Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Asmodeus

Andrew R's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,615 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,615 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Qadira

Abyssal Lord wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:


I guess we are still a long way when men don't need to resort to transgenderism in order to wear a dress.

Oh? Go ahead, put one on. See who'll stop you. If you want to wear a dress, wear one. There are dresses I would love to wear, I just can't afford them. (Sorry, my tastes are a little too refined, that's my problem. Also, my wife can't stop staring at me longingly when I'm in slacks, no reason to change what I'm already rocking.) And no, I'm a bog-standard cisgendered heterosexual man. I just know that I could wear it. Would I get stares? Would I make people uncomfortable? Yes, unfortunately.

But you know what? I grew up with alopecia. Half my hair fallen out in random patterns. I'm used to getting stares and making people uncomfortable just by existing. It wouldn't stop me.

I suppose it would be harder for most people. Most others can just be themselves and blend in and never get extra notice unless they seek it. Growing up able to hide your differences from strangers on the street has its value. But really, what does it take? Not much. Just put on the dress. That's all. Really, that's all.

So wear the dress, Abyssal Lord. Smash the stereotype. It's right there. It's in your power. Nothing stopping you.

I have no desire to wear a dress, but will defend a man's right to do so if he wants to and without the ridciule.

The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.

I think it would be very comfortable and not lead to things getting crushed on a pant seam when moving and bending a lot.

Qadira

Rynjin wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
They get light armor, but here's theEnlightened Paladin. Now you can check it out yourself.
Yeah i read it, it simply makes mention of different code, never says anything about alignment. these are not the same as the book obviously so i am asking for one that HAS the book for an official answer
Why are they "obviously" not the same as the book?

The wording is different in several passages. I do not have ISC to compare it so i am asking some one that has the book to confirm, not someone to tell me to look at another web site that doesn't say.

Qadira

chaoseffect wrote:
They get light armor, but here's theEnlightened Paladin. Now you can check it out yourself.

Yeah i read it, it simply makes mention of different code, never says anything about alignment. these are not the same as the book obviously so i am asking for one that HAS the book for an official answer

Qadira

Damn apparently what may be the best monk is female only

Qadira

Rynjin wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:

Enlightened paladin says it loses the paladin code restrictions.

You pay a hefty price for it though.

Really like what? i have been looking forward to a non "shining knight" pally for a while...Pm me with it to avoid derailing if you would please

No Smite, no immunity to Fear (though gets immunity to a much much much rarer ability so you can punt Pugwampis all day I guess), no Detect Evil (instead they can sense people with a Ki Pool! Useful! Wait), no armor proficiency (but can add Cha to AC which I'm not sure is an upgrade or downgrade).

Basically, they get a bunch of garbage in exchange for having a better designed Code.

Can you tell me their code? do they have to be any alignment? do they get stuck with the fall-trap of the normal paladin?

Qadira

So do the monk-paladins have to be LG/ Do they have the fall-trap penalty?

Qadira

Renegadeshepherd wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Renegadeshepherd wrote:
If one got REALLY detailed, even the simplest stat of a persons height in real physics matters greatly. The average male finds it harder to do acrobatics than a woman would because the usually taller man has a higher center of gravity than the woman. Both can do it with training but physics is physics. There are reasons why u c a LOT more female cheerleaders than male. And if u say it wasn't physics but some societal reason, the uve more or less made the point of many of the posters. And if someone says ladies look better than men, which I agree, then again they were not equal.

That's actually largely not height, but weight distribution within the body. Even for men and women of equal height, the woman's center of gravity will be lower. Men carry more weight in their chest/upper body and women carry it more on the hips.

Obviously this won't apply in all cases, the extremes will overlap, but it's a very strong trend.

.

It does my heart glad to c someone who knows physics :) yes ur correct. I was referring to how height affects the distribution of said weight ; an how on average the man is taller. It is a lesser and more correlative factor when compared to weight distribution though.

Edit: height is yet another example of something that had no meaning. U record it on the character sheet but it has no plus or minus. Only the varying size categories have meaning.

Weight does though. if a woman significantly smaller than a man has equal strength she has the advantage. Her mount can carry more, if she falls in battle the allies can get her out easier. I cannot for the life of me understand how so many of these comments are allowed to stand but me mentioning earlier how equal strength should mean equal size is "off topic"

Qadira

officially yes you can take the feat but it only works when you have the wis

Qadira

LoneKnave wrote:

Enlightened paladin says it loses the paladin code restrictions.

