Knockoff's page

Knockoff wrote:

There are plenty of readily available sound bites of Trump threatening businesses that would outsource or relocate if he were anointed God-King.

And plenty more cases of him using that exact same outsourcing when it would save him money.

Quote:

I don't like the GOP and certainly wont vote for Trump, but that's a poor excuse to misrepresent them.

I don't need to misrepresent them you need to stop listening to what they say and watch what they do.

The democrats say they're against the TPP, but it's going to happen anyway with the President's blessing. Consider applying the standard equally.

We know Trump makes his crappy knick knacks in other countries. We know Clinton was for NAFTA and the TPP before the campaign kicked off. If observing past behavior is the best way to predict future policy, you should keep your expectations on trade and outsourcing protections to the modest side, no matter who wins.

Samy wrote:

That's a good link, Turin. I agree that the upswell of Trump is not primarily because of racism or xenophobia, but because people no longer have decent jobs because of globalization. That's a common problem everywhere in the developed world and it's arguably the biggest challenge of our time.

But the republican solution is to not tax the people taking their money overseas and making the money there while the democratic solution is to tax them a little and give the people that lost jobs a little money and or work doing infrastructure.

While the GOP solution is to fault them for a lack of work ethic and pay the companies to move overseas.

There are plenty of readily available sound bites of Trump threatening businesses that would outsource or relocate if he were anointed God-King. The GOP platform explicitly endorses the current administration's position, which looks like what you called the "democratic solution".

I don't like the GOP and certainly wont vote for Trump, but that's a poor excuse to misrepresent them.

Knockoff wrote: wrote:

You are right about the sociopathy bit. Sociopaths act the way they do because of environmental factor (to my knowledge). Orcs are predisposed to violent antisocial(by human standards) behavior for biological reasons. I was just using dramatic language. my fault.

Actually...the set of traits often called sociopathy is pretty much inborn. No, my point was that it was an entirely different seet of inborn traits than those mentioned as being displayed by Orcs.

This is the last I'll say on the sociopath thing.

While orcs are often cast as savages and half-beasts, they
do possess at least one remarkable physiological advantage:
their incredible capacity for mental strain. Orcs are never
shocked by sights of violence, never worn down by endless
campaigning, and never haunted by dreams of vicious
deeds. While part of this psychological endurance comes
from exposure to myriad affronts and terrors throughout
their young lives, orcs seem to possess a more economical
memory than most races. This has little to do with their
ability to retain information, though—quite the opposite
in fact. Rather, orcs possess a seemingly voluntary, though
potentially subconscious, ability to forget. Thus, crippling
failures, moments of terror, and unwanted emotion can simply be shoved out of mind, allowing lusts and violent
pride to dominate. This isn't to say that orcs forget every
slight or pain—few creatures hold grudges like orcs—but
traumas that might impede their ability to survive and fight
on are dismissed, giving orcs a predator-like confidence in
their own abilities and willingness to endlessly fight on.

emphasis added with italics

1)Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

2)Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by physical fights or assaults.

both these characteristics are present in orcs. Both are criteria for antisocial behavior, the cornerstone of sociopathy. They are definitly "inborn traits". Also, can you imagine raising three kids like this? It wouldn't end well.

Note the use of the word never, implying no exceptions as written (though some very rare instances are likely).

I am willing to concede that the phrase "murderous fury" does not necessitate fury coupled with actual murder. The other part of the passage is more literal.

Though much of this furious behavior is enforced by
orc culture, it cannot be denied that those rare orcs raised
apart from their kind, even from childhood, are often
still filled with the same animal rage. Their terrible ferocity makes it all but impossible for there to be any lasting peace with orcs.
Sooner or later, even if they are cowed by the strength of
a greater power, something will send orcs into a rage, and
then blood will be spilled.

The paragraph cannot be read as a reference to all orcs. Its all one paragraph about fundamental orc nature outside of orc culture. The object in the first two sentences is "rare orcs raised apart from their kind". The third sentence is an axiom based on the first two sentences and what has already been stated about fundamental orc nature, outside of orc culture.

There is no room for interpretation here. This passage clearly states that the rage/blood spilling will happen. Even intelligent animals display predictable behavior to some degree. This prediction of orc behavior comes straight from canon. We can see from this passage (and the one above it) several traits and behaviors common to all orcs. Even if it were referring to every orc (it isn't), the language is pretty ironclad.

