Davick's page

Davick wrote:

Cap'n Nemo wrote:

Jeff Alvarez wrote:

Accusations that I have used offensive slurs about members of the staff are categorically FALSE. Many LGBTQIA+ members of the Paizo staff are close friends of mine, and I would never talk that way about anyone on our staff or in our community.

Sir, the issue is no matter what, you are only bringing bad publicity to Paizo now. Your empty statement doesnt talk about any actionable steps you or the rest of Paizo are going to take, just what you have done, and one of the allegations is that of taking credit while pushing back on those same ideas. Even if the allegations are false, the doubt will linger in people's minds. When this happens the company needs some kind of change to restore faith. Whether that is an independent investigation of all the claims with transparent reporting of the findings, or a change in leadership that is considered problematic at this time by public perceptions.

Not that I think it's relevant in this situation, but the idea that someone needs to resign over accusations because doubt may linger is a really bad one.

What people are looking for with a resignation is accountability.

As Jeff's presented no plan of action or clarification, then the call for replacements and resignations won't go away quickly with a boiler plate denial and defaulting to "some of my friends are gay".

Like I said, I don't know that it applies here. Just that the idea that someone should resign just because there are accusations is bad.

Jeff Alvarez wrote:

Accusations that I have used offensive slurs about members of the staff are categorically FALSE. Many LGBTQIA+ members of the Paizo staff are close friends of mine, and I would never talk that way about anyone on our staff or in our community.

Sir, the issue is no matter what, you are only bringing bad publicity to Paizo now. Your empty statement doesnt talk about any actionable steps you or the rest of Paizo are going to take, just what you have done, and one of the allegations is that of taking credit while pushing back on those same ideas. Even if the allegations are false, the doubt will linger in people's minds. When this happens the company needs some kind of change to restore faith. Whether that is an independent investigation of all the claims with transparent reporting of the findings, or a change in leadership that is considered problematic at this time by public perceptions.

Not that I think it's relevant in this situation, but the idea that someone needs to resign over accusations because doubt may linger is a really bad one.

Seventh Seal wrote:

In the paragraph below the Tempest Sun Mage picture:

Did you mean Prerequisite?

Because a Perquisite is "a benefit which one enjoys or is entitled to on account of one's job or position.", i.e. a perk.

It is not "something that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist." (Which is a prerequisite, i.e. a requirement before one can enjoy the perks - as the case may be.)

It is called the Perquisite.

Why the Magaambya calls it the Perquisite and not the Prerequisite is, I'm sure, a matter of debate among initiates.

I'd say it makes perfect sense. The Perquisite isn't so much about earning your place as it is about finding it. It is the benefit one gains from being charitable. Which I think is exactly what they want their initiates to benefit and learn from.

Davick wrote:

The point of the game is not to play casters and lord over everyone else. The point is to have fun. Sure lording your miraculous spellcasting over others is fun, for you. But again, the intent is that EVERYONE have fun. That means martials need to be fun. That means martials and casters should ideally be equivalently fun. Otherwise one side syphons fun from the other. So arguments based on how "magic should be super powerful yadda yadda yadda" miss the point of the game even if they fit whatever sort of fantasy narrative you like. It's wrong just because of false premise, no matter how much math you can bring to bear.

The false premise is yours, in that you assume people want to "lord it over everyone else". Players of arcane casters want to feel useful and so far the rules have been overnerfed so much that all the areas where arcane casters excelled are now either bad or mediocre.

I didn't assume. I deduced it from reading this thread and from playing this game.

When I've playtested casters I didn't feel bad or mediocre. And the people I've seen who have made those complaints have framed them as not being as overpowered as they were. To borrow a phrase "a loss of privilege is not discrimination". Casters were too good. Lowering their power level is not inherently over-nerfing them.

The point of the game is not to play casters and lord over everyone else. The point is to have fun. Sure lording your miraculous spellcasting over others is fun, for you. But again, the intent is that EVERYONE have fun. That means martials need to be fun. That means martials and casters should ideally be equivalently fun. Otherwise one side syphons fun from the other. So arguments based on how "magic should be super powerful yadda yadda yadda" miss the point of the game even if they fit whatever sort of fantasy narrative you like. It's wrong just because of false premise, no matter how much math you can bring to bear.

Am I missing something? Where does it say that anytime you do two actions you're eventually fatigued? Because it really looks like that's a guideline and not a rule. Hence "typically" has no one noticed how many times the phrase "GM's discretion" is in this book?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

No edition of D&D supports a party of 3-7 holding off thousands or orcs, thank god.

It is my sincere hope that this one finally does. Plus this was pretty much possible in PF1 with mythic, my WotR character parried 10,000 arrows in a single round with "Cut from the air" and Mythic Combat Reflexes (so I could make as many AoOs as I could trigger, which was a lot in this case) because my attack bonus (buffed) was so high and I had the mythic path power that made natural 1s not autofail. It was like the Caligraphy scene in "Hero", and it was glorious.

For a mythological game sure, but 5 people fighting 10,000 people and winning is something you want in D&D? Does not support the genre.

But, it does. "The genre" isn't as limited as you want it to be.

Yes, I want taking on 20 guards, solo, to always be a problem, matches the fantasy fiction I am familiar with.

