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

Guy Humual's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,499 posts (7,311 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 Pathfinder Society characters. 22 aliases.


1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So a child on a bike collides with a car, some people say the kid is at fault, some say the driver. There's also claims that she was knocked unconscious for a bit as well.

The police arrive on the scene and want to ask questions and the girl doesn't want to cooperate. At this moment I have some sympathy for the police, they're just trying to do their jobs and the young woman isn't cooperating, but this sympathy rapidly devolves when they handcuff her and then pepper spray her while in the back of the patrol car.

Let's suppose this happened in a vacuum, absolutely no history or protests against police violence, let's suppose this girl has no preconceived bias against the police. In that world she might seem out of line being so hostile to a police force that has never treated minorities different and have only helped people in her situation. She might have a head injury and so they might want to detain her to ensure she's fine. Perhaps I could understand putting her in cuffs til the paramedics had a chance to look her over, maybe take her to the hospital.

However, even in ideal world, her refusing to get into the back of the car is not sufficient reason for you to pepper spray her. You take five, six, eight, twenty minutes to try to get her to cooperate. If you're really in a hurry she weighs maybe 100lbs, if you can't physically put her in the back of a car maybe you shouldn't be a police officer.

Pepper spray is a weapon, people have died from being pepper sprayed, and it should only be used if there's some kind of threat. A teenager not cooperating with you isn't any kind of threat. This seems to be yet another case of someone refusing to follow an officer's commands and there's no greater crime in America then disrespecting a police officer.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

------------------------------------------------

Greetings fellow political Paizazoians

It has just come to my attention that the moderation staff are grappling with some important issues. Like all grappling, this is a complex and time consuming task, and it is difficult to have an outcome everyone agrees on. I think it would be a good time to dial back the gnarr just a little, and focus on sharing information, rather then engaging in heated back-and-forth posting. Or better yet, post in a more positive thread about the game we all love, instead of the game we hate.

This post is not based on anything but my own opinions, and I don't speak for anyone on the moderation team. Also, this post is a few days later then it ideally would have been posted.
-------------------------------------------------

Can I just say that for the most part I think our discussions have been civil. I think most of us are on the same page, but we're quibbling about the small details rather than the big picture. Maybe I'm misreading tone and every comment aimed at me was dripping with bile and venom, but I think most of the talk has been civil. I'm fine with disagreeing with people, so long as we both get our arguments across there's no harm in it. Debate I don't think has ever been about converting your opponent, it's more about getting the chance to hammer out your position as it's been attacked, and point out flaws and weaknesses in your opponents position. If a consensus can be reached that great, but just getting the chance to understand another point of view does wonders for your own position. People can ask questions you've never considered before.

That is of course considering we're having a civil discourse. Sometimes things get heated. A shouting match usually isn't very helpful. If this happens I really recommend taking a few moments before hitting the "submit post" button. I've deleted a lot of posts over the years as I considered if it was worth sending and usually after a moment or two of contemplation making that snarky reply about morality in Pathfinder isn't going to be helpful to the argument. Rumor is some people get even more heated when talking about politics.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
If the system allows for a Donald Trump, allows people to think he's a viable candidate, then how is that on the voter?
When the candidate demonstrates repeatedly that he's a racist, misogynist, fraudulent, lying flip-flopper, and the voter puts his chop down for him anyway, it so is on the voter.

What I'm trying to say is that if he's not called out on his racist, misogynist, fraudulent, lying flip-flopping immediately, if his record and his lies aren't pointed out, if they invite Trump supporters onto their shows to spread more lies and misinformation to defend Trumps position, well then, that gives the notion that there's some debate about his reprehensible actions. The voter gets to think maybe Trump's right. Trump is entirely a monster of the media and if he wins they'll bare most if not all the blame.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

America is more of a oligarchy then a republic these days, you need big money to win, and that means money decides who gets to run.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:

"Thrown around" is a very fair description of how I heard it used. As I said in my earlier post, the analysts on the news outlets I follow didn't conflate the two. I certainly didn't hear it used often enough to say that the Clinton campaign used accusations of sexism to gain voter sympathy.

