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. 3,217 posts (6,771 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 Pathfinder Society characters. 21 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Taldor

I'm like most MMOs these days: free to play.

Taldor

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.

Taldor

Male hu-man Paladin

Thanks for the update Patrick, and thanks for keeping the game rolling all these years. I think we just missed our 6 year anniversary.

Taldor

Male hu-man Paladin

I concur, you've kept your games going for years now and I'm always happy to have an update.

Taldor

This is very sad news if true, I loved Dragon magazine, in no small part because of artists like Tramp. Learning that he's passed is sad, but the fact that he never illustrated anything after leaving Dragon mag is sadder still.

Taldor

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a few posts. While this is the Off Topic forum, let's not get too graphic on the messageboards please.

I thought this might happen. For the record I didn't flag anything but I suspected it was inevitable.

Taldor

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
More objectification

It's a sad day when what Obama is seen as the left wing, but if that lady is upset about Obama becoming an extension of the Bush government then she'd have really flipped her lid if the actual republican party somehow gained power. At least you guys are getting a very basic improvement in your health care system.

Taldor

Male hu-man Paladin

Thanks for the heads up Pat.

Taldor

Male hu-man Paladin

Thanks for the heads up.

Taldor

Rathendar wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'm going to guess that we're going to miss this week?

It's just now turned 9pm, Guy. Going to pull the trigger and say cancel for today. Pygon's prolly going to be tired even when he gets home. No sense piling more on the poor fellow. ;)

Next session on the 23rd!

Agreed. I hope it wasn't all work, on a Sunday no less! Anyways take care Pygon and we'll see you in two weeks (if not online before then).

Taldor

I'm going to guess that we're going to miss this week?

Taldor

He made some great movies over the years. He will be missed.

Taldor

I found This enlightening. It dissects the trailer fairly well.

Taldor

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
This is my favorite Beyonce song.
OHWFA!

I prefer the version I posted. And since this is a thread about Gender and politics I suppose I should say something about the lyrics:

"Cause if you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it
If you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it
Don't be mad once you see that he want it
'Cause if you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it"

To me that sounds like Beyonce is calling herself an "it" and dehumanizing herself, not to mention suggesting ownership through marriage. Later are the lines:

"I need no permission, did I mention
Don't pay him any attention
'Cause you had your turn, and now you gonna learn
What it really feels like to miss me"

And although I like the line "I need no permission", but later in the verse she adds "(be)cause you had your turn" suggesting that rather then being a free willed being capable of doing whatever she wants that she's only free to make her own choices now because she's broken up with her man. Anyways I do like the limited freedom the song promotes, that pining over a man that's unwilling to commit is foolish, but the rest of the song seems to promote ugly gender stereotypes. But maybe that's just me.

Taldor

This is my favorite Beyonce song.

Taldor

If you're trying to suggest that Canada has right wing whack jobs, congratulations, it was however a one sided fight as I'd never contest that opinion. What I'm talking about is the conservative government, which as much as I dislike, hasn't acted on any of it's right wing nutbar's opinions despite having the US equivalent of the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate. They've had virtually all the power to do anything for the last three years now and they haven't acted on any of their Right wing impulses. The reason being Harper wants to get elected again and has been trying to rule from the center. The center of Canadian politics are to the left of even your Democratic party.

As to the poll, you're talking about something that hasn't even seen public debate in this country since the last Conservative government (over twenty years ago) and so it's entirely a one sided argument. People's opinions are entirely based on high profile murder cases and US television where the accused is always actually guilty. The problem is that in real life wrongful convictions happen all the time and in the new age of cell phone video police officers are being caught lying, abusing authority, and even breaking the law which in my mind, should the debate be reopened, would quickly sway public opinion back to the 1960s levels of support.

Taldor

A Man In Black wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Well I'm Canadian, so I tend to view the US Democratic party as being uncomfortably right wing, and our right wing "Conservative" party would be seen as wacko lefty pinko communist sympathizers by the American news media.
No, I'm pretty sure sucking up to the oil industry, slashing government funding on both social programs and scientific research, and straight up voter suppression is pretty familiar to any American.

You forgot those tax breaks that ate away at the surplus that the Liberals left us with before the subprime mortgage crisis and Harper's desire to snuggle up to Israel.