Have you played Pathfinder before? Do you think 20 guards vs a level 20 fighter was a problem in 1e?

Davick wrote:

The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:

Senjen wrote:

I'm an atheist myself and I think the OP has a point. There are so many religious assumptions built into the game that it does feel uncomfortable at times. The argument that there is evidence of the gods in Golarian feels very much like arguments I hear in favor of religion in the real world. I agree that the discrimination against atheists is not as severe as against other minorities but it definitely does exist. I live in the American South and believe me that it is very possible to lose a job if the wrong employer finds out you are atheist.

Emphasis mine.

Um... aside from the fact that Golarion’s gods talk to their worshippers, perform miracles, grant people magical powers, and have physical realms that you can go and visit?

Dude, have you heard the evidence believers in the real world would state too? I don't wanna get into this here, but they will argue all of those things. ALL of them.

Certainly. But there’s a difference between just claiming those things without evidence and being able to walk down to your neighborhood temple and pay a cleric to knit your flesh back together with the power of their deity.

There are non cleric ways to do that too though. No deity required. Accepting magic does not require accepting the divine.

And how many people can afford that anyway? I hear stories about pastors in the real world healing lost limbs too. Do you accept that as evidence?

You seem particularly obstinate in opposing this. I don't know why this is.

Senjen wrote:

I'm an atheist myself and I think the OP has a point. There are so many religious assumptions built into the game that it does feel uncomfortable at times. The argument that there is evidence of the gods in Golarian feels very much like arguments I hear in favor of religion in the real world. I agree that the discrimination against atheists is not as severe as against other minorities but it definitely does exist. I live in the American South and believe me that it is very possible to lose a job if the wrong employer finds out you are atheist.

Emphasis mine.

Um... aside from the fact that Golarion’s gods talk to their worshippers, perform miracles, grant people magical powers, and have physical realms that you can go and visit?

Dude, have you heard the evidence believers in the real world would state too? I don't wanna get into this here, but they will argue all of those things. ALL of them.

Davick wrote:

Moro wrote:

Faith in the real world is quite a bit different than faith in a fantasy game where the deities have provable, measurable effects on the world. Religion in Golarion doesn't require much faith (by the definition of the word) at all. Non-religious people on Golarion are either ignorant of the gods, or willfully thumbing their noses at divine beings.

Right. And those are valid.

Definitely valid, and I don't see how the current text would imply that they are not. That's like trying to parse the old flavor text describing a person who ascribes to each possible alignment, and becoming upset because the adjectives for the LG example were better than those used for the CG. In my opinion. Which is another way of saying "this is how I feel about it."

By completely failing to mention them while going out of the way to mention other ways to play against social conventions.

Is it a minor thing? Yeah. Is it about feelings? Yes. One difference, is that alignment is made up, and atheism is real. And just like I'm sure you weren't trying to say atheism is silly like alignment, I don't think Paizo was trying to make a judgement statement on atheism either. But what's written is excluding towards nontheists by omission, whetehr with malice or not (probably not). And the fix is simple. So I suggested it.

Davick, to be honest, I don't think anybody is attacking you or your beliefs. They are just saying they disagree with your interpretation of the relevant passages, as you've laid it out. Perhaps restating a different way would help clear the matter up?

Are you essentially saying that maybe a passage saying the non-theists have just as happy an afterlife as theists would help?

Most people seem to think I'm saying something entirely different than I did. They're attacking either my experience, which makes no sense, or they're arguing about what atheism is in a fantasy setting, which is immaterial to my critique.

I don't even need them to say atheists die happily ever after. I just want the notion of a nonreligious character entertained next to the religious concepts they mention. Just like they made sure to do with the concept of characters challenging other social norms like gender. It seems more like an innocent oversight (probably due to the authors' personal opinion) than any attempt to be exclusive. But that could be easily misinterpreted. And being actively inclusive is better than being accidentally uninclusive.

To quote the second edition playtest rulebook: “Those who reject the divine might find themselves adrift in the afterlife, without a home for their souls to find peace, or possibly even sacrificed to stave off the end times.”.

I want it to be known, as an Athiest, I find nothing offensive about this passage or the ideas it entails.

When you're President of Atheismland, and your realm adopts the official position that an eternity of unrest does not concern your kingdom, let me know. In the meantime, your experience does not invalidate anyone else's anymore than a gay person saying not being able to marry doesn't offend them either.

Reading through character creation, I really enjoyed how the authors made sure to talk about gender norms, sexual orientation, and nontraditional heroes. However, I was then immediately saddened to see that the same open modern perspective was completely lacking in the short blurb on faith that followed. One could reasonably interpret that non-religious characters are against the rules. Then, turning to page 288 does imply that you can be non-religious but that such characters are the lowest of the low.

This is a rather disheartening approach, especially in light of Paizo's progressive thinking in other areas, and even Sutter's own Pathfinder Tales novels on the subject. I know it seems like a little thing, and it is, but so is mentioning sexual orientation, yet it did a lot to make me feel included.

I'm just asking that maybe you guys consider adding a bit about being faithless or mention that it's ok for faith to not be a big deal to a character.

Perhaps the blog hints at every casting requiring a concentration check?

Nope. No concentration.