I wouldn't categorize it as a ploy for sympathy, rather an attempt to dismiss a surging opposition to the nomination. It was a way of saying "these young voters don't know this issues, they're just uninformed misogynists that can't stand the idea of a woman president" and had it ended there it would have been laughable, sad but otherwise not particularly noteworthy. The term was used by the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times to name a few. I don't have a problem calling out trolls, but when you attach a candidates name to the term, suggest that they represent typical Sanders supporters, well then we have a problem. I don't doubt for a second that someone was making crude and sexist comments to Clinton and her supporters, you can just look at the typical YouTube comments section to realize what people are capable of, but then to lay that toxicity on another candidate, well that's dirty politics.

Now as to the point about Sanders supports being frustrated by the media, the majority of the press around Sanders was negative, but that's hardly surprising, most of the media is owned by very wealthy individuals who would have payed considerably more under a Sanders tax plan. So is it then surprising that the Sanders supporters objected to the negative press?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I'm only tangentially participating due to the fact I've decided this election cycle has become a farce that not even Monty Python could make more...farcical.

I for one am not looking forward to another Silly Party sweep.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I don't understand why democrats get blamed for republican obstructionism or how voting for someone with no chance to win is going to convince them to stop.

IT's because of this false narrative that the news media has where they pretend both sides are equally valid position. It would be like if New York Yankees and the Toronto Blue Jays played a baseball game but then later both sides claimed that they won the baseball game. The news media thinks that's a valid debate.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:


And that's where Mr. Sanders falls down (IMHO). Sure, he can take stances, but can he actually wheel-and-deal legislation through a hostile Congress?
Yes
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Can he make this-for-that bargains to get an actual legislative agenda accomplished?
He's the king of amendments. He's gotten a lot done with both republicans and democrats.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Can he, in fact, achieve Bismark's "second best"? I don't think so. And I've got even less faith in Mr. Johnson's ability (or desire) to get a progressive agenda through, and still less faith in Ms. Stein's.

But you have faith in Clinton? I got spoilers for you: They HATE her. They've been actively trying to destroy the Clintons for decades. She gets elected you think all that ill will drys up and they decide to follow the will of the people? I don't see them being any less hostile to Clinton then they were to Obama.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
So if I want to get something done -- and I do -- the ability to "take progressive stances" is about as useful as a chocolate tea kettle. And I really don't want a pseudo-leader that will make a lot of noise, take a lot of stances, promise the earth -- and then melt as soon as he/she/they face any political heat.

If you're going into a bargaining table and have two choices on who's going to represent you, tell me who you want: someone who's going to demand as much as they can get or someone who's going to ask for incremental change? Sanders says you should get $24 an hour and Clinton says $10 an hour is more reasonable. Maybe with Clinton you'll get $9 but with Sanders you could get $14. You might never get single payer if Clinton fights for it, but you're sure as hell not going to get it if she doesn't.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Imagine if we had a democratic president who didn't have to spend their entire administration putting out fires and rebuilding America after it was "burned down to the ground" again?

I think this is a fair point. I really dread Trump but regardless of who the next republican president is that seems to be the natural flow of things. The republicans stress fiscal responsibility and small government up until they point they get into office, then the spend like drunken sailors, starting fights all over the place, wreak the place, and then a democrat comes into office to try to clean the place up. Trump just looks like the drunkenest, surliest sailor the republicans have ever given shore leave to, and their last sailor started two wars and crashed the economy.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels.
I agree. That's all bad. But... still an obvious / seemingly incontestable case to vote for her.

No, you can plug your nose and vote for Clinton, especially if you feel your state might go to Trump. It becomes hard to vote for her in blue states where she's almost guaranteed to win. Being "Not Trump" at this point is her biggest selling point and there are two other candidates also running on that ticket.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Who said no fighting? Who said bowing to Republican demands? Who said through Congress without a fight?

We said fight for things that might be possible and even that's going to be a struggle. Not give up and do whatever Republicans want. But also don't waste the effort you'll need to get even incremental improvements on pie in the sky stuff that you can't achieve.