However Canada is still against the death penalty, doesn't execute it's citizens in over seas drone strikes, does have a progressive tax rate, believes in public health care, believes in separation between church and state, celebrates multiculturalism, and was one of the first countries in the world to legalize same sex marriage. Now I might agree that Harper probably doesn't support some of these things, I seriously doubt however that he'd even try to repeal or change these core Canadian laws and ideals, and while he is trying to be more and more like an American president (it's so cute), he's still got quite a way to go before he matches the policies of Barack Obama.

Taldor

Kryzbyn wrote:

I think Guy may vote Democrat. I'm not 100% sure though...

;)

Well I'm Canadian, so I tend to view the US Democratic party as being uncomfortably right wing, and our right wing "Conservative" party would be seen as wacko lefty pinko communist sympathizers by the American news media.

Taldor

thejeff wrote:
There's something wrong about asking people who are leaders in their fields for advice about something that's out of their field. If the pope wanted to give me advice about C Programming, I wouldn't pay much attention. Likewise if a religious leader wants to give advice on biology.

Right, but this isn't what religious leaders usually want to consult government over, often it's public policy, and while I might never agree with the pope on certain matters, the thing is popes don't get to where they are by being poor administrators. There's nothing wrong with listening to religious leaders anymore then there's anything wrong with listening to leaders of industry. However I do agree that there's a huge difference between consulting and blindly following the advise of said leaders. We shouldn't base our laws on a bronze age mysticism anymore then we should base our public spending on the free market economies.

Taldor

There's nothing wrong with asking people that are leaders in their fields for advice. I'm an atheist but if the pope wanted to give me advise I'd be a fool if I didn't at least listen to him. I might not do a single thing he says but there's nothing wrong with listening to people. Besides, just appearing to consult a major religious leader can score points with that religion's followers without actually having to commit to anything. It's sort of how the American Republican party works, they support a government that harbors the rich, takes food (stamps) from the poor, and is adamantly against healing the sick (if they can't pay for it), and yet they claim to be a christian party. It would be a bit like Anthony Bourdain or Andrew Zimmern claiming to be vegans, they eat meat all the time, privately scoff at philosophy and almost never eat strictly vegan meals, but they attend public meetings and condemn other TV food hosts who aren't acting vegan enough.

Taldor

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Now if you want to argue that no one was convinced or swayed by this debate you'd be correct. But of course I've never felt that was the point of a debate, usually I see a debate as a chance to understand the other side and maybe find some middle ground that you can agree on. The only time you sway or convince the other side is when the other side comes into a debate completely ignorant of the facts or your position.

This isn't the kind of debate where you get to understand the other side or find middle ground. Each side knows the other's position just fine and there isn't any compromise available.

Nor are you trying to change the minds of the debaters or their hard-core followers. You're playing for the middle. Trying to sway those who aren't convinced yet. You're also playing for soundbites in the news coverage, since far more people will see that than actually watch the debate.

Yes, this is what I said. The debate exists only as publicity for his "museum" themed fun park. People who buy Ham's books weren't going to listen to anything Nye had to say, but they may have been unaware of Ham's Creation "Museum", and that is the real purpose of the debate.

thejeff wrote:
From what little I've seen, Nye won the news coverage.

I'd hope so. Arguing faith against reason and observation is a practically impossible battle and Nye would have needed to have been a monumentally bad debater to have lost. Knowing that Nye is not only capable of human speech but also pretty articulate left the results of the debate a forgone conclusion for me, but I watched a bit of it anyways.

Taldor

For those arguing that this debate didn't serve a purpose you're completely incorrect. The Creation "Museum", a wacky theme park (minus the rides I'd assume) needed a bit of publicity, and this debate got quite a bit of buzz around the internet. Ham's goal wasn't to win this debate, I'm sure he's a cynical shill and snake oil sales man like many of these mega church leaders, and drumming up support for his "museum" style theme park and making money hand over fist are his only concerns. Anyone who thinks this guy isn't sticking to the script so he can continue to bilk the sad uneducated masses is the real wackadoo here.

Now if you want to argue that no one was convinced or swayed by this debate you'd be correct. But of course I've never felt that was the point of a debate, usually I see a debate as a chance to understand the other side and maybe find some middle ground that you can agree on. The only time you sway or convince the other side is when the other side comes into a debate completely ignorant of the facts or your position.

