|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The same way they repair and reconnect nerves for accidental amputations I would assume.
No. With an amputation, what you do is stitch together the severed ends of the nerve, letting the neurons grow back into the distal nerve a millimeter per day. Without an existing nerve, this is not possible. Ah well, I am no expert. If the article says it works, it probably does. It certainly will not "just work" on an adult, though.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
My absolute favourite time travel story is The Anubis Gates, maybe you should try that too.
Civil War was the end of my interest in a lot of things Marvel. It's stupid, ham-handed, uses pathetic attempts at symbolism and emotionality that consistently manage to feel as inspiring as Teletubbies, it manages an amount of characters doing bizarre things against their entire characters and/or stupidities not worth thinking about, it manages to entirely miss the entire point of the entire genre... I could go on. If it had been a movie, it would have been cozy somewhere between "Manos, hands of fate" and "Plan 9 from Outer Space".
The Onslaught storyline had the idea of all the non-mutant heroes ending up in a world where they were admired and appreciated, and the mutants getting the old Marvel Earth. It may have lacked in execution, but the idea was decent. A year or so later, this was rolled back. Civil War never was - I am certain the comic about the North Dakotan super team is selling magnificently.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
After reading page up and page down of you quoting liberal soundbites, slogans and slurs on everyone who doesn't share your views, I have to say this:
You ought to know, Orfamay.
Why not instate such a ban? After all, the government would be able to handle it responsibly, as has been repeated ad nauseam in this very thread.
As for the idea that you want to prevent World War II, I WOULD say it is a teensy bit late for that. Some eighty years late. And that is the problem with drastic solutions that are designed to prevent a reoccurrence of something. They only work to prevent THAT SPECIFIC instance. For example, the Maginot line. It would have worked perfectly if the Germans would have been kind enough to do things the exact way they did in WWI. By the same token, the ban on holocaust denial misses the point: Crushing poverty was what drove the Germans to Hitler. The propaganda worked because it played on already existing emotions. Preventing Hitler's rise to power by historical proxy is not going to work since time machines don't exist. It could make you miss some other dangerous politician who wants to be the strong man for a country because he never talked about jews or Holocausts. Pol Pot, for example, made quite a big splash in the murder department without talking about jews.
And the French constitutional court decided that laws forbidding denying of genocide (specifically Armenians 1915), are too dangerousfor the state to have. So, I guess they are just wrong then? Stupid libertarian lizard- believing flat earthers who should bow down to your superior legal understanding?
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?
The idea of mechs is ludicrous, to be honest. Even today, they compare the size and speed of the very biggest tanks (which seem to be on the way out because they are too large and not fast enough), limited firepower due to limited space and the terrain mobility of infantry (but infantry unable to find cover due to size).
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I have great respect for Germany and its people. I approve of much of their legal structure. It is quite possible that they, of all people, can handle this responsibility. At least, right now and as they are. Now, would it be a good thing in Italy as well? Bulgaria? Seems to me that that would be a bit different. As has been mentioned, there are other laws like this, including a french one about Armenian genocide. It is not guaranteed to be a good idea, is it?
Edit: They had one until... what do you know? It was struck down in 2012 for being a threat to free speech by the Constitutional Court... How odd. Here is arguably the most reason-heavy legal entity in France, saying that the state CAN NOT handle this responsibility. How odd, if such laws are not a problem...
Orfamay: I said it was difficult at times. I did not say I wouldn't. See, the price of such laws is that other opinions do not get voiced. Say that a new batch of documentation was found about the Holocaust. Something that seriously put in question the official narrative in a big way. How would you deal with that, if you were the one to find it, given that criticism of the official narrative is illegal? If you DID publish it, what would the state do? If you do publish it, what do you say to people the next time an Irving or a Williamson starts bleating? It is a dangerous game to play. We can't ever be sure that everything we claim IS true, and the price of it being false is very high.
MrTsFloatinghead: Don't tell me what I think, please. I have nothing against experts telling people whatever is true. It's their job, and lots of things would be better if we listened to them. However: Money talks to experts as well as others. History is full of malfeasance in this area, so we have to work at it. So far, so good.
But there is a more serious issue. Not every subject IS a good one for experts to decide on. It's not going to be difficult to find an expert that can tell people that crime statistics will fall if we put in cameras in every room in everyone's house, but that still doesn't make it a good enough idea to enforce such a law. There is no shortage of experts who would tell us that everything would be far better if we embraced a centrally planned economy either, or a thousand different things. Many of them would quite clearly say the opposite of one another.