Here's what the opposition does: they fight every change you're looking to make. Back in the 90s you might have worked with the opposition, but you've seen these guys: they have almost no shame. If you go for incremental change they'll resist unless it's something they can get behind. That's what worries me about that.

thejeff wrote:
As for the Court: Garland's a moderate, sure. Picked as someone the Republicans should confirm without problems, because that's the reality when you're dealing with a Senate held by the opposition party. Despite that, he'd still be a drastic shift in the court's balance by all indications. Worst case, he'd be the swing vote instead of Kennedy. That's really a huge change. Kagan and Sotomayor were probably more liberal, but they were also replacing liberal Justices. Garland's replacing Scalia.

Not sure I'd classify Garland as a moderate, he's more of a corporatist, and that makes him a bit to the right of center in my books, but certainly far to the left of Scalia.

thejeff wrote:
Clinton's choices might not be more left leaning than Obama's but they'll certainly be more so than Trump's. Trump does have plenty of experience with judges - he's spent plenty of time in court, being sued and counter suing. He'd likely nominate someone who'd ruled in his favor in the past.

Maybe, before the election Trump was pro-choice, but now that he's running as a republican he's pro-life. I don't doubt that Trump will suggest someone that benefits Donald J Trump but if that's someone to the level of Scalia remains to be seen.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton.

To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
That's no reason to hope someone will win an election.

My point is that it's no reason to vote for Clinton. Trump is a disaster but Clinton has to win people's votes, you can't just run on the "I'm not Trump" ticket. There are two other people on that ticket and one, Jill Stein, is better on the environment.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Apparently, they issued a warrant for Amy Goodman, too

They have to try to discourage the media from covering this somehow. Democracy Now! was the outlet that showed attack dogs being used on peaceful protesters.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Ignore Stein's crappy attitudes on autism and vaccines and focus on...

Haha, just kidding, nobody cares about Jill Stein.

Maybe ignore that because it isn't true.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:

Maybe she's so good that she's able to make folks like Alex Jones and Glen Beck seem crazy so people like us chalk up their accusations as crazy conspiracy theories. Bet you never considered that.

Edit: or she leaks the clues to her nefarious deeds to them first so the source of the conspiracy is tainted. Dun dun duuuuuun

Standard Illuminati practice: Leak the truth to the supermarket tabloids. Once something's been printed there, no one will believe it.
Quote:
Kind of like how aliens only abduct sad lonely midwest types. They know nobody is going to believe an alien is going to travel all the way across the galaxy just to abduct some hick from the middle of nowhere. It's the perfect crime.
and yet we fly halfway around the world in a flying machine, shine bright lights on animals, fill them with a sense of euphoria, poke, prod, take samples,lift them into the sky and then let them go for reasons that must be unfathomable to them.

But when we do it it's funny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
female Tiefling 10th level Duskblade

"Ah, an old joke, whist fighting a group of pirates the captain called for his red shirt as should he be cut and bleeding he didn't want his crew to see he was wounded and loose heart, and so when they found themselves surrounded by the pirate fleet he asked for his brown trousers . . ."

Karrin doesn't finish the joke as she hopes Hamar will piece it together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
female Tiefling 10th level Duskblade

"What are you talking about, Justin is bigger then me, besides being a wizard, he probably doesn't have the stamina to get in a long tickle fight with one of those feather swords. His only hope is to drop a foe while they're not looking and before they can fight back."

Karrin is indeed smallish, only 5'4 and in the 130lb range, and looking more a swimmer or gymnast then bulky front line fighter, but then she caries her ace like it weighs nothing at all and hits like a tank. Anyone seeing her fight for the first time might wonder where all this strength comes from, similarly anyone seeing her eat for the first time would wonder where all that food goes.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, I don't like Hilary, but if she got away with all the stuff she's accused of then she's clearly a woman who can get s@#@ done.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rednal wrote:
I've been meaning to ask - do we know how much she's earned in total from speeches?

She (unlike trump) released her tax returns

Trump is probably never going to release his tax returns because he's probably a fake billionaire. He claims to be worth 10 billion and in all likelihood he's not even worth 1% of that.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

]From the previous linked examples, Bernie is definitely the outlier. Clinton was relatively low as far as speaker's fees goes. Since Bernie has actually been in office all along, there may also have been more regulation of his outside earnings.

As for what she did with her earnings, donating them to charity is a good thing. If the Clinton Foundation is really horribly corrupt and doesn't actually qualify as a charity, then that's a bigger problem and one that's serious independent of earnings from her speeches.