Taldor

From wikipedia: "Brain death is used as an indicator of legal death in many jurisdictions, but it is defined inconsistently. Various parts of the brain may keep living when others die, and the term "brain death" has been used to refer to various combinations. For example, although a major medical dictionary says that "brain death" is synonymous with "cerebral death" (death of the cerebrum), the US National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) system defines brain death as including the brainstem. The distinctions can be important because, for example, in someone with a dead cerebrum but a living brainstem, the heartbeat and ventilation can continue unaided, whereas, in whole-brain death, only life support equipment would keep those functions going."

As you can see it's perfectly possible to be breathing and have a heartbeat, which is one of the definitions of being alive, and still be declared brain dead. What you're quibbling about is the definition of death. With today's technology you can keep someone that's brain dead on life support for a very long time . . . but they're almost certainly never going to recover, unless as I said earlier, they were misdiagnosed.

Taldor

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Hummual wrote:
with another quick google I see that there's a lawsuit claiming that 1 in five "brain dead" patients are still alive.

Equivocation. The article says that 1 in 5 brain dead patients are ALIVE, that is they have a heart beat. Your argument is that the patients are diagnosed as "brain dead" but are not brain dead. ENORMOUS difference.

No, brain dead, from a medical stand point, is completely equal to death. This is maybe one of the reasons there's reluctance to pull the plug so to speak because people hear brain dead and think "That's not completely dead", but from a medical stand point it's the same.

Another thing I should point out, and it's the point of that article, is that brain death is very useful for saving other people's lives because brain dead individuals often have otherwise healthy organs for transplants. What this lawsuit claims is that doctors are too quick to diagnose brain death so they can harvest the body.

Taldor

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
We've had dozens of cases where people were thought to be brain dead or in unrecoverable comas but amazingly made full recoveries, but for every one of these miracles there's probably hundreds of cases were the doctors were right.

Don't conflate "brain dead" with "unrecoverable comas."

My understanding is that there are no recorded cases anywhere in the medical literature of recovery from "brain death."

I don't know, I typed brain death recovery into google and got this as the first result:

'Miracle recovery' of teen declared brain dead by four doctors

Now you could argue that he wasn't given the proper diagnosis . . .

I don't need to. The article you cited (but evidently didn't read) made that point explicitly.

"Remarkably, he detected faint brain waves indicating Steven had a slim chance of recovery and medics decided to attempt to bring him out of his coma."

In other words, the medical experts acknowledge at that point that he wasn't brain dead.

That's not relevant in the Texas case. No one, not even the hospital, has ever argued that the diagnosis of brain death might be incorrect. Brain dead is dead, and no one has ever recovered from that.

No, I read the article, but you're not getting what I'm saying. Brain dead is a diagnosis. People don't recover from brain death . . . until they do, and then they go back and review and revise the diagnosis. with another quick google I see that there's a lawsuit claiming that 1 in five "brain dead" patients are still alive. I seriously doubt that it's that high, maybe 1 in 500 is a stretch, but regardless this notion that you put forward that brain dead people don't recover is just wrong because there's plenty of examples of people that are declared brain dead recovering. What you're arguing is that when someone has the correct diagnosis of brain death they never recover, which would only be a useful distinction if there weren't so many discrepancies and misdiagnoses, and medicine is full of discrepancies and misdiagnoses. Also remember that if the family from the article I cited had listened to those first four doctors brain death would have been the correct diagnosis because they would have removed him from life support and taken his organs for transplants. There's a reason why people are told to get a second opinion.

Taldor

Male hu-man Paladin
Hugo Solis wrote:
Patrick Curtin wrote:
If anyone needs their description again, the originals were on the bottom of This page

I've already got 4 emails with description, and checking Pat's link abode I see more descriptions in there.

Just a big favor, please list all the characters (player name and PC name) so that I can use the emails I have and check the thread link abode to get the remaining PCs from this thread.

Thanks!

Right now we have (in no particular order):

Karrin Kind - Guy Humual
Ekuur - Bryan
Isaac - James Keegan
Justin Case - Ragadolf
Merle Barer - Kevin Mack
Seph (Merle's familiar) - Kevin Mack
Naridre Ro'Arisahshe - Lynora
Rhiannon d'Deneith - Mark Thomas 66

That's everyone in the group at the moment

Taldor

Male hu-man Paladin
Patrick Curtin wrote:
If anyone needs their description again, the originals were on the bottom of This page

I sent Hugo a description. I really hope he does this, he's a good artist, and having artists like Hugo or James draw your character is always exciting.