EDIT: I see Owen said this already...

Was the idea that they would get it back? That's a pretty classic storyline. As long as it wasn't just screwing everyone out of their appropriate wealth by level and whatnot.

Thanks guys! I look forward to helping PFS grow.

Well this is just awesome.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

This again makes the assumption that the PCs are letting the wyvern go, which I never suggested once. There are a lot of ways to keep such a creature or individual under control that don't involve death. Hell, at the most basic level we have these things called jails...

I highly doubt that 5-7th level PCs have the required tools to take a Wyvern prisoner.

Ok, so you're arguing that Good is inconvenient. That's fine. It doesn't excuse not doing it. Especially not when you're a paladin. You can't just take a pragmatic view of morality like that and say all's fair cause otherwise it's a pain in the butt.

He's not a Lawful paladin - he's a chaotic paladin - he certainly doesn't have to agree to peace just because the enemy realised it can't kill him.

But why wouldn't he? Why would a good character kill when they could not kill? It sounds like some people are trying to make the same distortion the character did, and it's eerie, like Dr. Manhattan strange: "There is no difference in the composition of a living person and a dead person." Sure, but killing is evil guys. It IS. No matter how cool it is. They say war is hell for a reason. There's a reason PTSD is what happens afterwards, because even if you know you had to kill, it gets to you. Which is why in a situation where the paladin didn't have to kill, and EXPLICITLY only did it for petty vengeance, it IS evil. It just is. You don't snuff out a life for nothing. You guys are messed up.

Stephen Ede wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Davick wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Sub_Zero wrote:

I'd like to point out that all this assumes that the OP is fairly conveying the paladin's side of events.

Actually, I wonder how old the players are? I ask because: ""It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die" seems like a really juvenile reason to do anything. I find it hard to believe that an adult would actually say this as his paladins reason.

I dunno, seems like a reasonable turn of events for any thinking creature. Turn it around into a real life scenario.

Some crazy a$~%+!& just stabbed you with a knife.

They are now talking to your friends.

Your first instinct is to let him sit there and talk with your friends, knowing that at any minute said crazy a~&~~*& could pull his knife out and start stabbing them again?

Once someone has attacked you, unprovoked, with lethal force they've pretty much forfeited their right to reasonable doubt.

Which is why police have never negotiated with or arrested someone who killed or attacked a cop.

Thankfully, not everyone is police, nor is this the present day where killing people is some sort of taboo.

Things were simpler in the sort of time period Golarion takes place in.

You're in the middle of untamed wilderness.

Someone or something has attacked you with intent to kill.

You are perfectly justified in killing it back.

I'd like to point out that Paladins are supposed to be held to a MUCH higher standard than your average person.

If any of the other players had killed it I would've shrugged.

So basically, you're treating players in your group differently than one another, setting up a double standard.

That never ends well.

If it's evil for one person, it's evil for all people.

If it's not evil for one person, it's not evil for all people.

Simple enough.

I don't think it was evil. It was Neutral. Self preservation (from his PoV) and carrying through with...

Holding each player in their group accountable to their character isn't treating them differently. No one made the guy play a paladin. If I played a paladin and didn't have to consider my code I would feel cheated. Self preservation from someone posing no threat is the DND equivalent of that guy who shot three men in the back and is claiming "Stand Your Ground". That guy sure ain't a paladin.

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Ilja wrote:

It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing. Feels kinda weird.

I don't see why that's weird; the only way we can live in real freedom is if we keep each other honest. If it were up to me, there would be only like 4 things that were illegal: assault (direct or indirect), murder, theft... and outright public lying.

Then the first election rolls around, and the incumbent arrests his opponent for lying.

And then you wake up.

*Wakes up*

Davick wrote:

To equate the totalitarianism of the catholic church with peer reviewed science is a statement that is so far off base as to not even be wrong. You clearly do not grasp the concepts you are attempting to discuss. But while we're talking Galileo, you do realize he wasn't vindicated for around 200 years. And wasn't apologized to until, what was it, the 90s? That's the corrupting influence of money (and religion) in politics. It kept an integral idea shut out for centuries. That's what you're arguing for.

That's because in essence Galileo WAS fully guilty of what he was accused of. Galileo wasn't prosecuted for presenting a theory. He was presenting a theory AS fully proven science which it was not, and he made fun of a Pope who was just as prickly about being offended as he was.

Galileo was told that he could publish his works as a theory. He presented them as proven science. WHICH IT WASN'T. because the science to back up his observations would not be around until Newton and Kepler who were still the better part of a century into the future. He was fairly arrogant during his trial because he was confident that the Church couldn't do anything to him and he was right. Submitting him to anything more than house arrest would have made him a martyr and contributed to the growing unrest caused by the Reformation. So Galileo could even get away with spreading more fiction about himself. (such as the rumor of him saying "Yet it moves" during the trial when he did not.)

While Galileo was right in his claims... he was right for the wrong reasons. The only reason he's held up as a hero today is largely due to his own self-promotion.

You are entirely distorting the events. It wasn't theory versus proven science, it was "hypothetical calculating device" vs "physically real phenomenon".