Unfortunately it's hard to tell in the morass of allegations of Clinton's evils whether there's anything to the ones about the Foundation. As I've said before, I've gone to the "Boy who cried wolf" approach to the various Clinton scandals rather than the "Where there's smoke...

Bernie isn't an outlier, he's only an outlier if you look at him in comparison to the less then 100 people who charge more then $100 000 per speech. That's the big league, most people don't make that much per speech. Those are keynote speakers for major conferences, and while it's true that Hilary is charging less then Larry the Cable Guy, should we elect Larry one might be suspicious of his executive actions aimed at the insurance, plumbing, farm equipment or whatever corporate hell he was paid to speak at where hearing Larry the Cable Guy speak was preferable to putting a gun in your mouth. Perhaps President Guy will avoid partisan politics and "Get er' done" but until that time it seems Ms Clinton is the only one from that circuit currently running for president.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's likely that people will blame Cruz for the inevitable defeat of Trump, claiming it was a lack of party unity that caused the xenophobic isolationist failed business man to lose the election. Certainly current donors have already said don't look to us for money in 2020, and it's possible that they'll keep their words, some of these big money guys have long memories, and sellout politicians are a dime a dozen. Cruz really doesn't bring anything that special to the table, I'm not sure he's that much of a draw to the Latin community and there's dozens of people that can pretend to religious, heck even Donald Trump is pretending (badly) and that seems to be good enough for the majority. Cruz may have thought that he was setting himself up for a 2020 run but I think he forgot to factor in that one crucial component that could be the monkey wrench in his plans: the fact that nobody likes him.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll vote for Cthulhu, why vote for the lesser evil?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
female Tiefling 10th level Duskblade

Aww, only 18 mph for Karrin, that's slower then Usain Bolt


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Okay Jemerae," Kessel says pulling his sword, "you win, I was arguing to keep you alive but clearly you're correct, we need to put you down."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
female Tiefling 10th level Duskblade
Memnon the Mimir wrote:

Memnon starts babbling to himself

"Those damn Necromancers and their dabbling in Lifeforce Energy Weapons..."

His disembodied voice rises to a shriek

"You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! G0d damn you all to hell!"

Memnon better not refer to Karrin as a damn dirty ape.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Male hu-man Paladin
Rhiannon d'Deneith wrote:

So congratulations guys. Been really busy last couple days ad only just read the posts since Rhiannon's death. The reaction posts......free flowing tears.....which has never happened to me before in any game.

Bravo all of you.

D'aaaaww, I'm glad we could make that more real. I know some games view PC death as routine, bring extra characters to put into the grinder, but this doesn't feel like one of those games. Death has to mean something in a narrative driven game and I'm glad it struck a note. I feel this game deserves something like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kessel Cobey wrote:

Kessel continues to inspire as a move action, but he'll take a 5ft step to P20 and ready an attack in case any of the shark dudes move within range.

attack: 1d20 + 4 + 1 ⇒ (9) + 4 + 1 = 14
damage: 1d6 + 1 + 1 ⇒ (2) + 1 + 1 = 4

Just re-posting this as it would have gone off last round when the shark came into bite me. Also, the old rolls for convenience sake were 24 to hit, 5 damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
female Tiefling 10th level Duskblade

"Oh right," Karrin says with her best dumb valley girl smile at Nari, as if the fact that elan's psychic abilities only now occurred to her, "That will work even better."

"Okay then," Karrin says to the team, "Standard tank and spank, meaties in the front, sneakies to the flank, and squishies rain down hell. Hamar we'll give you a cold count of 100 to get into position, then we come up the center? Any questions?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
female Tiefling 10th level Duskblade

"Hamar," Karrin whispers, "Check the door, I need it opened safely and quietly. If you can open it, I take the lead, I need you on point, squishes in the center and Ekuur take the rear. If things get ugly I may need you to move up, but for now I don't want the rear undefended. Hamar be ready to flank. The rest of you, rain down justice on this thing, I want it to remember that the living aren't mere fodder or food for the undead, we are things to be feared in our own right, and if it's incapable of feeling fear, then you make it feel fear. That's the plan. Any questions?"

this plan assumes that we lost our caviler already, Mark if you're still playing I'll have Rhiannon take up the rear and have everyone give you a corridor for a first round charge. Ekuur will hold the front line with Karrin

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trump is Faux new's dream come nightmare. He's saying the things they've been suggesting for years, only not in a cleaver nuanced way, often even forgoing code words and phrases. At this point he's alienated the Latino vote, the black vote, the Muslim vote, and if the Republicans couldn't bring out enough angry white guys last cycle I got bad news for you: it's been four years and some of those angry white guys from the last cycle have passed away.