Taldor

Krensky wrote:

Yes, yes the hospital was wrong.

They weren't doing it out of concern for the fetus, or because the doctors had a different opinion on the viability of the pregnancy or the woman's chances of recovery or anything.

They did it because some d-bags in the Texas legislature decided to ratchet up things on the whole personhood tactic while simultaneously continuing to strip womens rights by making a pregnant woman nothing more than an incubator.

Well I can't comment on the whole politics of this case (I do realize that this is Texas though and big parts of it are pretty backwater) I can say that if I were the woman and I thought my child had a good chance of survival and a normal life that I'd have wanted them to do anything possible to save it. The two major differences in these tragic stories, this one and the one out of Canada, is that in Canada we have a fetus that has a good chance of survival and a normal life and we have family members and doctors in agreement over what the late mother would have wanted. While I think politics might have come into play here I don't think that it was entirely a political move.

Also I agree that the Texas hospital made the wrong decision and that they shouldn't have put the family through this but I really don't think this is an entirely black and white scenario.

Taldor

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
We've had dozens of cases where people were thought to be brain dead or in unrecoverable comas but amazingly made full recoveries, but for every one of these miracles there's probably hundreds of cases were the doctors were right.

Don't conflate "brain dead" with "unrecoverable comas."

My understanding is that there are no recorded cases anywhere in the medical literature of recovery from "brain death."

I don't know, I typed brain death recovery into google and got this as the first result:

'Miracle recovery' of teen declared brain dead by four doctors

Now you could argue that he wasn't given the proper diagnosis . . . but that's pretty much how medicine works, you go to a doctor and they give you a diagnosis based on their knowledge and expertise. Sometimes doctors are wrong. That doesn't change the fact that some people are declared brain dead and yet turn out to be anything but.

Taldor

The thing is the poor brain dead women in both cases obviously wanted to have children, they intended to carry the child to full term, but sadly they suffered brain damage that in any other era of human history would have meant death for both the mother and unborn child. The real question we have to face is when is it okay to remove someone from life support. We've had dozens of cases where people were thought to be brain dead or in unrecoverable comas but amazingly made full recoveries, but for every one of these miracles there's probably hundreds of cases were the doctors were right.

There are a couple of things at play here, first there is the woman's right to chose, and I like to think that most mothers would want doctors to do anything possible to save their child, but there's also the right to a dignified death. I remember that Terri Schiavo fiasco, the fact she didn't have a living will did compound issues, the fact that she had no way of speaking for herself and because there were to sides that believed that she wanted different things also complicated things, but I think euthanasia should be a right of the terminally ill as long as they have a voice and the cognitive ability to express these wishes, and I think people need to have living wills should something like this happen.

As for the unborn, it should be the mother that decides, the child is essentially part of her body after all, but in the situation were the mother can't decided, then the decision should fall to family. It's really not a simple cut and dry case. I think both eventually saw the correct outcomes but I really can't say that the Texas hospital was completely in the wrong in this one.

Taldor

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'm not sure if there's a right or wrong absolute in this complex issue, but it is nice that the doctors and family are on the same side here. In the other story from the states I think the big issue was the quality of life for the developing fetus which I don't think is a worry here.
Can't say I followed the Texas case all that closely so I don't know if it was corroborated, but dude claimed being kept plugged in while brain-dead was against her expressed wishes. If true, keeping her alive as an incubator seems pretty near to absolutely wrong to me.

Well suppose the fetus were healthy and hadn't suffered extreme oxygen deprivation, I tend to think this would have made the decision to keep her alive far more grey on the morality scale. I don't think the families decision to take her off life support was at all wrong, but I can see why, with another life in play here, the hospital was reluctant to do so. I agree it was wrong, especially seeing as the unborn child's prognoses wasn't a good one, but I can understand the waffling even though I don't support the pro-life movement.

Taldor

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

And, for Citizen Humual's delectation, back to anti-woman America:

F+!$ing finally

At the risk of having to watch Citizen Humual gloat:

Canada does it right.

I'm not sure if there's a right or wrong absolute in this complex issue, but it is nice that the doctors and family are on the same side here. In the other story from the states I think the big issue was the quality of life for the developing fetus which I don't think is a worry here.

Taldor

Hama wrote:
No, I love the series. I have read all of the 14 books, more then once. But I positively hate 90% of the female characters in those novels. The only ones I don't are Nynaeve, Aviendha and....no, that's it.

