours in my mind).
One change I strongly feel should be made regardless of what else is done is that Jedah needed to be charismatic. This means he both had to have a face you could trust (so... the total opposite of his current design) and his words would have to be such that you can reasonably buy Celica (who isn't generally portrayed as stupid otherwise) believing him.
Well, I don't have a high opinion of FE game's writing in general. Parts One and Two of Radiant Dawn and whichever Sacred Stones Route had Lyon actually being subtle and keeping some mystery as to how much was him and how much was Formotiis and the extent to which he could control Formotiis were better written than SOV but those games both had other parts that dragged them down considerably. On the whole I don't think there is a single FE story I would consider good.
-
I did write my UK application essay on why I want to study history, how history has evolved my views, and how living in Prague has changed my perspective on history.
-
It doesn't neccesarily have to be keeping them alive, but charging in without even knowing how much agricultural damage this will do is reckless. Maybe run with the idea of the Gods being spirits, and having them possess new people, and leaving it to new generations to start the cycle a New?
-
11 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:
That's what I like about battle for wesnoth. Cavalry are powerhouses who have an ability that lets them double the damage they deal and take when they initiate the attack. The thing is that they're universally weak to piercing weapons, and spearmen not only have percing weapons but also first strike, so if you try to charge spearmen... god help you.
Thanks for the recommendation!
-
In my opinion, Shadows of Valentia is the best written FE game. It has the most potential of any game in the series to have a great story. This, of course, makes it all the more tragic that it ultimately fell short. So, here are my ideas to improve the story.
1. Give Alm an actual character arc. Have him demonstrate some strategic ability. Have his more aggressive nature actually clash with Clive and Lukas's more strategic personality; Alm develops into a genuine war leader, who is prepared to make sacrifices. Probably the biggest thing to do would be to keep Fernand with the Deliverance, and don't make him such a consistently classist asshole. Actually have him criticize Alm's strategic decisions. At least make it so Alm needs to prove himself as a commander by liberating Castle Zofia, rather than having everything handed to him. Ideally, I'd have him hate Rigel preparing for the invasion, and by the end of Chapter 4 understand their motives for going to war due to the extreme poverty.
2. Jedah and Rudolf. First order of business: keep Rudolf's plan, but make clear this plan is flawed. I'd make Rudolf like Ashnard except not sadistic; a pure social darwinist who believes that any help from the Gods is an abomination. Jedah, meanwhile, should be a more sympathetic misanthrope; he genuinely believes that humanity can't govern itself and its for our own good if the Gods do it for us. Then, the theme of strength and kindness finding middle ground could be reflected in finding a balance between over reliance on the Gods and completely destroying them. Then, change the ending. Don't have Alm make such a drastic decision to kill Mila and Duma; I thought he came off as a dick there, like, yeah, Mr. Emperor of Rigel who will never realistically want for anything, easy for you to say, how about Joe Peasant who will have to work even more to live? DIckish of Alm to make that decision for everyone.
3. Make Celica's story less, you know, sexist. I'd probably just change Jedah's plan here to be ike "when both bearers of the brand are in the same place Duma will awaken"; that way Celica doesn't have to act like a moron.I'd also give Celica a spell that can also hurt Duma, to make her more of an equal to Alm and less of a de facto supporting character.
4. Berkut. In my opinion Berkut is the second best written FE antagonist. Unfortunately, he is given practically nothing to do. So, my idea for Berkut: Jedah uses him as a partial vessel for Duma. Here, Jedah wouldn't want Duma specifically, just a God. It would also make sense as he deliberately entices Berkut with power. I'd also make it ambiguous how much of the final boss is Berkut and how much is Duma; Duma should represent more a lust for power than any real, decisive character. So, Jedah gives Berkut the power of Duma for him to be the new God of Valentia. Berkut genuinely wants to improve things, he just also hates Alm; give emphasis to how Rudolf created this monster, too, for parallels; Alm and Berkut both were created by Rudolf. This also shits on Rudolf's plan more, which frankly cannot happen enough. I'd also show Berkut both being a good commander and a good person. Have him be the one to defeat and capture Matilda; this not only shows him to be a threat, it also makes Matilda look less pathetic losing to Desaix(seriously, how do you do that?). Berkut's introduction should also be this: some soldiers are harassing some noblewoman they captured; Berkut stops them. This shows him to be an honorable guy at the start, one corrupted by his desire for power. Making a Berkut possessed by Duma be the final boss would overall make for a much better narrative.
5. A minor point, but how about making Desaix sympathetic? Have him usurp Lima IV after Berkut has smashed the Zofian army and Lima wants to continue the fight that Desaix views as pointless; Desaix doesn't like being a puppet of Rigel, but figures it's better than full annexation.
Yes, this is inspired by Lebello in Legend of the Galactic HeroesSo, what do you all think? Anything I'm missing?
Novelisations/Rewrites Of Main Series Games?
in Written Works
Posted
The main thing I remember is that the Avatar was named Gage, and that a lot of people died in the chapter where Marribelle was kidnapped, and that they made Say'ri a traitor.