Trump is entirely a monster of the media's making, he's feeding on the free coverage, and by the time there's a concerted effort to quash him it could be too late.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Here4daFreeSwag wrote:

Popeye's getting into some Kung-Fu action there...

P.S. From a 1977 film, The Dragon Lives Again, but very NSFW (Strangely enough).

That film reminds me of The Ultimate Showdown told exclusive from Bruce Lee's point of view.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male hu-man Paladin

Happy Canadian Thanksgiving.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
female Tiefling 10th level Duskblade

"Oh, sure," Karrin says with an easy smile, "We're mercenaries by trade, but we're usually in the business to help people. Making money is important as well, you got to pay the bills and stuff, but mostly we try to help people. My name's Karrin, who are you?"

Karrin speaks with a valley girl inflection, kind of rambling, kind of cutesy, and she usually sports a good natured smile. She projects a friendly but dim witted persona.

Physically she's far from imposing, she's only 5'4, and slender, with a build more befitting a yoga instructor then a powerful front line fighter. She does however carry a glowing crystal great axe and swings it with ease. She has a big spiked gauntlet on her right hand and silver capped horns on her head giving her the look of a slight female Hellboy.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male hu-man Paladin

PAGE 250!

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I only just read the news today and my first stop was over here at Paizo to read all the touching comments and farewells. If ever there was going to be a community that would understand what we've just lost I knew it would be this one. I'll miss you Sir Pratchett.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:


I'm not going to suggest that I approve of the conservative Israeli government, they're pretty much the reason why we have groups like Hamas, but just because we have one group behaving badly it doesn't excuse the actions of the other.
Palestinians are fighting for their homes and existence. They have a right to do that.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle, however Hamas is not Palestine. They are just one group amongst many.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just clicked back one page and found the answers I was looking for with my previous question. I apologize for not keeping up with the discussion but I came into this one late.

May I just say that as of right now the discussion seems very calm and peaceful, so kudos to everyone involved.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see that Anita has been awarded the Ambassador Award from the 2014 Game Developers Choice Awards. I thought it was interesting to hear that "the Last of Us" writer was inspired by her work. Certainly the characters in that story were well written and very well received. It sort of echoes what I was saying about the usefulness of criticism in the locked thread.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Y'know, for years now I'd been sniggering at the Victorians for feeling a need to invent piano skirts to hide the piano's sexually alluring curvy legs (seriously, it was a thing)

Maybe you might want to google that.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What he wanted was equality. That last article you linked, about Cyril Ramaphosa, talks about (amongst other things) the continuing mismanagement of the mining industry. Seems like that would be an industry that should help build the nation yet somehow it's seen virtually no change. We're talking about a serious void in leadership at both the local and national level. It's depressing stuff, but folks forget that the industrial revolution didn't start off so well for the workers, in fact Karl Marx (whom you're no doubt familiar with, but for others I should explain that he was the least funny member of the Marx brothers) thought for certain that the unacceptable conditions he witnessed would lead to a worker's revolt. So ya, kind of funny, but not Duck Soup funny.

Anyways I'll repeat, things are bad in Africa in general, but things were worse in South Africa, and we're only one generation into life without apartheid. Most of these non violent revolutions and movements take a long time and it seems like most of the people in that last story you linked just have no idea what to do with their new found power and money. From the workers that blew their new living allowance on hookers and booze (they said second family in the story but I like my turn of phrase better), to the union leaders that sold out their fellow workers for cushy jobs on the surface. Seems like what we're seeing is the a low point in another revolution. Keep in mind that the industrial revolution was something like eighty year, or four generations, and so I'd guess that things are going to suck in South Africa for quite some time.

India and China are still a pretty crummy places to live as well if you're born in the wrong area or to the wrong caste or class. If anyone who thought Nelson Mandela becoming president of South Africa was going to fix some 350 years of colonial rule, then they were crazy.

