-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Dear lord, soon every Frenchman will know about Enewalds Shock-Brigade of Death...
RIP Kadon, never forget!
@ Tommy:
I had the nice surprise to see one of your IAARs, Let the Ruling classes tremble, highlighted on a french online (generalist) newspaper
The author mainly explain how in his opinion Internet is now the main field of the Alternative History literature and why, and then say:
The author also compare Avindian's Descend into Madness to the "surrealist's exquisite corpse".
I though you may enjoy the praise
Link (in french): Née sur les forums, l’uchronie réécrit l’Histoire à la sauce Internet
Awesome! Can't wait to read the article.
I, of course, enjoy any and all praise.
We can afford to force these media outlets to give praise. The rest of you, pinko tree-huggers are too busy living off the government for any real sort of action.
@ Tommy:
I had the nice surprise to see one of your IAARs, Let the Ruling classes tremble, highlighted on a french online (generalist) newspaper
The author mainly explain how in his opinion Internet is now the main field of the Alternative History literature and why, and then say:
The author also compare Avindian's Descend into Madness to the "surrealist's exquisite corpse".
I though you may enjoy the praise
Link (in french): Née sur les forums, l’uchronie réécrit l’Histoire à la sauce Internet
I now feel obliged to write my next AARlander article en Français to mark occasion.
I now feel obliged to write my next AARlander article en Français to mark occasion.
Bah! We already uncovered your incapability to speak the language, it's a trait of the English pig-dog!:rofl:
Yes, some individuals always refuse to accept the ways of the society. But if one is not willing to contribute to the society, why should the society contribute for the existence of an individual who is in an conflict with the rest of the society? I mean if you do not bring something to the market, you cannot take anything away from the market. Society is an extension of the market. Thieves take away, they do not produce anything of value to others. Should the society protect those? Should the state exist to protect them too?
A bit rainy today, cannot see much.
We enter the markets out of a voluntary choice, we are not forced to sell our labour or produce any goods that others can use. We are free to escape the woods, live in a distant cabin, grow our own potatoes, chop our own wood... etc. There was some recent example of a Russian family that escaped the 1920s civil war to forests of Siberia, from where they were discovered somewhat after the fall of Soviet Union. They survived and did not die after abandoning their participation in the chaotic Russian society/market.
You do not become a great man unless you do something great. That usually involves great violations against other individuals. Do they call Albert Einstein 'the Great' for his scientific accomplishment? Do they call Mendel or Darwin 'Great? But then we have Catherine the Great, Friedrich der Grosse, Charlemagne... all known for their violent campaigns against other nations, getting their own soldiers and opposing soldiers killed. 'Honest Abe'? Yes, slavery is bad, but this gentleman also more or less destroyed the principle of federalism and turned US into a strong centralized state. Good for the guys in Washington, less good for the citizens of the individual states.
Churchill? You already know enough about that great man.
And people have every right to remain stupid out of free will. Enlightenment should be offered, not forced upon. The concept of 'education' is also quite shaky. Is it a right to be able to read? In what language? Mandatory other languages just because...? State written history, just because nationalistic flames cannot die? Enforcing the dogma of states being necessary to schoolkids in early age?
There should be no 'right to be brainwashed by the state', rather one should be able to choose between maybe state schools, private schools or home schools, or religious schools...
For example the right to breath can be clear; you are entitled to consume oxygen, no one is allowed to prevent you from consuming oxygen.
Education is more complex. What is defined as correct education, what is bad education? What is the official dogma? Why cannot kids be home schooled? Do they need to be able to calculate integrals, if they spend their lives farming? Talk many languages? Do you have a right to understand how three dimensional objects areas are calculated? Or is it simply about being able to read?
Government itself does not create, it consumes and leeches. But it can task other people to for example chop wood for it. The act is not done by an entity called 'government', rather some person with an axe.
Or example of artillery. Government can order certain people to build a factory, buy machines that can make artillery, and purchase labour from people, so to get the work done.
So the factory is constructed by people, the bricks are laid down by people, the machines are manned by people, the whole thing is financed by people even if they did not approve off it. So what did government actually create?
I think you'll find that that particular incident was far from representative of my ability with the language.
Since when have Britons been learning foreign languages?
Since the Saxon Invasion at least.
Yes, some individuals always refuse to accept the ways of the society. But if one is not willing to contribute to the society, why should the society contribute for the existence of an individual who is in an conflict with the rest of the society? I mean if you do not bring something to the market, you cannot take anything away from the market. Society is an extension of the market. Thieves take away, they do not produce anything of value to others. Should the society protect those? Should the state exist to protect them too?