You pay a hefty price for it though.

Really like what? i have been looking forward to a non "shining knight" pally for a while...Pm me with it to avoid derailing if you would please

Qadira

Off topic but is there a paladin archetype that breaks them out of the alignment straightjacket?

Qadira

I still love the "bring them to justice" thing. If they did something needing death why does it matter if the paladin or the royal hangman does it? Is it different if the pally has legal authority?

Qadira

Useless as anything but a splitter. Might as well use a hammer for jobs an ax is meant for as this

Qadira

I think it would be comfortable, especially when its hot out

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll never understand how we have no problem with women wearing pants but people totally lose their &^%$ over a guy in a dress. Or even a kilt (mens clothing beyond any doubt)

Qadira

So what alignment is it to bait paladins to fall? it is their choice after all....

Qadira

Paul Watson wrote:
So, banning racist hate speech is an unacceptable limitation of free speech, but banning an entire genre of music is perfectly acceptable? Could one of you explain the logic you're using please as it seems very different from our Earth logic.

Well since rap often has racism and hate speech in it how could you support silencing a neo nazi and not rap? People quote the body count of jews in WW2 as prof of why nazi must be silenced but what is the body count of inner city violence? One standard, whats good for the goose is good for the gander after all

Qadira

thejeff wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I love this argument: It's always either/or. Either the individual is completely wholly responsible and no influences matter at all or only the influence is to blame and the individual is completely innocent.

No chance of it being more complicated than that. No understanding that sometimes the manipulators and instigators are to blame as well as the one who does the deed. Obviously this guy is personally accountable. But so are those that fed him the line of bull over the years that taught him to hate Jews and revere Hitler. So is the ideology.

It's the same issue that comes up with urban crime, gangs and the like. Any time you start to talk about root causes and patterns, people jump up saying "You're just making excuses. You're saying those thugs aren't responsible." When that's not the point at all.

I love this middle of the road, gray ambiguous argument: "I'm not certain to the degree of where the responsibility lies" mentality.

When do you start to hold people accountable? At what point are people responsible for their actions vs. conspiratorial "manipulators and instigators"?

People are exposed to crime, drugs, gangs, racism and violent ideologies every day - at what point does it become their responsibility to reject those things? This wasn't a 12 year old kid being told to kill for the Klan, this was a 73 year old, grown-ass man. He owns it and he owns it all alone. Just like the inner city kid who joins a gang - own it. There are several kids in those communities who don't join (somehow) - yet we are supposed to provide cover for the people who fall sway to bad influences? Blaming the gun for being fired, the drug for being ingested or the cash for being stolen.

A clown sitting on his porch spouting racist beliefs is just that, a clown. If you listen to that clown then the world will hand you (with full force) whatever you have coming to you. You can't (nor should you) ban the clowns - the exist to serve as a reminder as an

...

So you would support a ban on rap music to help save inner city kids?

Qadira

I get it completely Elyas, as someone into the bushcraft/survivalism thing players take gear for granted and most "mighty heroes" they play would by dead by starvation and the elements.

Qadira

I remember doing stop motion movies with GI Joes as a kid. Wish i could find some of those old tapes....

Qadira

Sissyl wrote:
Excuse me? Libertarians and Holocaust deniers in cahoots? Where? You're not actually saying that since libertarians tend to be critical of laws forbidding various types of speech, they are Holocaust deniers since the Holocaust deniers also want to get rid of one type of law preventing their nazi b@~!*@#! speech, are you?

Some think rights are a gift to give to those they want to have them, not indeed rights. They are those that would gladly bend a knee for a dictator to end freedoms as long as he is one like themselves.

Qadira

Zhayne wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I think it would be a team effort, after all if you are helping the killers kill you are not much of a pacifist...
There are different levels of pacifism. Not everybody who holds a belief feels compelled to force their views on others.

Reminds me of the villain that swears i won't hurt you, then his lackey beats them to death

Qadira

I think it would be a team effort, after all if you are helping the killers kill you are not much of a pacifist...

Qadira

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:


By this same logic all it would take for Nazism to resurge is another politician and rhetoric fed to the mob. Doesn't that make Nazi rhetoric just as dangerous as any censorship?
Does freedom of speech make the danger of bad opinions being believe a possibility? yes it does. Does removing freedom entirely help? not one bit, at that point tryanny has already won without us getting to decide on the merits.
Is there a middle ground between total freedom and removing freedom entirely? Yes. Does your rhetoric hide that middle ground? Entirely.