With a background in natural science, it's easy for me to see the allure of that way to approach questions of society. However, political science is a science in name only. Various differing ideologies all have it as their stomping ground. There are no clear results, only theories and conjecture. Same with most other social sciences. The idea that those experts would get to shape society to their hearts' content is, frankly, a nightmare. Through history, it has been at various times.
Hmmm... if we're meting out fantasy punishments, quite immune to silly rules about cruelty and unusualness, I figure something like a Clockwork Orange Eye-opening Rig (tm), some rope, a chair, a TV, a DVD player, some Teletubbies discs, and a month or two.
Seriously, people like him are a large part of why it can be difficult to speak out for freedom of speech. Well educated ultraconservative fanatics really do say the darndest things. Moreover, people LISTEN to them. I guess what I would really want him to go through is understanding how vile his beliefs are. Sadly, he's a fanatic, and one of the perks of that is not having to doubt yourself.
I am sorry I don't have a better answer. Fining him will probably make him proud.
Ummmm... why? Is there any particular reason they WOULD get the hint? Seriously, these people are the ones who spend their lives complaining about vaccines. Some work full time on it. You'd have to throw quite a number of them in prison to even dent their zeal... and by then, your law would be the target of more and more questioning.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
But we both know the anti-vacc crowd isn't going to see it that way. Ban or no ban, if evidence of flu vaccine side effects is published, they ARE going to recruit people and smear all vaccines. That's their modus operandi, that's what they do in EVERY situation.
Orfamay: And if you had actually READ what I wrote, you would have understood that I never claimed any of that. Kirth told me:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I.e. as soon as money and PR becomes involved, people can't learn anything. He also claimed that it was okay to ban criticism of vaccines, because it is childishly simple to distinguish to these people which vaccine you're talking about. Allow me to doubt that.
Williamson is a disgusting creep. He knew what he was doing, and why. He deserved suffering for doing it... but he still shouldn't have been sentenced for it, ideally. As it is... a fine isn't going to change much.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Try again, Kirth. You claim that in a PR situation, people can't discern truth from falsehood, EVEN IF PRESENTED WITH A CLEAR CASE. You also claim that my example about the flu vaccines is irrelevant, because it is "childishly simple" to distinguish between two different vaccines. 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?
Warn away, but you could have saved yourself the trouble.
There is a deplorable idea on this board that the government can safely tell us how we should live our lives, and that freedom of speech is of secondary importance to how society works. I don't buy that, and I'd say I have been quite civil in this discussion. That I am making a case of things you don't care for is typically what gets me called a lunatic, raving or the like, and honestly, I don't care anymore.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Soooo... first you think that we need someone to tell us what is true and what is false, because we can't decide that for ourselves... then you say that it's childishly easy to demonstrate, apparently so people do understand, which vaccines are safe and which are not? I must confess you have me confused here.
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?
Kirth: If... I claim that I'm you... and you're impersonating you... ummm...
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. Certain specific forms of lies are illegal, certainly, but the truth of a statement has, up to now, not been a matter of free speech, as far as I know. The US has the exception to slander and libel laws that if you can prove what you said was actually true, then no crime has been committed, but that's not what we're discussing either.
Ummm... what if our laws as written allow someone more leeway than they should have in the tyrancy department? Exceedingly rare is the government that will NOT use whatever laws they have available to push its will, because of something as flimsy as principles.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
So tell us, Kirth: Should it be illegal to lie in all circumstances? Or just when you're committing OUTRIGHT lies? How should such a massive new legal principle be encoded for maximum utility?
Orfamay Quest wrote:
You know, way to try to understand someone's point. What I meant - while being respectful of your homecooked version of what I meant - was that fraudulent advertising by the company making a product is a simply delineated issue. It pertains only, specifically in the situation where someone is trying to sell something and lies about the product. Thus, it's not a matter that can conceivably be used to stifle debate through various precedents and other legal processes. That is where it differs from the argument that the state should be allowed to decide who gets to say what is holocaust denial - and put those on one side of that law in jail for it. Certainly, fraudulent advertising is a problem, but saying it's a free speech problem is missing the point completely.
