I call BS. I googled it myself... first guy to show up was Kakashi, midway down page 3.
Discuss please.
Ok Makaze, out of respect for the thread, ill back off. Were way off topic. If you wish to discuss anarchy and political structures, ill discuss elsewhere. Pm me if your willing.
It did have communist and socialist ideals. Anything which requires a large ammount of regulation is socialist ideology. Also, I never once said it was wrong. Only it wouldnt work in our society. The fact that your so defensive over it suggest you have doubts. Wait... you believe anarchy is a good solution? Ok, its been a while since I talked to a confessed anarchist. How would such a regulated economy work in an anarchist society? The only economic structure which could survive is -pure- capitalism. Seriously, would it be a nationwide anarchist society? Would each city function independantly? I am curious. How do you envision anarchy. Because apparently, we are failing to see the same vision. I don't see it working. How would someone who wants a government be treated? I mean, lets be honest, no one can ever be in 100% agreement. And further, with no one "ruling" over another, how would crimes be punished? How would ones views on racism be treated? And back to our initial discussion, how would there be any regulation of the economy? Would there be employees and employers? Or would everyone be forced to work independantly? Taxation is always the product of a government. It is simply a way for the government to raise money to fund basic neccessities a government is required to run. Such as police, fire, and mail services. Unfortunatly, not every citizen agrees with how each is spent. In fuedalism, its only for the benefit of the local lord. If he chose to provide any services it was at his discretion. The reason the "if you dont like it leave" arguement is so popular, is there are litterally hundreds of economic and political styles of government. Some succesful, some failing. All flawed in some shape or form. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt now. I had no idea you actually believed in anarchy being a possible solution. I was just assuming it was an unintended suggestion by many in this thread. I'm all open minded as to what you have to say.
I did. It greatly had Socialist and Communist ideals. I said they would never work. Dude... if everyone whos life sucked did that, the entire economic system would collapse, as well as the government. The result? Anarchy. A sad state of life where everyone turns on everyone and everyone only cares about themselves. The result? Someone will eventually step out of the shadows and take over the power vaccuum. Usually with a hostile takover. This new person becomes a despot, and pretty much enslaves everyone, anyone who opposes his might, is executed. And we know despotism is such an effective government. Our economy is flawed. But what you are reffering to is called fuedalism. Its basically slave labor in the name of the rich land owner. IT IS MUCH MUCH WORSE! There is no comparison. My final thought: A majority of you are suggesting anarchy. That is stupid.
Actually... I was thinking just that. Don't assume I dont know my stuff. I was a business and economics major before. Were you thinking I was thinking Soviet Russia? No... theres a reason capitalism "won" the cold war. They didn't actually do anything to win. They let Soviet Russias flawed economic philosophy play out. Also, I never said it was bad. I simply said it would require it. Personally, I believe both economic philosphies are greatly flawed. Capitalism because it is designed to benefit a few, whilst hurting others. Communism, will fail, simply because its too logistically difficult to impliment, and is vulnrable to curruption. I believe the best would be a hybrid economic structure. Such words and ideas however are not very popular in western culture, and are doomed to fail. Heck, Obama had some reasonable and conservative ideas, and people were comparing him to Hitler. I don't quite understand the corralation between facism and communism but ok. Bottom line, western society is trained to hate communism. It will take generations for any such idea to be implimented. The Above Poster Advocates True Capitalism.
How many points are in Black Reach? For both Ork and Marines listed seperately...
It sucks. But you are right. The only way to truly change this is through communism and or socialist idealogy. Economic philosophies state there needs to be a lower class, a middle class, and an upper class. The people you refer to are Working class. Working class is that obscure grey area between middle and lower class. If they didn't work, they'd be lower class. I'm working class too, but I waslucky enough to work for a decent company. Bu if we force the economy to eliminate the lower class entirey, the economy will collapse. The less extream solution is t have gvernment sponsored care programs at the expense of the upper class.