How far from one or the other is right? Is one tick shy of tyranny free enough? Like getting to pick wich flavor of christian you want to be masquerading as freedom of religion. I would rather err on the side of too much freedom personally

Qadira

Alex Smith 908 wrote:


By this same logic all it would take for Nazism to resurge is another politician and rhetoric fed to the mob. Doesn't that make Nazi rhetoric just as dangerous as any censorship?

Does freedom of speech make the danger of bad opinions being believe a possibility? yes it does. Does removing freedom entirely help? not one bit, at that point tryanny has already won without us getting to decide on the merits.

Qadira

thejeff wrote:

The rich do have different rights to political speech than the poor. The poor can't give thousands of dollars to politicians, because they're poor!

Arguing that limiting the rich to only giving far more than the poor will ever be able to give instead of overwhelmingly more is giving the poor more power than the rich is utter nonsense.

The rich also have diffent rights to keep and bear arms as prices are being forced higher. Part of the opposition to things like "smart gun" technology is the fear of pricing peoples rights away. just saying, this money issue exsists on many levels

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Except that when opinions are accepted as facts they become functionally indistinguishable.
Maybe to you; not to anyone who recognizes the difference.

Have you met the human race? Facts are only facts so long as people believe them to be. and beyond that only truly facts until proven wrong.

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I say better to allow both sides to try to fight with their proof since once it was proven fact the earth was flat and all....
You're agreeing with me to an extent. All evidence should and must be presented. But when one side's evidence doesn't hold up and the other's does, it's time for the discredited people to give it a rest. At that point, they've stopped presenting evidence and are instead simply lying. If they get some new evidence, they can try again.

I can partly agree with that, but what laws like these i think will lead to is ending attempts to present evidence contradicting accepted facts altogether. Better to keep up the fight then to end it by silencing disagreement.

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

1. You claim that in a PR situation, people can't discern truth from falsehood, EVEN IF PRESENTED WITH A CLEAR CASE.

2. You also claim that my example about the flu vaccines is irrelevant, because it is "childishly simple" to distinguish between two different vaccines.
3. Do you honestly think the vacc haters are going to say "Oh, right, that was just the seasonal flu vaccines that were bad, that has nothing to do with the traditional vaccines that we hate"? Or, do you think they are going to see any evidence of ANY vaccine being dangerous as proof that ALL vaccines are bad? I mean, these are the cream of the crop regarding rationality, aren't they?

1. Which is why examination of evidence should not be left to PR, which is exactly what I've been saying. In a trial, we take people out of the PR arena and place them in a courtroom setting for a reason.

2. Given the formulae, yes, it would be.
3. I don't care what they want to say; I care about what the evidence says in each case. If traditional vaccines are not only demonstrated to be safe but also shown to be essential to keep down preventable debilitating and fatal childhood diseases, I don't see why these people's ranting should be allowed to overrule their use on the basis of "free speech." Facts =/= opinions.

Except that when opinions are accepted as facts they become functionally indistinguishable. And if those "facts" cannot be questioned....

Qadira

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

So, again, where would you draw the line? Who gets to judge the evidence?

After the swine flu furor in Sweden, we discovered that there was a large number of cases of narcolepsia among children. Sure enough, going through the records showed that all of these children had gotten flu vaccine shots. Narcolepsia is a very rare condition, so it wasn't just statistical noise, but was eventually judged to be a very real side effect, probably permanent, of the vaccine as it was distributed.

Would you consider this too to be anti-vacc screed, fit to bury under a law on what's okay to talk about and not?

Traditional vaccines are well-known, unchanging entities. The new flu vaccines are new drugs for each specific epidemic, using various preservatives and boosters each time. This lies inherent in the method of production we need to use to get them out in time, and doesn't seem likely to change in the near future. Nevertheless, a law saying you're not allowed to criticize the use of vaccines will mean that we aren't going to learn anything about the side effects of each new vaccine - something I am sure Big Pharma would have a happygasm about.

Is that what you want?

The answer to the first question is easy. People make that decision, and sometimes people will get it wrong. That is the risk we take when we live in society with other people. At some level, we HAVE to be willing to sacrifice some of our freedom and autonomy to others, or else society simply falls apart. Once that is the case, it is ALWAYS going to be about drawing lines, and sometimes those lines will be drawn incorrectly. Sometimes we will learn, to our cost, that we made a bad decision. Sometimes that cost will be high. That's sad, but it's also inevitable.