Not only did Galileo present enough evidence to support the claims he was making in "Sidereus Nuncius" but a theory IS proven science. Galileo's observations combined with Copernicus' work is compelling. The church wasn't concerned with Galileo's scientific integrity, as you seem to be saying. They were concerned with his ideas contradicting scripture. His charges were brought under a decree that stated anyone who disagrees with the church's interpretation of scripture is a heretic. It had nothing to do with theories or science at all. The idea at the time was to use heliocentrism as a way to calculate time, because it just so happened to make those calculations work a lot better. Galileo's crime was saying maybe it works better because it's true. And he provided evidence for why he said that. And no one had any evidence to prove him wrong. That's a theory and a theory is proven science. Sure Newton's work further solidified the idea, but Galileo's assertion was still far ahead of, and better supported than, any claim a geocentrist could make. (Even if there is a new movie coming out about how it's true)

I'm unaware of what "wrong reasons" you're talking about. But it is utterly impossible that his ideas were less proven science than those of the church whose only foundation was theological and not scientific at all. So if that was sufficient to condemn him, then the whole church should have been condemned as well.

This is very much a thread derail. Forgive me please.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire endangers people's lives in a very immediate and direct way.

It's ok to endanger people, but only if you do it slowly.

Nope. But better speakers tend to attract more money than bad speakers.

You seem to be flip flopping. So are you concerned with good and bad messages or good and bad speakers? The two don't necessarily align.

The government just told you "we will punish you if you continue speaking your mind." So, we both have less freedom, because if the government can punish you for speaking your mind, there's nothing stopping them from punishing me from speaking mine.

Except that it would be limiting money, not the ability to speak your mind. This argument would invalidate all libel and slander law, and your fire example.

And for the record, I've handled a 40lb block of uranium. Not really that exciting.

Really?

Are you sure?

Edited to add: Please note I'm not defending the mayor in this case, simply stating that, as presented, the "drowning out" did not occur. The mayor likely has a great career ahead of him working for the Developer as Vice President of Communications (a situation I have first-hand knowledge of).

Since no one was "drowned out" then it's not an issue of speech being hindered regardless of how much money is spent. In which case the problem is corruption. And given the example, we see that the corruption stems from money's influence. So instead of limiting speech, we should be limiting money. Good idea.

PS: You can't keep agreeing with the idea that money=speech while also trying to argue that having more money != more speech.

Or a Transformers sequel.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Davick wrote:

And that explains why there's so much money being pumped into an ark "replica" because that all makes so much sense. I mean, have you never seen a bad movie? How did they get funding? The amount of willful ignorance necessary to think this brand of crazy stuff boggles the mind.

Yeah, and it's not surprising that there will never be a Gigli 2.

And why should you care if other people build an ark replica or not? You didn't earn the money, you had no part in them earning the money. You seem to think that people should believe exactly what you believe, and then get angry with them when they don't.

1. I never said people shouldn't be allowed to build an ark replica. 2. A lot of this is a separate issue, but I will say part of the problem is due to the town involved buying into a lot of really shady bonds to fund the project. But I mentioned earlier that we must allow bad ideas to exist. You're the one trying to say that none of those ideas are funded. Bringing up the subjectivity of that distinction only further proves you wrong.

Davick wrote:

Yeah, that was Galileo's problem. He...

I'm glad you brought up Galileo. He went up against the organization that had a monopoly on thought. I mean, how dare he! Why, he might have been a climate change denier. He had the wrong ideas, right? He should be prevented from speaking!

Let me see if I understand your position, and you tell me exactly where I go wrong:

"The people I don't like should be prevented from speaking so that the people I agree with have a chance to speak."

To equate the totalitarianism of the catholic church with peer reviewed science is a statement that is so far off base as to not even be wrong. You clearly do not grasp the concepts you are attempting to discuss. But while we're talking Galileo, you do realize he wasn't vindicated for around 200 years. And wasn't apologized to until, what was it, the 90s? That's the corrupting influence of money (and religion) in politics. It kept an integral idea shut out for centuries. That's what you're arguing for.

Let me see if I understand your position, and you tell me exactly where I go wrong:

"The people I don't like should be prevented from speaking so that the people I agree with have a chance to speak."

Nope. I want all parties to have an equal chance to speak. Now let me see if I understand your position. Let me know exactly where I go wrong:

"The people with all the money have successfully indoctrinated me into agreeing with them and vilifying those that are different from me."

Davik, you're going to have to show me the full study, because the AJPH has a history of . . . shall we say . . . 'massaging' data to get the results they wish.

Yes, I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of something....

I'll say it again, because you seemed to have tuned it out in your rant against anyone who you disagree with: If the message is good, money will find it. If the message is not good, no amount of money will convince a majority of the people to support it.

Actually I replied directly to this.

Bull. S+**. Given infinite time in infinite universes all possible permutations of reality will occur. But without that infinite timescale, your idea is just plain wrong. I cite the anti vaccination movement, the creationists, the crystal healers, climate change deniers, the magnet healers, the big bang deniers, and a myriad number of other flatly bad ideas that continue to draw in and spend boatloads of dough. Meanwhile infinite renewable energy struggles. As does science education and education generally. In a world where we spend more on war than education, I don't know how anyone could in good conscience make the statement you just did. When the people with the money are writing the rules, they'll write the rules that keep it that way. The foxes are deciding what's for dinner tonight.