Two of my favorite characters. I sort of like Tuon as well, mainly for how she played against Matt, but really there weren't that many characters in the series that I liked from their initial introduction to the very end. Nyneave is the only character I liked from start to finish.

Taldor

As far as older female characters go, English Lit has some really great ones, from the villainous Grendel's mother to the scandalous Wyf of Bathe (wife of bath) older women have had great roles. Some of my favorite tales also have the story of women growing older throughout the story, from the roguish Moll Flanders to the wonderful twist on the classical villain Morgan La Fey (Morgaine) in Marion Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon. Female heroes are probably under represented in fantasy and science fiction because for many years it was a genre dominated by male authors, and likely was likely predominantly read by a male audience. There are some great female authors of course, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Ursula K. Le Guin spring to mind, but the male authors dominated, and for whatever reason they didn't seem interested in writing female characters never mind older female characters.

Taldor

Kajehase wrote:
In 1811, a guy named John Joseph Merlin suggested a design for a self-propelled steam engine wheel chair. In an addendum he included notes on how to mount a small cannon to the contraption.

You say this like modern motorized wheelchair also don't include notes on how to mount small cannons. I mean normal wheelchairs don't, they're way to light, that's just basic science, but I'm certain the heavy duty ones, like the one Steven Hawking sports when not in his robot exoskeleton, likely have this option.

Taldor

Well supposing that there are no other historical accounts then it's basically a tale of ignorance breeding ignorance, it started with the British laughing at the so called prudishness of the colonials, but somehow that got flipped and then the Americans would later laugh at the Victorians.

If I can take anything away from history it's that people are always the same, the technology and maybe what we pretend to believe changes, but the people are always the same.

Taldor

Usually when you identify a period and it's people by it's ruler you're referring to the people that lived under that rule. The US had a little spat with the British during the Georgian era and thus were no longer under British rule by the time Queen Victoria took the throne.

Taldor

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.

Taldor

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
80% of India's population lives in rural communities? That sounds really odd to me.

Probably an older fact. The cia world fact book has it at

urban population: 31.3% of total population (2011)
rate of urbanization: 2.47% annual rate of change (2010-15 est.)

That's still around 68%, that's still much higher then I'd expect, but a little more believable then 80%

Taldor

80% of India's population lives in rural communities? That sounds really odd to me.

Taldor

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:


More desperation.

And more desperation.

And even more desperation.

So ya, these articles do show that classicism/racism/castecism is very much alive in India, which I don't believe I ruled out, just as I wouldn't suggest that racism doesn't exist in Canada, but I still think that things in India are changing for the better. These stories all seem to have a degree of outrage associated with them, and not because the articles were probably written by western journalists, but because they report protest and outrage by the locals.

They're still disturbing reports, especially the schooling ones, one where you have children being bullied and intimidated by a teacher, and the other where a doctoral candidate had his life and academic career put on hold because the university didn't offer him the most basic level of support. The tragedy is that he ended up taking his own life. However, maybe sixty years ago, these stories might not have even peaked public interest. Change is a slow thing coming, especially were religion is concerned, but I like to think it's coming here as well as India.

Taldor

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Actually, no, I didn't realize that, although I guess all I had to do was read his wikipedia page.

More desperation.

And more desperation.

And even more desperation.

You really need to stop assuming that my comments are attacks against you. I was referring to the author of the article you quoted and linked.

PS I am not desperately lurking in the chat window refreshing and waiting for a reply, even though the timing might make it seem that way, it seems that we're running on similar hours. But now that I got a reply I can sleep. I'll read your links later.

Taldor

keep in mind that B.R. Ambedkar passed away in the 1950s and I'd imagine that things might have changed a wee bit in the nearly sixty years since his passing (never mind whatever changes might have occurred between when the quote was given and his death). Seems like using that quote and trying to shoehorn it into a discussion about modern India seems a tad desperate.

Taldor

I remember you sharing that conversation :)

The thing is your friend might be sort of right as the untouchable class has been dissolving for a while now. Gandhi's humanitarian work started working on removing the severe stigma and social ostracization these people faced. It probably doesn't mean nearly as much being born into any of the lower castes as it did a century ago in the big cities. However I very much doubt they've gotten rid of the caste system and still feel it's legacy.

