|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Thoroughly debunked, let me guess, by a foaming plethora of anticapitalist think tanks? Colour me not impressed. For starters, you have no clue how bad it would have been with a market that did not self-correct. Such as... The old soviet union. Capitalism has many flaws, but if bread grows too expensive, someone will produce it cheaper and outcompete the previous companies. There has to my knowledge not been bread queues in the US. Consider yourself blessed that you did not grow up in the old eastern bloc, my friend.
As I see it, people's desire to improve things, coupled with a willingness to invest to get there. The problem is that capitalism is a low-level phenomenon, but various political figures prefer to negotiate with fewer, wealthier people to dealing with significant parts of the population directly. Thus, they actively support monopolies, oligopolies and so on, usually through the use of tax money, and through various slanted regulations. Add to this mix a dearth of reporting viewpoints for the masses, and it becomes a problem. The solution to this, however, is most certainly not a planned economy.
Well, what can I say... He sure hates capitalism. I wouldn't say that the link he tries to paint between modern day porn and exploitation of Philippino women in 1898 is as clear as he thinks it is. It sounds more like "porn is bad so let's call it capitalist and imperialist. Many, many, many times."
A) If he heard a sex worker claim that she liked doing what she did, would he listen to her, or is she then a brainwashed tool of the capitalist, evil, imperialist, capitalist and capitalist world capitalism?
B) How does he reconcile recent decades' reduction in poverty with capitalism being so, so... Capitalist?
My weak spot is compassion. I actively dislike killing in games, so I need to relate to it some way. A number of my characters are genuinely nice and caring, to the point of brainwashing the completely and massively wicked and unrepentant necromancer villain into a nice guy (he still had... issues with how to solve problems...) rather than putting him down. Of course, others of my characters revel in bloodlust instead, throwing frag grenades at museum visitors for the merry heck of it. Others are rough and self-absorbed, but still not happy about killing. I guess compassion is a pretty big part of who I am.
1. All right, clown, where is your homework?
Everything bad has a higher probability of hitting poor people, simply because there are more of those. And the discussion was about whether Gark motivated his argument about porn being harmful to poor people by equating porn with trafficking and the like. We never got an answer, only Gark's statement. Sorry, Quark, as I read it, you don't have anything to base that "chalk one up for destructive" on.
I can't look it up now, but there was one youtube video in which an American lady screamed her rage and fear about how the water was different nowadays. See, if you take a good look at water spreaders for peoples' lawns during sunny days... You will find RAINBOWS!!! Yeah, that's right, folks, water changed due to guvment interference, so it makes rainbows when the sun is out! The horror...
There are two ways out of this situation. Either the definition of marriage changes to accomodate other constellations than one man and one woman, or, marriage is stripped of legal meaning and the legal importance is moved to a legal process. Making another separate but equal ceremony is like solving the problem of benches only for whites by making an equal number of benches only for blacks. Like it or not, the end result will be one of the two options above.
Take the Poog and slice off the head, take out the innards and remove the skin and bones. Cut into small chunks.
Heat oil in large skilled. Fry Poog meat until brown. Add vegetables. Fry while stirring for 20 minutes.
Add spices to taste. Add lots of spices to taste.
Crap. Well, I was wrong. Sacred Summons works off your aura, i.e. your deity's alignment. Still, you need to remember that your cleric PC still can't cast spells with an alignment descriptor that is opposed to either part of your alignment. So, if you are a CG cleric of a NG god, you will Sacred Summons NG creatures, but you can't summon LG creatures at all. This wouldn't be a problem if CN and LN had decent lineups, but in the basic rules, they have not one creature between them.
So (Evil can be substituted for Good in the following):
NG aura gets you both the LG and the CG creatures, but very few NG creatures for Sacred Summons.
LG aura gets you SS for LG creatures and you can also summon NG creatures. No LN exist.
CG aura gets you SS for CG creatures, and you can also summon NG creatures. No CN exist.