Check out the entry on Chivas Regal..

The problem is there are a million hens and only two foxes, but the foxes used lies to convince chickens that it's the other chickens they have to worry about. Now they've gotten all the chickens to vote them as Supreme Fox Overlords and so only the foxes get to decide what's for dinner no matter how many hens there are.

Maybe your message just isn't good, Davik.

Yeah, that was Galileo's problem. He was totally wrong, otherwise people would have thrown money at him. And that explains why there's so much money being pumped into an ark "replica" because that all makes so much sense. I mean, have you never seen a bad movie? How did they get funding? The amount of willful ignorance necessary to think this brand of crazy stuff boggles the mind.

Nor are you being drowned out if I purchase two advertisements to your one.

Wrong..

First, I would disagree with the notion that allowing someone else to speak somehow drowns out other speakers.

Don't make me use my analogy again. Especially since your beer one is so poor. You're forgetting that Budweiser is still significantly in control of the market, and were we discussing politics it would then be as if they were also in charge of regulating beer. The alternative is that you're saying it's impossible for money to create a monopoly. Would you dare to make such a claim?

Now, to address some of your issues.
People are being murdered, and we do indeed have laws against murder. But we also have laws that prevent people from effectively defending themselves. By removing those laws, it turns out that the murder rate drops.

It also turns out that, when you add guns you add violence and murder.

We just had another mass shooting at Fort Hood. Since their institution of strict gun control, Australia has not had a single mass shooting.

So I disagree with your notion that in order to support free speech we should limit speech.

No one wants to limit speech (but that is different than whether or not we should). You're using a non sequitor to say that money=speech. Because we are talking about limiting money, not speech. Much like with compression, limiting amplitude is not censoring sound waves. Keeping it in check allows all parts to be heard. And it is the opposite, the proliferation of volume among certain proportions that masks the quieter parts into nonexistence. So in that sense, speech can ONLY by free if money is limited. To approach it another way, we must never become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance. Gentrification, collusion, price-fixing, discrimination, even slavery, all these things could be taken as expressions of speech if money=speech and that speech is to be entirely unlimited.

If the message is good, money will find it. If the message is not good, no amount of money will convince a majority of the people to support it.

Bull. S*$~. Given infinite time in infinite universes all possible permutations of reality will occur. But without that infinite timescale, your idea is just plain wrong. I cite the anti vaccination movement, the creationists, the crystal healers, climate change deniers, the magnet healers, the big bang deniers, and a myriad number of other flatly bad ideas that continue to draw in and spend boatloads of dough. Meanwhile infinite renewable energy struggles. As does science education and education generally. In a world where we spend more on war than education, I don't know how anyone could in good conscience make the statement you just did. When the people with the money are writing the rules, they'll write the rules that keep it that way. The foxes are deciding what's for dinner tonight.

Davick wrote:

Right, which is why a living minimum wage is so important.

Never said it wasn't. But don't pretend that you're "valuing" labor; you're putting a price floor on it, which may or may not be above market value. In fact, if it's not above market value, there's no point in a price floor, is there?

But another key issue is that "the value of labor" doesn't make much sense, any more than "the value of rocks" does. Some rocks, such as emeralds, are almost unbelievably valuable, while some are nearly worthless.

Which is why we shouldn't only value people as a unit of work to apply, but as people. Someone has to take out the trash. And even if there's a lot of supply for that labor, the one doing it should be able to live. That we live in a world where the market has no qualms valuing anyone's labor below that is shameful really.

yellowdingo wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Congratulations. Your wish has been granted. The market already sets the value of labor, and short of slavery, it is literally impossible to pay less than the market value (because someone else will hire your labor away at market value).

Since slavery is already illegal, it's done.

Slavery happens when you are remunerated for less than it costs you to perform the labour.

Don't confuse "cost" and "value." Just because something cost you a lot of money or time doesn't make it valuable to someone else.

This applies to goods as well as services (like labor).

More succinctly,...no!

Right, which is why a living minimum wage is so important. A poor economy inverts the supply and demand dynamic of labor acquisition. So even if you want to say the labor is properly valued, it is still unsustainable.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

If money is not speech, then any limit on money will not affect free speech (since they're independent of each other). So, removing the limit on money will not affect speech at all (since they're independent of each other). Therefore, in order to have a more efficient system, all the contribution limits should be abolished, because no matter what the contribution limit, free speech won't be impacted.

Thank you folks, I'll see you next week! Tip your wait staff and bartenders.

Except that we've already done this dance.

Money is not speech, but it can be EXCHANGED for speech, or to silence others as it is indeed being used. Thus we can regulate how money is exchanged for political speech in a way that will maximize your and my ability to exercise our own without some big union or corporation or billionare drowning out our voice.

The silly argument you put forth here suggests two things. 1) That you are perfectly aware of the corrupting influence of money on politics, as the alternative to your argument would be arguing in my favor.

2) That you've run out of ideas where to go rhetorically, since money isn't speech and we both know it.

"We're going to need a cleric over here! Make sure he prepared Create Water. We got a VICIOUS BURN!"

If money = free speech, why does it cost money? Can one have "more" 'free speech' than someone else?

Free speech becomes an oxymoron when it must be bought.