Reginald D. Hunter said “A class system is something you use to discriminate someone who looks like you” and a caste system is just a more evolved class system.

Taldor

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Anyway, what little I have digested from the commie site about South Asia has made me even more sensitive to caste and communalism in Indian life and politics, so I went back to see if any of that came into play in the case. Well, I didn't see much, just that the groom was an "outsider," but, re-reading through some of the stuff I was struck by:

Guy Humual: ...but I also tend to think progress and prosperity are linked...

New York Times: Councils are often worried that marriages to outsiders will dilute communal land claims, among other concerns. Couples who defy the marital codes are sometimes murdered. Genetic researchers have found that India’s population has hundreds of distinct subgroups, in part because village councils have been enforcing marital codes and limiting intermarriage for centuries.

Anti-Caste: We understand that caste oppression is not simply a product of bigotry and irrationality. Caste in India is the foundation of the traditional systems of labor extraction in the villages, where nearly three-fourths of the population still lives. In the cities it plays an indispensable role in maintaining the capitalist order by keeping the working class divided. Sustaining—and sustained by—women's oppression, caste is closely bound up with the institution of the family in South Asia. An archaic remnant, it persists because scarcity persists, reinforced by imperialist exploitation. It will take a socialist revolution within the region and internationally to sweep away the caste system and build an egalitarian society founded on abundance. But only a party that fights to liberate all who are oppressed by caste—along with women; smallholders and the landless; Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and other religious minorities; and all national groups and oppressed ethnicities, including tribals—will be able lead the workers of India and the region as a whole to power.

Vive le Galt!

I think the old caste system is starting to dissolve in the major cities of India, much like the nobility class system dissolved in the UK during the industrial revolution. That's not to say that class doesn't matter anymore, class is still linked to wealth and wealth still carries with it many advantages, but wealth isn't the exclusive domain of the noble classes anymore. The caste system in India is a bit like the nobility class system and I suspect that upward mobility will soon be linked to wealth rather then caste. It's still going to matter for a long time, I mean people in England are still pretty touchy about class today, but you do have a future king of England married to a commoner now. Mind you the Duchess of Cambridge is still upper middle class, has some blue blood in her ancestry, but it is a sign that class doesn't matter as much as wealth and education.

Taldor

Well I suppose it's a win for the pro-choice side?

Taldor

Oh, and I should add that I didn't think you were being morally smug, I was speaking more of our western culture as a whole. Folks just don't grasp history is all, but you being a well read goblin, probably realize that people have always been nasty animals and it's a constant struggle to battle our horrible barbaric true selves.

Taldor

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

[facepalm]

I can't believe I misspelled "Massachusetts".

don't worry, no one expects goblins to spell words longer then four letters, never mind four syllables.

Taldor

Another fun fact about puritan law was if those two girls had of been elven it might not have been considered rape as that was the age of consent at the time.

Look, what happened in India is pretty damn sickening for sure, and I hope these people get to face the full force of Indian law, but I also tend to think progress and prosperity are linked, and the last time America had water buffalo roaming the streets had to have been the 1960s at the latest. Also I'm positive Canada has a sordid past on this subject as well, we did have Catholics after all, but nothing as juicy or as sensational as those puritans that I'm aware of.

Taldor

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Usually I am happy to agree with any outlandish accusation against the United States that anyone cares to hurl,

I don't know what I was thinking.

Down with the US!

For women's liberation through socialist revolution!

---

I hate to keep sticking up for the US, Guy, and I'm going to go poke around about the Puritans (American and Britishiznoid), but I'd like to point out that while whatever they may have done 400 years ago is terrible, what happened in some (apparently nameless--isn't that weird? you'd think the NY Times would at least mention its name, but maybe I'm just missing it) village in West Bengal happened two days ago.

I think you might be missing what I was saying, the US still has some hang ups about sex and may still think it's fine oppressing women and her right to chose, but these days you're relatively progressive. You're talking about a part of the world with livestock roaming the streets, India might be evolving into a modern civilization but in many ways you're talking about the fringes and distant parts of the country where they haven't had their beliefs challenged for maybe hundreds of years (no Quakers you see). Really time has allowed our western civilizations feel morally smug when you hear about horrible crimes like this, but really I don't think we as a people were any different a couple hundred years ago. Heck in my lifetime being gay was something that made you less then human, to now, were people are actually shunning folks with homophobic beliefs.

1 to 50 of 3,217 << 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.