If your alignment deviates from your aura, you lose out on further creatures, so a summoning focused cleric should always keep to their god's exact alignment.
You can get more creatures through the Summon <alignment> Monster feats, which may change the above situation. Notably, Summon Neutral Monster gets you a few LN and CN creatures, which makes a LG or CG aura a different proposition. Note also that since Summon Evil Monster allows for std action summoning as is, the need for Sacred Summons lessens.
Finally, as seems necessary to point out: Sacred Summons doesn't help you at all with the *-marked creatures, since they never get the alignment subtype in question.
It sounds like you said what you needed to say, TMM. Sometimes, that is all you can hope for. It's a very big step to admit you were at fault, knowingly, for a very, very long time, and never listened to criticism. Many, probably even most, people can't deal with that. But you are who you are no matter what they think.
I had a situation where one of my players could not and would not stop questioning EVERY SINGLE RULES APPLICATION we used. This got into thirty to forty times PER SESSION. He would not stop until I had proven him wrong (which happened more than ninety-five percents of the time, the rest he had some kind of point to it). I told him to stop in private, then I told him to stop in front of the others, to no avail. Then I told him that if he did question anything at all, he would have a -5 penalty to the next action his character did, cumulative number of times of course. This got him to stop.
Studies come in all qualities. Paywalls to studies are actively harmful, and this is why. Without seeing all of the study, we have no way of knowing why the study draws those conclusions, and so it remains useless to us. An abstract is not something that says much, certainly not enough to base arguments on.
The best alignment aura for Sacred Summons is the one that will let you have the most options accessible as Standard actions through the feat. What influences this? Well, the aura is your god's alignment, and unless you want to limit yourself further as a cleric, you want the SAME alignment as your aura. Say, a CG cleric of a NG god would be unable to cast Lawful or Evil spells, limiting their repertoire to NG, CG (which can be summoned as a std action), and CN. Nota bene, without extra feats for it, LN and CN contains no creatures. A NG cleric of the same god would have LG, NG and CG to choose from. Do these maths and figure out how many creatures each alignment has. Evil is far better than Good at this, CE in particular. My answer would probably be CE or NE. However, Summon Evil Monster already allows summoning as std action, so they are not necessarily the best alignments for Sacred Summons.
Rape fantasies are a decidedly odd phenomenon. Both male AND female such. From Bollywood movies marketed to women that sell firmly on "the first underwater rape" - usually thought to be an expression of dealing with guilt and responsibility - to scenes where a man rapes a woman - but she then enjoys it. Odd stuff. I mean, if a man wants to imagine raping a woman, wouldn't it go against the idea if she enjoyed it? Even so, rape fantasies are extremely common. What is quite clear, though, is that there is no obvious increase in sexual crimes with increased access to porn of various stripes. This would be clear independent of uncertain numbers, varying definitions of rape, and so on. If it has an effect, it is apparently not enough to push people past the boundary of sexual crimes in any appreciable numbers.
And yet... The japanese are still HUMANS, so for some odd reason they like sex and like pictures of sex. Who knew, right?
Indeed, porn does not cause rape. Nor does violent movies cause violent crime. The "monkey see, monkey do" crowd has very little going for it these days. The expansion of the internet into various areas of the US has correlated with falling sexual crime statistics in said areas. Interestingly enough, there is a study that says that teenagers and young adults are quite a lot safer during their sexual debuts since the internet came. It is not so odd either. Before the internet, people were put in the situation that rl interaction was needed to begin experimenting. After, they have had many more options. It also seems to be the case that watching a violent movie, one about violent sex, or the like, actually dampens the person's impulse to do such things themselves.
Certainly, it could have an effect. But one thing you can be absolutely certain of, is that IF the porn haters had some kind of real scientific evidence that it is harmful, everyone everywhere would know about it. Harmful media effects have been a watchword since a long, long while back now, and to my knowledge there is nothing conclusive to show for all the research done.
Leaving aside the discussion about registering kids as sex offenders, which really makes me too angry to productively participate in...