As for the last passage, it's sad debating with someone who lacks reading comprehension. I said the exceptions to lying being illegal are specific and few. The problem with slander, libel, incitement to riot and conspiracy to commit a crime isn't that people are LYING per se, rather that they are breaking the limits for free speech. The instances where lying is illegal are things like committing perjury.
Worth noting is that while in some places, they tried to destroy the documentation, such destruction was far from complete. It was captured in several places, both centrally and in the camps. Another factor of interest is that the nazis had plans and projections for how many they needed to kill to achieve their goals, which they followed up, and so on. All in all, claiming it never happened is ludicrous. Certainly, any total figure is suspect at best, that's difficult to argue about, but honestly, does it really matter if it's five or six millions dead for how we should handle it today?
At some point, we are and will remain humans. We function very much the same, and we need and value the same things. Different cultures are merely different answers to how to achieve these same things in different environments, and thus come with different problems attached. And there lies stories, every story we (again, as pretty similar humans) respond to and feel is authentic. It is all well and good to work toward civility to those different than ourselves, but it becomes a problem when you do not even tolerate balanced viewpoints on the grounds that such a viewpoint also includes negative issues.
So, we can at the very least relax about this in our home campaigns, I should say. Paizo has a more difficult situation, but are dealing with it admirably.
Also, i find it kind of silly to equate "free speech" with "free society". I know from moy school years that i would have been a lot freer if my bullies werent allowed to speak freely.
Free speech is a requirement for a free society. Do yourself the favour to not imagining things with bullying wouldn't have been far, far worse in a society that did not even aspire to free speech. After all, a pupil complaining about bullying is a problem to the school. They would have used the laws against various types of speech against YOU, not the bullies.
Of course, after punishing you for complaining about it, and making sure nobody documented it, the bullying would continue but you would be smart enough not to talk about it. Thus, when the statistics about your school time were put together, the school could show data about no bullying occurring in their school, making it so much better than school in all those failed schools in free societies that have bullying problems.
Ilja: Polls showed that the RAF had the support of a significant part of the West German population under 40 years old. Breivik had and has the support of a tiny fringe. The scales are not even in the same world. As for his killing spree, they never managed to show anyone else actually involved to my knowledge. And no, there hasn't been Stalinist bombings or the like these last twenty years, what we do have is one failed islamist bombing, on the political front in Sweden. I am not knowledgeable enough on the rest of Scandinavian terrorist acts, but to put it simply: Our liberal democracy, such as it is, has worked to the point that there have been extremely few such events here in a long time. And hundreds of dead due to neonazi violence in the last twenty years? If true, that would be very surprising and I would like to see numbers on it. There have been violent deaths, certainly, but that's not quite the same thing as political assassinations and bombings, to my thinking. I would also like to know how many deaths have resulted from radical leftist violence during the same period of time. Do you have official numbers? Also, I should add that while things have gotten uglier since 2001 and the war on terror, even before that, various leftist organizations put thousands of radical people on the streets for rioting time and time again.
I understand the frustration people can feel about it. I understand that some people act to cause fear in others - and that fear demands a response somehow. I honestly think the police should be directing their resources far better than they are - why the everloving f@+& do we allow football matches to sink our cities into riots? Why do we set the police to checking for drunk drivers outside of universities in broad daylight to meet the quota for checks made without the paperwork and hassle of filing reports when you actually find someone? And so on. Society does have resources, we're just misapplying them. There are laws we could use and we certainly don't need new ones to fight neonazis - wearing a paramilitary uniform would work wonders. It would also be pretty effective against radical leftist elements who participate in rioting.
Only if you consider that logic to actually be correct, thejeff. Free speech means you can say stupid things, ostracize people for saying them, and criticize the ostracizers for doing what they do, whoever you are. So long as the situation stays with these arguments, free speech is working as intended. If the people in power actually start throwing people in jail for saying stuff, whether for saying stupid things, for ostracising people, or for calling the ostracizers fascists, you no longer have free speech - and no longer a free society.
Actually... while that's sort of true, this was tracked during the fall of the Soviet Union. Some were cast out... but at least after a while, it turned out that most of the people successful enough to be called the ruling class were the SAME people who were part of the ruling class before. Turns out valuing no principles more than your lust for power is a pretty good recipe for getting power. The people who are fanatics and ideologically bound are not the people who end up in power - in fact, most of them get shot when the totalitarian society has been set up.
Rabble-rousers and troublemakers are needed before and during a revolution, not after it.