Davick wrote:

Just getting to go to college is a factor of being in a family wealthy enough to send you or being in a state that works to send people to college. You're so privileged you don't even see it.

I also didn't know you had STD vision. Most people don't though. That's another privilege you have.

Are you saying it's impossible for a bad upbringing beyond your control to influence your ability to make good decisions as an adult?

Let's see.... instead of partying in college, some people were working two jobs to help support their younger siblings. Instead of drinking every night, they committed suicide to die from depression. Instead of having illicit relations they were prostituted by their guardians.

Those are all beyond their control. And they impact their ability to maintain free speech in a world dominated by wealthy corporations.

I worked through college. I went to college because even as a teenager, I could see that working at the local fast food joint wasn't going to provide me the life I wanted. So I wasn't born stupid. Most people aren't.

Bad upbringing does not prevent you from making good decisions as an adult. Our current president didn't have the best childhood, and he seems to have done pretty well for himself. Bill Clinton was raised by a single mom, and he did pretty well for himself.

If you choose to be a victim of your circumstances, I can't help you.

I also worked while in college. I don't know how old you are, but the concept of actually working yourself through college is dead now. You weren't born stupid. Were you born in a house where your parents neglected you and pimped you out? Were you born in a house where your father beat your mother? Were you born in a house where your father wasn't home because he was in prison? Were you raised in a foster home? My wife was adopted after her biological mother tried to kill her. Her adoptive parents physically, mentally, and sexually abused her. She could easily have ended up dead or drug addicted or in prison or whatever. She didn't. But does that mean I should look at every abused foster child and say, "Hey my wife came out ok so if you don't it's YOUR fault! Loser!" Hell no. Because bad upbringing doesn't prevent you from making good decisions, but it sure as s%*@ makes a difference. If you don't think so, why don't you let meth addicts raise your kids and we'll find out. No? Ok then.

Davick wrote:

What is apparent to you is in no way what is actually true. I am compelling you to help because you are receiving the same help the rest of us do. If you don't want to sign the social contract of the United States of America, if you don't care to use its services at the cost of helping to provide those services, don't. Pack your bags and get out. Secular morality promotes caring for the welfare of all members of society, so asking those members to do their part is in no way morally repugnant. What is immoral is vilifying your fellow man while special pleading for your own situations and thinking yourself above the law, on moral grounds no less. The nature of taxes is that you will spend money on things you don't want to. I sure do. I spend way more footing the...

I am not receiving the same "help" you are. I need to pay for my own health care and insurance costs, not have them subsidized by my neighbors against their will.

The "social contract" of the United States doesn't say anything you getting to force your moral beliefs upon me. In fact, the First Amendment helps enshrine that by preventing the establishment of a state religion.

You demand that I accept your secular beliefs to force others to buy a product they don't want, can't use, and may not be able to afford. When I refuse to submit to your demands, you tell me to leave the country and otherwise go all Fred Phelps on me.

No, I will not leave. You have no moral authority over me and my decisions. You currently have legal authority, but that can change. You wish to use the blunt force of law to accept your rather dubious claims that forcing people into an inefficient and costly system will "help" them. No.

And at the end, what do you have to force me to accept your view? Nothing but the point of a gun. You have lost the moral argument.

You are receiving the same help, whether you care to admit it or not. Not everyone necessarily uses every part of the system at the same time or at all. When is the last time government subsidized small business loans directly benefitted you or I? I've never had one, yet part of my taxes go towards it.

There is a vast difference in state religion and state morality. Any case against being able to force moral beliefs would justify anything. Anything you would deny another can be denied from you. It is easy to say how unnecessary things are when you yourself are not using them. But morality itself is the idea that it is in your best interest to help others when they need it because you would want help if you needed it. Whether or not you ever actually need help is beyond that. It is self defeating to say there is a moral argument for not helping someone. You can debate what would help them most, but if you say do not help at all, you're not even making a moral argument.

I am forced to pay for roads I don't want can't use and may not be able to afford. The ACA on the other hand is good for everyone because we are all biological organisms who require care. And if you can't afford it, you get exempted. But you're right we should just go to single payer. That would also solve a lot of inefficiency and cost problems.

You don't have to leave. But if you stay, accept the terms. America has decided that we as human beings care about other human beings, and we take care of our own. No one person has moral authority over any other person. But America is a republic and our society has moral authority over individuals in addition to legal authority, even if it does not have moral absolutism.

I don't have to force you to accept anything. But if you find the entire concept of government so abhorrent why do you continue live under one? Taxes are the idea that we can do together what we cannot alone. If you don't agree with that, then why are you here? That will never change. It seems to be that you are working in your self interest. You want all the good things it provides for you, and you care not what it provides for others. Fortunately more compassionate people have said that it is our duty to help our fellow citizens. This can be justified morally, economically, and socially. No gun necessary. But if anyone thinks they'll threaten the well-being of their fellow man in the name of morally perverted selfishness, then I will fight to stop them.

Davick wrote:

You keep pointing out why this is bad, but you're saying it like it's good....

Funny thing about being a liberal, I can say excessive campaign spending is bad, even if liberals are benefitting more from it.

Why is it bad? I didn't say it was bad. I think maybe your train of thought skipped a station.