A bit rainy today, cannot see much.
We enter the markets out of a voluntary choice, we are not forced to sell our labour or produce any goods that others can use. We are free to escape the woods, live in a distant cabin, grow our own potatoes, chop our own wood... etc. There was some recent example of a Russian family that escaped the 1920s civil war to forests of Siberia, from where they were discovered somewhat after the fall of Soviet Union. They survived and did not die after abandoning their participation in the chaotic Russian society/market.
You do not become a great man unless you do something great. That usually involves great violations against other individuals. Do they call Albert Einstein 'the Great' for his scientific accomplishment? Do they call Mendel or Darwin 'Great? But then we have Catherine the Great, Friedrich der Grosse, Charlemagne... all known for their violent campaigns against other nations, getting their own soldiers and opposing soldiers killed. 'Honest Abe'? Yes, slavery is bad, but this gentleman also more or less destroyed the principle of federalism and turned US into a strong centralized state. Good for the guys in Washington, less good for the citizens of the individual states.
Churchill? You already know enough about that great man.
And people have every right to remain stupid out of free will. Enlightenment should be offered, not forced upon. The concept of 'education' is also quite shaky. Is it a right to be able to read? In what language? Mandatory other languages just because...? State written history, just because nationalistic flames cannot die? Enforcing the dogma of states being necessary to schoolkids in early age?
There should be no 'right to be brainwashed by the state', rather one should be able to choose between maybe state schools, private schools or home schools, or religious schools...
For example the right to breath can be clear; you are entitled to consume oxygen, no one is allowed to prevent you from consuming oxygen.
Education is more complex. What is defined as correct education, what is bad education? What is the official dogma? Why cannot kids be home schooled? Do they need to be able to calculate integrals, if they spend their lives farming? Talk many languages? Do you have a right to understand how three dimensional objects areas are calculated? Or is it simply about being able to read?
Government itself does not create, it consumes and leeches. But it can task other people to for example chop wood for it. The act is not done by an entity called 'government', rather some person with an axe.
Or example of artillery. Government can order certain people to build a factory, buy machines that can make artillery, and purchase labour from people, so to get the work done.
So the factory is constructed by people, the bricks are laid down by people, the machines are manned by people, the whole thing is financed by people even if they did not approve off it. So what did government actually create?
Society is political and the market is an extension of it. Blah blah this is going no where, debate over.
Dropping this, this is the, what, third time we've hit this particular point. We don't agree, debate over.
Aye, artists, scientists and explorers are just as great as politicians and military men. If you don't see that, it's interpretation. Debate over.
Stupidity is not a choice, ignorance is. I don't care about your thoughts enough to argue these points. You simply don't value people enough to allow education, preferring the rights of the one over the rights of the many in this case. I disagree. Debate over.
Again, we disagreed here many times. A man can pick up a rock and say it is valuable, others agree? That is valuable. Turns out the man is a tax collector and takes the rock he picked up and brings it to the government. Voila, creation. You will disagree with this, and we've argued this stupid point enough. I'm not going to continue down a rabbithole of Lockeanesc pseudo-laws on property and it's rights simply because you put the individual over the majority in all cases. Debate over.
Debate over
Using your logic of putting collective before the individual;
10 men stranded on an isle
they get hungry
the needs of the collective require that they survive, because they have a right to live, therefore something must be eaten
lets say 9 of them are right handed, one is left handed. The right handed people vote that in order to protect their right to live, they have to eat the left handed guy. The rights of the majority are greater than the rights of the individual!?
Next 8 brown eyed guys eat the one green eyed guy. The rights of the collective triumph over the individual and so on...
This progress continues until there are only 2 guys left, with neither of them able to gain majority. What now?
How would putting the rights of the individual over the collective change this situation? Awfully crafted hypothetical is awfully crafted.
But assume a theoretical situation where 50% demand their right to X, and the other 50% demand their right to Y. Both cannot be achieved at the same time. They both claim they have a fundamental basic human right to this, claiming that a collective need to this exist, and therefore their own side should win in that conflict.
Both use the argument of a collective superior right; who defines it?
Does a majority always decide what a 'human right'? Or are they just subjective opinions about several topics?
Enewald, our glorious leader has a saying, which he termed the First Law of Holes: "When you're in a hole, stop digging." Enewald, you're about halfway to China as we speak. Stop digging.
Since when have Britons been learning foreign languages?
Now that was a low blow...
- Status