The problem, of course, is that nowadays many issues are so complicated that realistically only experts are qualified to make determinations of "fact", which leads to suspicions of elitism and conspiracy, especially in the famously anti-elite United...

Translation "the king knows the truth, that is all you commoners need to hear" After all as you just said, let them think for themselves and we risk them coming to the wrong conclusion

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So it really takes no proof, only a politician to decide and a mob to support them.
And THAT is exactly what I'm arguing against. Because proof should be based on evidence, not opinion. QED.

But once again facts are slippery little things. All it took was the accepted "fact" that drugs are bad and bam now it is an unquestionable fact. If they make it illegal to question that "fact" your notion of proof loses all merit. I say better to allow both sides to try to fight with their proof since once it was proven fact the earth was flat and all....

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So why are drugs not legal?
I have no idea. I can only assume a grower convinced a politician to make them illegal so the price would skyrocket and the grower could amass a fortune selling them.

So it really takes no proof, only a politician to decide and a mob to support them. THAT is why other opinions should be heard. If they made it illegal to question that drug policy then who really benefits? The people or the government with its financial backers and power players?

Hell i even say this when i am completely against drug use

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
And to the militant vegan they are hoping that some day you lose the freedom to eat meat...

Have them demonstrate that my eating meat is directly harmful to them. That's susceptible to evidence. If they can prove it using evidence, I'll give up that right -- but I really don't think they can. Until then, their opinion that "eating meat is bad" is just that, an opinion.

Can you really not tell the difference between facts and opinions? Or are you just stonewalling me?

So why are drugs not legal? Can you prove that someone else using drugs is inherently going to hurt you? And there are studies that "prove" lots of things. then we get the fun of proving proof....

Qadira

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
There is none. just as there is none in many made up religions, many foolish philosophies. Just like there is no value in many idiot politically correct attempts to control our lives. But who are we to stop them from saying it? After all if we stop them why not stop every value less, foolish and maybe dangerous opinion? Again i ask, where do you stop? I say stop at the government EVER having the power to silence. YOU know they are nuts, most of us know they are nuts. Teach those that do not know the difference but do not give the government the power to decide and silence. NOTHING good will come of that in the end

First error - the part in bold is factually wrong. There is a difference between "no positive value" and "no value at all" - for example, something could have NEGATIVE value. That is to say, it could be an idea that is actively false and whose spread is actively detrimental to individuals and society at large. Who are we to stop the spread of dangerous, harmful ideas? Responsible humans, that's who.

Second error - again you fall into the ideologue's fallacy of appealing to a universal rule rather than trusting to the human capacity to reason. Of course there is a risk that government, tyrants, etc will go to far, but the check on that is not to deny them necessary powers, it's to maintain a vigilant watch over the reach and extent of those powers all the time. If that sounds exhausting or risky to you, well, nobody ever promised that life would be easy and safe. Since you're big on slogans, here's one for you: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Third error - your proposed solution is horrifically inadequate, largely because humans are devilishly hard to teach. I should know, I'm a professional educator, and a highly successful one. The idea that we can simply "teach" away the problem of ignorance seems... well... ignorant, given humanity's long history of utterly failing to learn (or learning the wrong lesson)....

You talk about "human capacity to reason" then advocate removing anything but what you want them to know and believe. How is that trusting them to reason?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance is in not giving up freedoms, not handing them over and hoping you can fight for them back when you want them. And your "expertise" as an educator means you should know too well how easy it is to teach only the "facts' those in power want heard until the truth no longer exists. After all worked well for Hitler

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
My point, that seems to be whizzing by above YOUR head, is that you are trying to discuss lying in a debate about free speech.

Of course I am; that's the whole point. In a lot of cases, I don't think it should be, and with time the support seems to be moving in that direction.

As you keep pointing out, in many of those cases (slander, libel) people have agreed with me for time immemorial. In other cases which I have pointed out (food ingredients, identity theft) the laws originally did not, but they eventually caught up. In more cases (refusal to vaccinate) I trust they'll eventually catch up. All of these examples have a common theme, you'll notice.

And to the militant vegan they are hoping that some day you lose the freedom to eat meat and advocate for such and to some religion they are awaiting the day you can no longer question their teachings. etc etc. Which is just right and proper and which is too far? The common theme is that for the current accepted majority it makes them happy, but right here we can say that many think you go too far with wanting to enforce vaccines. i would love to see more people get them but do not think it right to force them.