It passage does not imply a total absence of free will in all aspects of orc life. It does offer a predictability so strong that language stressing total inevitability was used. The statistical significance of orcs, raised outside orc culture, who do not display violent rage at some point in their lives is so small it did not warrant mention. I can imagine a scenario in which all three orc children grow up to be as docile as any human. This is the least likely possible outcome.

Neutral orcs are just as capable of violence against defenseless people as the barbarian.

Also, I can't find an example of a neutral orc tribe. Could you please cite one?

If the barbarian in OP was aware of the predictability of violence in orcs, his actions almost certainly prevented future violence (with present violence). His act was decidedly not evil.

Knockoff wrote: wrote:

Please bear with me.

There have been a lot of hypothetical comparisons between the situation cited by OP, and similar situations featuring human toddlers in place of orcs. Those examples cited in this post are by no means comprehensive, but they reflect a sentiment through the thread that is not grounded in reality. The differences between humans and orcs, and more specifically what predisposes them toward a particular alignment, are biological, not sociological.

see examples below

I had a long response to this whole post...but both have been lost in the cleansing. So, short version:

I agree that Orcs are more likely to be Evil than humans. 'More likely' and 'inevitably are' are in no way the same thing, however. And killing children for crimes they might or are more likely to commit in the future is pretty damn Evil.

All the examples you present say about Orc nature, as opposed to socialization, is that they have really bad tempers. So...violent? Yes. Sociopathic? Nope, not so much.

Would raising them to be Good be trickier than raising a human that way? Sure. Impossible? By no means.

You are right about the sociopathy bit. Sociopaths act the way they do because of environmental factor (to my knowledge). Orcs are predisposed to violent antisocial(by human standards) behavior for biological reasons. I was just using dramatic language. my fault.

I think we can agree that orcs raised independent of orc culture and humans raised independent of the "evil" culture into which they were born are not at all the same (at least after reading the source material).

However, I think you are downplaying the violent, arguably chaotic evil nature of orcs. I would never argue that raising orcs to be credits to society is "impossible". I tried to steer clear of that absolute in my initial post.

Here is the excerpt from Orcs of Golarion

Though much of this furious behavior is enforced by
orc culture, it cannot be denied that those rare orcs raised
apart from their kind, even from childhood, are often
still filled with the same animal rage. All it takes is a
momentary annoyance or minor frustration to drive an
orc to murderous fury . Their terrible ferocity makes it all
but impossible for there to be any lasting peace with orcs.
Sooner or later, even if they are cowed by the strength of
a greater power, something will send orcs into a rage, and
then blood will be spilled[/i].

italics added for emphasis

I think this text makes it clear that raising an orc to be "good", or even not dangerous, would be very difficult. "Tricky" is a gross understatement.

To reiterate

Sooner or later, even if they are cowed by the strength of
a greater power, something will send orcs into a rage, and
then blood will be spilled.

The text states that orcs are likely to be sent into a "murderous fury" by a "momentary annoyance". It is "all but impossible" to have lasting peace with an orc. All this is mentioned in the explicit context of the nature of orcs when raised apart from orc culture.

I am not argueing that orc toddlers are evil. They are not. I am argueing that the barbarian mentioned by OP was faced with the following options.

1) Raise the orcs, either on his own or by dumping them off on some charitable individual. Knowing what we do about the nature of orcs we can assume that "sooer or later... blood will be spilled"

2) Leave the orcs alone. They would likely starve. If they didn't, they would grow up without positive influences and most likely turn out CE.

3) Kill them. No one is enjoying it. The barbarian would simply be airing on the side of caution. Given that he knows what we know about orcs, he resolved to avoid the substantial risk that the orcs would eventually hurt somebody.

The barbarian could not possibly know for sure how the orcs would turn out. If he did know of orcs natural predisposition to "murderous fury" (emphasis on murderous and that sooner or later, blood will be spilled" he could reasonably calculate that taking three lives now is the safest option. It is not a good act, but when faced with such an untenable situation it can't really be called evil either.

If the barbarian killed the baby orcs to, in his understanding, save future lives, his actions were not evil.