No, yours did

but you're saying it like it's good....

Let's see . . . instead of partying in college, I focused on studying. Instead of going out drinking every night, I stayed home to game.
Instead of having illict relations with strangers I barely knew, I said "probably better stay away from disease-ridden people."

None of those are genetic, geographic, or temporal accidents.

Just getting to go to college is a factor of being in a family wealthy enough to send you or being in a state that works to send people to college. You're so privileged you don't even see it.

I also didn't know you had STD vision. Most people don't though. That's another privilege you have.

Are you saying it's impossible for a bad upbringing beyond your control to influence your ability to make good decisions as an adult?

Let's see.... instead of partying in college, some people were working two jobs to help support their younger siblings. Instead of drinking every night, they committed suicide to die from depression. Instead of having illicit relations they were prostituted by their guardians.

Those are all beyond their control. And they impact their ability to maintain free speech in a world dominated by wealthy corporations.

I need money to buy a billboard, or hire a sky-writer. I need money to take out advertisements in newspapers, magazines, and television. My ability to reach people is directly related to the amount of money I spend, whether it's for marketing my newest product that you can't live without or a electing Joe L. instead of Rick D.

You keep pointing out why this is bad, but you're saying it like it's good....

Funny thing about being a liberal, I can say excessive campaign spending is bad, even if liberals are benefitting more from it.

Davick wrote:

[rant]
You wanna talk about personal responsibility? Let's talk about the Mantle of Responsibility. I consider it my responsibility to help those I can. We have colluded to form a society where we acknowledge "We are in this together." I share a kinship with every living thing on this planet, but none so much as my fellow man. When I see people suffer, I don't just feel compelled to help, I feel RESPONSIBLE for helping. Why would I not help those I can? If instead of buying a 50" tv I buy and 40" tv and help someone get medical care, what have I lost? I don't feel guilty for caring about myself, but I would feel guilty if I failed to care about others.

Do you feel guilty if I fail to help others in the manner you direct?

If you feel compelled to help, then help. But you are also compelling me to help. And since it's pretty apparent to me that your "help" enables rather than helps, no, I would rather not.

You are free to help those you wish to help, and in a manner you wish to do so. You are free to stand up on a soapbox, gather others to your cause, spend whatever of your own resources on the needful as you wish.

But compelling me to do the same is morally repugnant.

What is apparent to you is in no way what is actually true. I am compelling you to help because you are receiving the same help the rest of us do. If you don't want to sign the social contract of the United States of America, if you don't care to use its services at the cost of helping to provide those services, don't. Pack your bags and get out. Secular morality promotes caring for the welfare of all members of society, so asking those members to do their part is in no way morally repugnant. What is immoral is vilifying your fellow man while special pleading for your own situations and thinking yourself above the law, on moral grounds no less. The nature of taxes is that you will spend money on things you don't want to. I sure do. I spend way more footing the bill for corporations (and churches, but that's another matter) than I do on welfare. You may find paying for welfare politically repugnant, as I do paying for corporations, but it is most certainly not morally so. You do not get to define morality as things you like and immorality as things you don't.

I do not mind paying for schools and roads, i do care about paying for a free ride for thieving scum. Despite being poor i donate to charity and firmly believe in it. birth to death care for those that refuse to do for themselves is NOT charity it is being taken advantage of.

You're doing it again. It's like you can't help yourself. You know there are those who abuse charity right? Depending on the charity, the abuse rate may be higher than that of welfare.

Funny thing about taxes, you don't know which dollar goes where. You don't get to pay for schools and not pay for food stamps. It's an all or nothing. It doesn't bother you when those same moochers drive on the roads? Why not? Is that not still a taker abusing the system? Or is it because that happens to be a part you explicitly benefit from? You're fine paying for the things you use, but people using programs you don't need? Why they're "SCUM"! Just admit that you just don't want to pay for things you don't use. And you keep yourself from feeling guilty by vilifying those that do. That you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are so few takers proves it. Not to mention, SNAP has been shown to put $2 into the economy for every $1 it spends. So you actually DO benefit from it.

Davick wrote:

Killer_GM wrote:

deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.

Because that's what you're being.

heartless for not wanting to be robbed? For not wanting to see the nation fall under the weight of takers? are you so heartless as to have more than you need to live? how much do you give to charity? I mean how many could you feed instead of buying a computer and internet?

I'm not going to address why it's not being robbed again. If you think you're being robbed, why do you continue to sit there and let people rob you? If you don't wanna pay taxes, move to Haiti. Or wherever. I don't care. Just quit complaining and leave. You will never escape taxes in America. If you do, you'll be breaking the law or you'll be in a country that is no longer America.

But it's heartless because you CONTINUE to say there are all these takers out there. "Them." but the real evidence, not your anecdotal ranting, doesn't bear that out. And if there are takers, it still makes you heartless if you value sticking it to them more than you value helping those who need it. So YES. HEARTLESS.

You're wrong according to the facts. If you want to keep arguing about made up stuff, well we're on the boards for a PnP RPG, go to the rules forum.

And I don't appreciate your ad hominem.