Qadira

Hitdice wrote:
Andrew, man, you're ranting. You've gone from "the nation directly responsible for the Holocaust has laws against denying its existence" to "facts make seizure of firearms from civilian owners inevitable." Just chill, man.

No i have stayed the course that i disagree with restricting freedom of speech because that is the first step in losing freedoms as a whole. I would rather hear awful opinions than risk us being allowed no opinions at all.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with you in theory Doug but at the same time saying the one with more money gets more "speech" is little different than letting the stronger man beat the weaker so he can have a chance to talk more than the guy he knocks out.

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Would you then advocate people only hearing the official government endorsed facts, opinions and religious views to be safe that they do not believe the wrong thing?

Let me keep trying, since my point seems to be sailing right by you (and Sissyl, for that matter). No government or church gets to decide what "facts" are correct. Evidence does. Things that are demonstratively false -- that are disproven by the evidence -- are false. Opinion has nothing to do with it.

I don't care if you like Fabian better than Elvis. I might not agree, but that's an opinion, and it's off-limits for any person or organization to dictate. I do care if you claim that Fabian invented the toaster oven, and start charging me royalties for toaster oven sales on that basis. We have a legal system in the framework of which I am allowed to prove you wrong and stop your "free speech" there.

Ok so only facts can be legally enforced. It is a fact that evolution happened. outlaw all religion that disagrees with that fact. goodbye first amendment. It is a fact that guns kill, it is also a fact that gun are used in self defense and national defense so guns must be non-existent or completely available. It is a fact that laws against search and seizure make it harder to gather evidence so those should go. See, simply enforcing facts gets rid of freedoms fast. How many other freedoms can we lose in the name of enforcing facts?

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Then educate on the truth rather than sacrifice freedom to speak.

Unfortunately, research shows that, paradoxically, efforts to debunk myths only strengthens belief in them, because people's brains don't logically process information the way we think they do.

If I spend $10M on an ad campaign about the Earth being flat, and the meme catches on, after that, everything NASA does to prove me wrong does nothing but strengthen my ad campaign. That's one reason "money = speech" is so pernicious a concept.

But the Earth being flat is not an opinion; it's an incorrect fact, and, ultimately, a lie. It can be proven wrong using evidence, even if 99% of the population biologically cannot get past the sound bytes to the contrary.

Would you then advocate people only hearing the official government endorsed facts, opinions and religious views to be safe that they do not believe the wrong thing? If not why not, given what you just said about the power of a lie to be so easily accepted as truth?

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Who decides the truth of belief and opinion and who gets the right to silence the other?

Um, there are things called "facts." They can be demonstrated by independent people, using stuff called "evidence." Philosophically-speaking, you can't prove them 100%, but you can get way past any standard of evidence ever required in a court of law.

"The Earth is flat" is not an unverifiable opinion; it's an outright falsehood. "Your 1-week-old blastoid looks like a baby and has a heartbeat" is another.

Opinions involve sentiments that are not testable hypotheses. "David Hasselhoff is cool" is not a testable hypothesis, so it's an opinion.

The fact that lies are so important to some people that they constantly "forget" the difference between fact and opinion is quite telling.

Then educate on the truth rather than sacrifice freedom to speak.Once you give up a freedom you will never get it back, it is not worth the risk.

Qadira

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts in your head? Or did the slogans take up all the space?
I see that freedom is meaningless to you so be it. you can be a safe coward, i would rather man had liberty. That is a greater thought than you will ever know.

As I suspected, that's a "no, no thoughts, just slogans" then.

Thanks for confirming.

If the notion of liberty is just a slogan to you then you are already lost.

Qadira

Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Ok so nazis deserve no freedom of speech because they might be dangerous. So where does that end?
If I make sausage filled with rat poison and toxic waste, can I market it as "fresh, wholesome, 100% organically-grown pork sausage with no fillers"? After all, you have no right to take away my freedom of speech. I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech, but even I stop when it becomes outright lying.
And thats the beauty of it, will you sit silently when someone says your views are lies? Who decides the truth of belief and opinion and who gets the right to silence the other? What you advocate is nothing less than giving tyrants what they NEED for the next Hitler or Stalin to rise and silence those that dare question. THAT is how millions die, not in disagreement over opinion but in silence as people dare NOT question.

The German law doesn't silence dissent and questioning. It silences propaganda intended to cover up massive crimes.

Why are you in favor of propaganda covering up massive crimes?

If you think it isn't propaganda, please feel free to show the value in Holocaust denial.