Fair enough. I read enough of the lore to know about how "good" Man is. I know they are not the good guys. But I am thinking in terms of man. It is mans divine right to ensure their survival as a species for the long term. If that means not trusting other races, then that is fine and well. If you trust the Tau, that is up to you. I didn't know the Tau allow Emperor worship. So I guess if they leave faith in tact, its not quite as bad. The Tau, Humans, and Eldar are only "good" in relation to the Ork, Tyranid, and Necron, who's very existence threatens the life of everything else in the universe. Ork are genetically programmed to kill for fun. Tyranid kill everything for the sake of keeping keeping their race alive. The Necron are probably the most evil... as they are gave up their mortal bodies for in order to gain power to destroy life itself. In truth, I put Eldar in the same category as the Ork. Their culture suggest they were simply made as weapons. they are just at a higher level of intelligence to give them the "civility" not to be so impulsive. I truly believe, if left to their own devices and left unchecked, they could do much worse than the Ork. Ok... lets look at what is less human in warhammer 40k universe... it is sad that they are by and large abandoned. But, spontaneous mutations to the degree of growing tentacles, beastly horns or fur, that clearly is not simple genetic abnormalities. It can only be the influence of Chaos Gods making mutants. It is a canonized fact. Most of the Chaos Marines who are beastly mutants started off as normal humans (if 8ft tall steroid junkie Marines who spit acid and have a variety of other enhancements are considered normal to you) and became mutants after devoting their life to Chaos Gods. This tells me, that mutants, even spontaneously born mutants, are largely the product of Chaos Gods. Sad... And I agree with the Imperium on these occasions. I knew Black Reach was 100... but otherwise... Ouch... ICSP IS HIT WITH RECOIL!!!
Orks are just overgrown goblins. Seriously. Only in Warcraft I believe are they seperate species, even then I'd argue it. In LotR (what all fantasy realms are based off of) it clearly defines them as different cast of the same species. Sometimes the words are used interchangably. Well, in the novels anyways. They are stupid. I kinda liked the Space Wolves. Salamanders are pansies. What leads to more death? Wiping out a planet whilst trying to withdraw all the savable forces during an overrun? Or, not wiping out an entire world, and face Ork raids for the rest of the planets history? Generation after generation being brutally slaughtered before fighting them back. Only asting long enough to repopulate the cities and outpost for Ork food. Tau will kill all those who do not submit to the "Greater Good." Why would I submit my culture, faith, and way of life just to make them happy? I would cooperate with them if it gave a tactical advantage, but I would make sure not to turn my back. And would overtly let them know I had every intention of taking them on after whatever reason for the alliance was taken care of. The Eldar are almost invariably untrustworthy of anyone of thier own kind. I would not work along side them. They would strike first when it benefited them. I'd rather work along side the Ork. At least they tell you when they want to smash your head in... granted, it is all the time. BTW: Just a random question, I'm still in the "Willing to try it" phase. I've heard 1500pt armies running up tallies of $500. Is this typical? I mean, I kinda want an army close to 3k pts on hand so I can use variety on each battle. Maybe one battle a few more scouts. The next no scouts and more Dreadnaughts and other variations. It seems like an expensive habbit. I do have a disposable income, but, just because I have it. Doesnt mean I want to throw money away. I mean, I expected a full 3k army with variety to cost like 200 tops. Sorry... I might not play. It sucks because, as you can see... I looked deep into the lore.
Why not mention it in front of them? If they are a threat to mankind they should be killed. I mean, how else you going to get an Ork population put down for good? Simple: Withdraw, and destroy all non friendly life on the planet. Any human who dissagrees is endangering humanity with their naivety. I fully agree about comic relief. The whole backstory on Pain Boyz and the way they talk explain that clearly enough. They are essentially science fiction versions of the classic goblin... albeit bigga. And, the bully doesnt bully out of mallice, but to him its fun to bully others.
Its fine. I honestly don't see them as Rednecks, although it is funny. I see them as brutes, bullies, and bascally angry. Basically, that big kid in elementary school, who used to beat up smaller kids for lunch money? Yeah. Him. Also, what's Deep Impact, Orbital Bombardment, Tomahawks and stuff? And why would you want to strt with reinforcements?