[rant]
You wanna talk about personal responsibility? Let's talk about the Mantle of Responsibility. I consider it my responsibility to help those I can. We have colluded to form a society where we acknowledge "We are in this together." I share a kinship with every living thing on this planet, but none so much as my fellow man. When I see people suffer, I don't just feel compelled to help, I feel RESPONSIBLE for helping. Why would I not help those I can? If instead of buying a 50" tv I buy and 40" tv and help someone get medical care, what have I lost? I don't feel guilty for caring about myself, but I would feel guilty if I failed to care about others.

In advertising there is a saying, "You're throwing away half your money, but you don't know which half." I don't know who the takers are and who the needy are, but I sure as hell know the needy are there. If it's more cost effective to pay 2 takers to help 1 needy than it is to avoid getting cheated, or if it overly increases the risk that the needy will do without, THEN I WILL PAY A TAKER. And part of that is because I have found no reason to believe there are more takers than needy, or even anywhere near it for that matter. None of that means that if everyone becomes a taker we should just keep funneling money to them. I'm not stupid. But the evidence just doesn't support that being the current paradigm. There are merely those who want you to think that because it benefits them. (Irony, I know) And we can look at the evidence for that!

So if you don't want to be "robbed" then I don't want you robbing me either. So get off my roads. Stay out of my schools. Get away from my hospitals. Get off my lawn. And most importantly: DO NOT VOTE IN MY ELECTIONS.

[/rant]

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

I should stay away from here for my own sanity... Andrew R, I already outlined why taxation isn't theft. You are contributing nothing but spite by constantly throwing around that same poisonous excuse for an argument.

Denmark:
Maximum income tax around 60%
Free (read: tax-funded) healthcare for all citizens
Free (tax-funded) education with very few exceptions
American Dreamliness (bringing this up again because why not?)
Happiest country in the world
Several
Times
Over

We call it welfare. Because people fare well.

Why do you hate happiness?

Thymus my friend. You've typed the answer to your own question. You call if FREE HEALTHCARE. It's not free. Right above it you typed that you pay income taxes of upwards of 60 FRIGGIN PERCENT! That is what is paying for your healthcare. Can you not see that?!?!?!? SIXTY PERCENT INCOME TAX RATES! Good God man. And one of the reasons that your country has money to pay for their national healthcare, is that you literally pay almost Nothing for national defense. That's because the USA literally pays to defend and safeguard Europe, leaving your country to bilk you for 60% to pay for everyone's healthcare.

As for Denmark being the happiest place in the world to live, that is debatable, but having an abundance of beautiful blond women with big (certain anatomical features) probably is a good portion of that. Your government is not why people are happy.

Really man? You're going to sit there and tell the guy from Denmark how his country works? Really? Instead of saying "Oh wow they pay 60% in taxes and like it. Maybe I should reevaluate my perceptions." You're going to disagree with the guy who actually lives there? That's why people in Denmark hate Americans (probably).

And no few BRAG about how much they get.

This is what is known as a vocal minority.

And, "might not"? So you might be talking about people who don't exist?

Davick wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Davick wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.

Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.

I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.

And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?

You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?

Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.

Cravings exist, to use or not is a choice.

As someone who has never used any illegal substance, has never smoked a cigarette, and has never even tasted alcohol - and never had any remote desire to do any of those things- I say to you: Quit throwing stones from your Ivory Tower.

My ivory tower? I live in an area barely better than a ghetto working retail for barely above minimum wage. I am one of the VERY few in this area not on welfare. Of course i am also one of the few making smart choices to be able to care for myself, not living on junkfood and smoking weed and cigarettes daily. Might be a connection there. Might be a reason i have a little money in the bank and no debt. Choice

I didn't mean Ivory Tower literally. None of what you said would inform you on the struggles of dealing with addiction. Something I can say I personally know nothing about. But something I can understand. You lack understanding, and you seem to lack empathy.

The pot heads insist that it isn't addictive...

I have met a lot of potheads and I would describe no more than 1 of them as addicted, if that. ANd I know zero who were ever at any risk of going broke or homeless from their habit anymore than a cigarette smoker. You're talking about people who don't exist.

I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.

You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.

People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.

If I see Umbral Lasers(TM) in the book after this I am going to be so mad

Well...

Since lasers are monochromatic, if Darkness only affected the visible spectrum, or some amount not all of it, one could make an infrared laser or ultraviolet ones that functions in a Darkness area. Perhaps dealing less damage or having some sort of variant effect.

Andrew R wrote:

The second "looking after members of society" no longer means a free ride for drug addicts to buy snackfoods and have the choice to never work, we can talk about it. As long as this system exists i want no part in it.

And y'know, I agree with your sentiment there. I'm just not willing to ignore the people that truly do need help because the proposed solution also gives it to others. I'd rather see the system refined so it only gave help where it should be given (which would still see those drug addicts given the option to enter state rehab and be looked after until they've recovered and can become productive members of society, along with similar options for anyone else that needed help, but wouldn't just resort to handouts if they declined that help.)

I'm a big fan of Blackstone's Formulation. I won't say I don't care that part of my money goes to a drug user if that's the price to help the helpless who need it., but I don't care enough to not want to be a part of it.

To Andrew I would say, "The second you devise a system of ensuring help is given to people who need it without any chance of error or abuse, I will support that system whole heartedly." In the meantime, it's Blackstone's Formulation for me.