There is none. just as there is none in many made up religions, many foolish philosophies. Just like there is no value in many idiot politically correct attempts to control our lives. But who are we to stop them from saying it? After all if we stop them why not stop every value less, foolish and maybe dangerous opinion? Again i ask, where do you stop? I say stop at the government EVER having the power to silence. YOU know they are nuts, most of us know they are nuts. Teach those that do not know the difference but do not give the government the power to decide and silence. NOTHING good will come of that in the end

Qadira

Orfamay Quest wrote:


You're afraid of moral reasoning, and would rather die pointlessly according to rule rather than have to work to make a decision.

Quite the opposite i would rather a man makes his own moral reasoning than bow to that of some master telling him right from wrong. Your way is abdicating that choice and work to another. I would rather die with the point of making the decision for myself than be told

Qadira

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Andrew R wrote:


When tyrant rise to power, opposing them is breaching the peace. if tyrants rise as they have and will, you will be a slave. You give up liberty for an illusion of safety and thus deserve neither
Out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts in your head? Or did the slogans take up all the space?

I see that freedom is meaningless to you so be it. you can be a safe coward, i would rather man had liberty. That is a greater thought than you will ever know.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Ok so nazis deserve no freedom of speech because they might be dangerous. So where does that end?
If I make sausage filled with rat poison and toxic waste, can I market it as "fresh, wholesome, 100% organically-grown pork sausage with no fillers"? After all, you have no right to take away my freedom of speech. I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech, but even I stop when it becomes outright lying.

And thats the beauty of it, will you sit silently when someone says your views are lies? Who decides the truth of belief and opinion and who gets the right to silence the other? What you advocate is nothing less than giving tyrants what they NEED for the next Hitler or Stalin to rise and silence those that dare question. THAT is how millions die, not in disagreement over opinion but in silence as people dare NOT question.

Qadira

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Nope. I never had the freedom to engage in conduct that is likely to result in the breach of hte peace; I'm not giving up anything.

When tyrant rise to power, opposing them is breaching the peace. if tyrants rise as they have and will, you will be a slave. You give up liberty for an illusion of safety and thus deserve neither

Qadira

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Ok so nazis deserve no freedom of speech because they might be dangerous. So where does that end?

Just before an idiot invokes the slippery slope fallacy, at the point where rational discussion of costs and benefits is still possible.

As has already been pointed out, Holocaust denial has been illegal in Germany for decades, and yet somehow none of the consequences that you are concerned about have happened, or even been seriously discussed.

Yep, but will that happen that way every time in every nation?

I can trow a snowball on a mountain top, see it land and walk away. maybe a dozen times. At some point however i will get an avalanche. would you like to be under that avalanche? Also giving power to the government never seams to end well. You want to give up freedoms you do not value but will cry bloody murder when others turn that power on you. THAT is how the nazis and commies came into power. THAT is how millions died. Its ok to hurt them, its not me after all, im still safe from those in power.

Qadira

Ok so nazis deserve no freedom of speech because they might be dangerous. So where does that end? we have environmental terrorists so do we ban talking about the environment? Animal rights folks destroy property and engage in intimidation some times so can we ban talking about ethics and animals? Unions have a colorful history or violence and intimidation so can they and even the talk of collective bargaining not be banned?

How far can we take this before the only free speech you have is what you are told you can? Much as a dog on a leash has the freedom to run, at least till the end of that rope. And like that dog, run till the end you just may hang yourself with it.

Qadira

Lloyd Jackson wrote:

I am opposed to laws like this because I believe it is wrong, and detrimental to society, to allow those in power to determine which opinions are allowed to be expressed or not. A commonly used example is the Westboro church's actions. I find them morally repugnant, offensive to all common decency, and inaccurate. However, I am glad that it is legal for them to behave so. Now, placing select limitations on it, such as prohibiting them from protesting during the actual funeral service, is fine.

Freedom to believe without freedom to act on that belief is not freedom of belief.

Or even say it. Then again some think that believing in liberty is madness, dangerous even. After all we must quietly follow our masters, they know what is best for us.

Qadira

I love them personally, so many options, so variable appearance.

For RP i made one that is starting on the emo route as an alchemist trying to "cure" his demonic taint and instead figures out how to amplify it (mutagen bonuses) chemically.

Qadira

Grymore wrote:
But the selection of Feats are based on his standard BAB and not his sacred weapon BAB?

They should go by the higher BAB for feats specific to use with that weapon though i think

1 to 50 of 2,615 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.