Inbreeding implies that there is no diversity of DNA in the gene pool which begot the new species, as a result, there are unnessisary redundancies in the genetic material. Reproducing asexually, such as leaving spores when killed, is this to the superlative degree.
Ok, Raven Gaurds. :) I like thier look, I also like thier logical tactical approach to combat. Lots of recon and guerrila style tactics as opposed to dropping a sledghammer. Also, they look the best with mostly black armor. Since they play by the same rules most other space Marine Chapter, if my tactics change where I need a more "sledghammer style" of fighting, I could just get heavier troops. And keep thier paint. Or if I feel wierd using a knuckle busting style offence with a "guerrilla tactical" style chapter, I could always repaint them. Heck, my first paintjob is probably going to be spray paint or something cheap like that. I might even fight a battle with basic greys. BTW, any tips on painting?
Thanks for your help. I think Ultramarines are the way to go for me. Idk if its "boring", my goal will bring the battle to where their weaknesses are.
I checked it out. Space Marines look the coolest, along with Grey Knight Daemon Hunters. I know a bit about the space marines. Idk, futuristic Roman Legions sound cooler than Space Paladins by a little bit. id rather have a few strong soldiers than a swarm of weakerones. So idk, I'm at an impass. V_v
I like versatility. I'm interested in either Space Marines or Orks. I'm leaning towards Marines. :) Do the different factions play differently? What are the stupid rules of the Blood Angels?
The primary definition is the one were discussing. You are declaring yourself free of all obligations, one of which to look after the wellbeing of your spouse. The spouse needs people looking after his/her wellbeing more than ever. I dont see how you are so deliberatly blind to the injustice in that.
Ok, this is getting frustrating. Thats what entire discussion is about. Nothing else. Not whether you are technically already divorced. If your partner never told you "I will be there for you," or much more so, even implied it, you have no reason to assume they will be there. And therefore, you have no reason to marry them. Its not a matter of whats better. its a matter of what HAS TO BE DONE! Leaving them, is the same as killing them. If anything, pulling out a weapon, and murdering them yourself is more merciful than divorcing them publically, and acting accordingly. Taking the step towards divorce, is a public declaration that you no longer have a commitment to them. If you intend to stay commited and support them, then why take the time to go out of your way to file for divorce. Why anyone would do that makes no sense, unless they intended on abandoning them.
First of all... I'm a little pissed that my internet crashed after writing a 1 hour response to you. I'll give you the short version. Sorry, it may be blunt. The tone of the message, she is not happy with society. She is blaming church and state for a bad life. Thats during the industrial revolution era. Where jobs were expanding a plenty, but where job mortality rate was climbing, and child labor was common place. Honestly, I would take my chances working in the fields over that. This is way off topic, but I'll humor you. The essay itself was about how women are oppressed under marriage because society views it as socially acceptable. Therefore, your point is invalid. But to answer your question: No it doesnt. If a homosexual couple had one party stay at home, and the other working full time. It would not be unreasonable or "cruel" for the party at home to be expected to manage a majority of the domestic responsibilites. The arguement is about sex and reproduction. There were only two ways back then to bear children, promiscuous sex, and marriage. The arguement of her was that marriage was essentially a liscence for daily rape. I am pointing out that it is an instictive need to want to bear children. If her "lot in life" was marriage, and she was unhappy, then I cannot say anything in response aside from "How unfortunate." Its not an obscure stance. Yes, i'll admit it. I am bitter. But I don't blame society as a whole for my problems. I accept the fact that life sucks for everyone. I may never own a home. I may never be anything more than an office drone. I have been passed up for many opportunites I rightly deserved. But I am not writting an essay blaming society as a whole on my circumstances, but I accept, "certain decisions I made led to this" and "certain situations are just unfair." And then I get over it. And I spoiled it. I wiki'd Moses Hartman and Voltairine de Cleyre after I posted the previous post. A staunch feminist and a anarchist. When I first read it, I could not understand why she morned Moses death, when it seemed as if she herself had a love in him, yet hated her "lover" figure. But it made sense after I gathered the circumstances. My opinion stands. She was bitter. And like a typical emo band, was pouring out her hardcore emotions for generations to come.
