Jump to content

Roleplayer’s Off Topic Thread #4


Grim Ones vs Emperor's Blades (Third Era)  

6 members have voted

  1. 1. Who wins?


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

Having further thought about this I initionally said I fell on priori but if that were the case, doesn’t it mean you wouldn’t believe for instance that treason was possible?

That would seem to be the case. If no state can be legitimate and no political obligation exists, then I assume treason against the state would not be a thing.

*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BigBossBalrog said:

I'm still pissed Thrawn lost to Space Whales...

I thought it was perfect. Not a variable he could account for and it matched the Bindu’s prophecy to a T. “Surround by many arms in a cold embrace”

Fuck:dntknw:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Bright btw, it was silly as fuck lol but in a good way, was better than I thought. The premise was ridiculous at first due to no world building but I like that, it doesn’t really need it because it’s kind of a spoof of the fantasy culture anyway.

You don’t need to know what went down with Orcs and the dark lord, it’s probably an LOTR reference anyway, or a reference to something inspired by Tolkien like most stuff. So it dropping you right into the cop partner dynamic with will smith and his boi works pretty well.

Surprised how much I enjoyed it by the end. And the elf chicks were hot XD 

  • Like 1

"Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Good Doctor said:

I like that you can tell how young they are. Good stuff, man. 

I’m also even more convinced now that they’re brothers. XD 

I’m pretty happy with it myself. I really like what she did with Ubbe because I gave her no real guidance other that his hair and tattoo. 

Fuck:dntknw:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Good Doctor said:

That would seem to be the case. If no state can be legitimate and no political obligation exists, then I assume treason against the state would not be a thing.

I'm not sure about that actually, if by "treason" you mean to trespass on the freedom of other individuals. People like to say that libertarians are about selfishness but it's really opposition to the association by compulsion, versus freely chosen loyalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Celan said:

I'm not sure about that actually, if by "treason" you mean to trespass on the freedom of other individuals. People like to say that libertarians are about selfishness but it's really opposition to the association by compulsion, versus freely chosen loyalties.

I agree with you about libertarianism not being selfish, but I’m not sure if simply trespassing on the freedom of other individuals is technically “treason” by the typical definition of the word. Not saying it’s right or okay, just that it’s a different affront than treason.

I’ve always understood treason to mean betrayal of the state, which can’t occur if you have no obligations to it at all.

*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

I agree with you about libertarianism not being selfish, but I’m not sure if simply trespassing on the freedom of other individuals is technically “treason” by the typical definition of the word. Not saying it’s right or okay, just that it’s a different affront that treason.

I’ve always understood treason to mean betrayal of the state, which can’t occur if you have no obligations to it at all.

Indeed which is the only thing keeping me from signing off to that form of anarchy. 

But there’s levels and variations of nearly everything.

"Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

I agree with you about libertarianism not being selfish, but I’m not sure if simply trespassing on the freedom of other individuals is technically “treason” by the typical definition of the word. Not saying it’s right or okay, just that it’s a different affront than treason.

I’ve always understood treason to mean betrayal of the state, which can’t occur if you have no obligations to it at all.

What I'm getting at is that it depends on what the action is that's being called treason. If you just mean "treason in your heart," then yes, I think philosophical anarchists would say "have at it." :) If you mean an action that would infringe on someone else's liberty, that's a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

I mean like giving info to the enemy, killing leaders. Real treason lol.

Info might be tricky, I think most anarchists would say information wants to be free. How did you get it, though? Did you take some kind of oath of silence and are breaking it? If you just stumbled on it accidentally, chances are the enemy already knows.

But philosophical anarchists aren't the twirly moustache types. This isn't about bombing Washington. The difficulty comes when you're in a position of defending yourself and your liberty, where one would usually say that violence is justified if it's for self defense. You can't kill the tax man, but he can ruin your life. This tension is where a lot of libertarian minded conservatives live.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheCzarsHussar said:

Clone Wars was cancelled for Rebels.

That's never be proven. Clone Wars had a cult following, but it did rather badly with's it's target audience. Adults loved it, but kids didn't watch it. By the end of the series, George was paying for it from his own wallet. 

My favorite part of the season. I teared up. *sniff*

tumblr_p55wkjhiRh1vlcstlo1_1280.gif

tumblr_p55wkjhiRh1vlcstlo9_1280.gif

tumblr_p55wkjhiRh1vlcstlo7_1280.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Celan said:

Info might be tricky, I think most anarchists would say information wants to be free. How did you get it, though? Did you take some kind of oath of silence and are breaking it? If you just stumbled on it accidentally, chances are the enemy already knows.

But philosophical anarchists aren't the twirly moustache types. This isn't about bombing Washington. The difficulty comes when you're in a position of defending yourself and your liberty, where one would usually say that violence is justified if it's for self defense. You can't kill the tax man, but he can ruin your life. This tension is where a lot of libertarian minded conservatives live.

Where would you say you fall between the two types mentioned?

edit: if you had to pick one.

"Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Rebels confirmed one of my favorite characters is canon.

maxresdefault.jpg

Mother fucking Palleon. He's a super badass Imperial Officer, and one of the few to be a genuinely good person (He eventually became friends with Leia). I wonder what character is going to be canoised next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

Where would you say you fall between the two types mentioned?

edit: if you had to pick one.

I don't consider myself an anarchist, I just sympathize with that viewpoint. If I had to pick it would be a priori, on the basis that obedience to a state is abdicating one's own moral autonomy. But I think you can also take the pragmatic view that obedience to a rich, powerful state with a big army is your best bet in life. :lol:

I also am sentimental about the land itself, even though I don't live on the land I was born and raised on. I might even be superstitiously attached to the land.

Anyway my point earlier was that most people won't listen to reasoned arguments about anything. I'm afraid that as women come to dominate ever more in education and the social sciences, the rule of emotionalism will grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Celan said:

I don't consider myself an anarchist, I just sympathize with that viewpoint. If I had to pick it would be a priori, on the basis that obedience to a state is abdicating one's own moral autonomy. But I think you can also take the pragmatic view that obedience to a rich, powerful state with a big army is your best bet in life. :lol:

I also am sentimental about the land itself, even though I don't live on the land I was born and raised on. I might even be superstitiously attached to the land.

Anyway my point earlier was that most people won't listen to reasoned arguments about anything. I'm afraid that as women come to dominate ever more in education and the social sciences, the rule of emotionalism will grow.

Watch it, it’s womens day today. Have some respect :stare: 

I don’t know that I’m an anarchist, philosophical or not but I suppose I tend to have beliefs that would be shared with them such as the people policing themselves.

On the grounds that most people be armed and educated on how to use and take care of a firearm.

  • Haha 1

"Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...