Actually let me add a quote from that same article: “Could it have moved quicker in 18 years?” Ramaphosa asked. “My answer is no. Our expectations were far too high. To get education to sink deep into the minds of a nation takes a generation and more.”

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Discussion Piece #3

News flash: Governments are corrupt. Poor people are marginalized.

Later tonight, darkness.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Society gives women a glass ceiling and a safety net and they rail against it.

Society gives men an open sky above and sharp rocks below and they revel in it.

People are strange.

Why can't we compromise? Give everyone a open sky with a safety net?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thorri Grimbeard wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
The key thing to remember about history is that people really aren't that different over time, so if 14% of the total US army is female it's safe to assume that there have always been women interested in joining the military throughout history.
There is a big difference between now and then. Women in agricultural societies used to get pregnant A LOT, and deliberately postponing pregnancy until their thirties was pretty much unheard of. And before gasoline vehicles, serving in an army meant lots of hiking (riding if you were rich) in between camping rough. So it wasn't realistic for a woman who might be pregnant five (or more) times in her twenties to keep up with an army that would be hiking as fast as taller, not-pregnant men who didn't have to care for multiple toddlers could march.

Which is fine because my contention is that biologically we've pretty much stayed the same but culturally we've changed. There are females in the military now because it's acceptable now, not because women of this century are more aggressive and violent.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

And again, these cultures were notable because of "women warriors". Nobody's actually given any evidence that they had "plenty of warrior women in the field, fighting and raiding alongside the men". Or exactly what was meant by "plenty". What little evidence I've seen poking around the web suggests that they weren't really fighting and raiding alongside the men, but defending villages while the men were away. Or at least not in great numbers.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

I'm not arguing that women warriors throughout history have been rare, but I'd maintain that this imbalance likely has cultural or physical reasons rather then purely psychological ones. What percentage of women went off to war throughout the ages? Probably less then 1%, But remember far less then 100% of men went off to war as well, as far as fighters and warriors go (before we had drafts and inscription anyways) we're probably dealing with a smaller percentage of the population with a unique mindset in the first place. Most folks probably preferred to stay at home and tend their families and property.

Culture throughout the ages has tended to place men in heroic roles, so it's hardly surprising that young men love the idea of war, and the few stories that I'm aware of about female warriors (I.E. The Amazons) usually has them cast as villains and ultimately the stories end with them being defeated. It's not surprising if women aren't interested in the stories where they always lose.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again nurture vs nature, is it that women don't like combat and aren't interested in fighting? Or were women throughout history denied the right to learn combat and warfare? Knowing modern women and looking at the few historical reference we have I tend to believe it's the latter.

Also this 2.7% number, these are woman who see "frontline action". It's the sort of term that I object to. The problem with these modern wars is that there really isn't a frontline. It's not really a fair number to throw around. Lots of women in the military have seen action without being called frontline.

From that same article you linked:

"Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 others in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded."

And the vast majority of that numbers would have been racked up while women weren't allowed on the front line.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Slave women, I read somewhere, did most of the work on American plantations. The idea that they are physically incapable of carrying 100 lbs. of battle gear seems pretty suspect to me.

Also I should point out that women (carrying that aforementioned 100lbs of gear) have been on the "front lines" in the Canadian armed forces since '89 or so, and the Canadian military has been actively recruiting women for combat roles since '98

The 100lbs was in resonance to Wolf's comments on high tec weapons getting lighter.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bitterthorn wrote:

I oppose the US government initiating violence against states and individuals that have not initiated violence against us.

Does this help clarify?

We have agreed to help stop genocide when it happens, as well as mutual defense pacts with several countries. Are those bad ideas?

I oppose mutual defense pacts too.

How exactly have we agreed to stop genocide? What are our treaty obligations?

very interesting. Why opposed to mutual defense pacts? Do you fear stupidity on the part of partners in such an arrangement?

There was a little thing called World War 1 that is a fine argument against mutual defense pacts. However with nuclear weapons in the mix I'd like to think that super powers casually going to war with each other is a thing of the past. Now we have proxy wars or super powers invading non-super power aligned countries (the old definition of a 3rd world country I believe), which explains why many of these countries are struggling to get nuclear weapons.

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.