Porn is a classic donkey. I.e. Something people blame for anything they can think of. Other classic donkeys are failing economy, wars, education and so on. Usually, these things get blamed for loose if any reason. Many people don't like porn, so they attribute the evils of the world to it.
Porn is an industry. If you have any expectation of what it will do for you as a customer or an actor, beyond a very few basics, it will disappoint you. Remembering that will help you relate to it better.
Of the evils it is blamed for, the two most common are bad body image among youths and bad sex lives of adults. Someone once said that the difference between women with porn bodies and fashion bodies is that the former have boobs. Certainly, the body image problem exists, but porn seems to me to be at least a tick more forgiving than fashion. Considering the comparative levels consumed of porn and fashion among young women (this may be a bad assumption, I dunno), I would hesitate to primarily blame porn, though. Also, amateur porn shows a far larger body spectrum.
For the sex lives of adults... Oh my. It really isn't just sex, is it now? More than half of marriages end in divorce. Couple therapy is swelling as an industry. Women are getting far more equal to men in regards to addiction and violence. Children are put off until later and later. Let's just say that there are many who would love nothing better than to blame porn for this. The truth is, many adults these days are frequently pathologically self-absorbed and see no meaning, hope or principles in life. A bad sexual life shouldn't come as a surprise to someone where everything else in life is bad.
Counterspelling works. Dispelling works. Killing the low-CR summons quickly works. Any sort of debuff makes them so much waste. Control summons works. Drenching everyone in deeper darkness may both blind them and make sure they can't get specific orders. Area damage works pretty well, considering the weak CRs they have.
Okay... it seems it's so common that children get sex offender status due to sexting (!!!) and similar stuff that finding the case in question is not happening off a short goggling. Sorry about that. I remember reading about it in the newspaper, about a UK story. The woman was 17 when it happened, and had photos of herself in her phone, without talk about her spreading anything.
Here is something I found that was interesting. Link
This story is about a 15-year old, who spread the photos... but notice what it says: Ohio specifically has no exception for possession when it's about pictures of the child who has them.
I also liked the story about the woman who became a sex offender for breast feeding...
Now good luck with the rest of the debate here. I will have to see if I feel up to even thinking about this kind of evil again for an internet thread.
Oh, and by the way, don't defend the s$@~ laws in the area to me. Do it to the girl who got her life ruined for it. I hear she'll be out of prison in some ten years now. Of course, then there's the sex offender registration to consider... Explain how what was done to her wasn't malicious, but meant to protect, okay?
HRMPH. I am getting too worked up over this. I hate it when people are discarded. When nobody cares, because shiny laws everyone has to respect. When the police shot someone who happened to be psychotic and they couldn't be bothered to try to calm things down and shooting was easier. When... Blah.
Signing off this discussion. Out of respect for these boards and the moderation staff.
Side effect? Considering how easy it would have been to put in an exception, it's nothing of the kind. The only price for that exception would have been giving kids the right to take photos of themselves... but that was exactly what they wanted to discourage. A few ruined lives is a very small price to pay for PROTECTING THE CHILDREN (tm).
Right. If you're one of the crusaders who happen to write such a law, to REALLY PROTECT THE CHILDREN (tm), one VERY OBVIOUS thought that they should all have had at some point is "What happens to someone who has photos of THEMSELVES and happens to be a kid?"
I am fully convinced they did, too.
Only, not only did they not care. Breaking eggs only goes so far.
They specifically DID NOT WANT to make such an exception, because that would mean that the law said: "Hey, a kid has the right to take photos of her own body." And that was not part of their plan.
Stop making excuses for evil old laws, thejeff.
Mostly because when China annected Tibet, the West was cheering for them to do it. Tibet was a VERY old-school monarchy, with an extremely impoverished population... frankly, everyone figured SOMEONE should do something about them already.
That China is less popular today, and that people have forgotten what Tibet used to be like and what the West felt about it then, that's neither here nor there.