Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Erm, Clarent is not Excalibur....
And, honestly, I think you're underestimating Rider. Still, it's largely irrelevant because I don't want to fight Mordred, and if I ever did need to then the "no killing without permission" thing comes into effect....
Rider's desire to not die
If you don't mind squeezing into the back seat with Zouken, Law's got some room.
“Honestly, parading servants around in such clothing. Has my system truly just become a tool to satisfy the base instincts of children?”
A calm voice echoed though the firebird, the disapproval was obvious in the tone. All the while magical binding spells wrapped throughout the engine of the car, locking it in place.
“In truth however, I am far more curious how you were even able to summon a servant in the first place boy. Do you mind explaining it to me?”
And there, in the back of the firebird sat a man with blue hair dressed in traditional Japanese clothing. Yes, in the back of the firebird, riding bitch, was Zolgen Makiri.
“Well boy?”
He laughed.
"Think of me as a psychotic, self-indulgent asshole if you want. Most people would probably agree with such description. With two/three variants, I guess."
The girl seemed like a good person if a bit cheeky. At this point, she was still a mere acquaintance so, he refrained from unfolding his life to her. His eyes fell on the bar and he grinned.
"Oh well, time's running and it appears your sire didn't feel like going on a rampage. Wanna check on her?"
"I won't pat your head if that's what you're worried about," Law said. "Just get up here and buckle up, please."
You gave me an idea.
Paladin's eyes widened with surprise when the blast of lava melted the werewolf that had just hit him. However there was no time to ponder where the unexpected aid had come from. The other werewolf was distracted by the sudden death of its companion, so Paladin moved in, and with a single strike the beast was decapitated. With that done Paladin sheathed his blade, and look over to find the person who had helped him. There. A man in a wagon who was also being watched by many creatures.
Paladin made his way towards the wagon, but when he saw the looks that the creatures were giving him and the man in the wagon he unsheathed his sword. Some of them began to focus on him. The tension in the air was thick enough to cut with a knife, and Paladin began to get a little worried. He was not equipped to fight a crowd. He stopped right by the front of the wagon and said, "I hope that offer for a ride is still available."
Yes, but so is discriminating against the poor because they are poor. The government should protect everyone, not use their power to enforce one-sided rules on the poor.
Except that part of the "democratic process" is holding views that differ from those of the government. Your statement explains why the law is as it is, it does not mean that I should believe that that law is right.
Plus, in any case, I believe in freedom over democracy. I believe that a reasonable level of democracy is necessary for freedom to exist (because, without it, you either suppress dissent or you end up with a revolution), but freedom is the goal I am for, and I have no issue with there being restrictions on what the majority can enforce.
The reason the law is like that is for two reasons. Firstly, because the government needs the support of the rich to obtain power and secondly because, yes, a system in which the government said "we'll allow theft as long as you're poor" would not be workable.
Plus, the government most certainly allows taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. It's just that it calls it "taxation" rather than "theft". The reason theft is legally prohibited is not because it is always wrong, but because there is no way you can design a legal system that can distinguish between when it is right and when it is wrong. However, because people do broadly-speaking support the concept of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, the government implements a system of taxation in order to do so on their behalf.
"It's illegal because it's illegal" is not a justification. Further, I'm pretty sure that said rule was changed by a government that did not have majority support to make the change and which could only do so because it isn't an issue most people care enough about to stop them.
No, but who you see as a "good guy" is a pretty big indicator of your morality. People would not consider Robin Hood a hero if they thought theft was always wrong.
High relative to Somalia, yes. Not relative to most of Europe or other developed countries.
Sure, because people in the US South are exceptionally good at brainwashing, and corporations are exceptionally good at using the media to convince turkeys to vote for Christmas. Plus, even though there are poor people in the US who vote Republican, even there they are in the minority, and I think that even the ones who do so are doing so mostly because of social issues (i.e. their adherence to traditional Christian values) rather than their economic policies.
Yes, of course actual ownership is more stable and secure, but my point is that it is not necessary. A homeless person gains far more by having somewhere to live than a non-homeless person gains by actually owning their home.
This is somewhat true in the case of the more radical right, but the radical right tends to appeal to poorer people by demonising someone else and blaming them for all the problems (in this country, ironically, it's usually the Polish or other Eastern European EU citizens...). They are also, oddly enough, generally less capitalist than the more moderate right-wing parties.
And, honestly, I don't get the impression that the moderate right is "on the rise". Further, even where they are, they are not generally gaining votes from the truly poor, but rather from the middle classes. And, they do so by acting as if the poor are the cause of their problems.
The majority of the population is not extremely poor. As a result, the extremely poor can be marginalised and left out of the democratic process without the government losing too many votes (which is something Thatcher realised in the 1980s, hence why she is so hated by much of the 60-odd % of the population that never voted for her). But, if the government takes that too far, the result will be revolution (or, at least, riots, like the ones we had in London a few years ago).
Also, Eastern Europe lived for 50 years under an extremely oppressive "communist" government, so it is not overly surprising that you guys associate socialism with oppression, and property ownership with freedom. In reality, that is not true at all, it is merely that particular form of socialism that is oppressive.
