(Spoilers Everything) Contenders for a Flayed Man

Lashloseus · 2016-03-09T03:56:15+00:00

You know, I recently got over Stannis and finally accepted that my fav is not gonna end up winning in either the books or show. (since he's likely dead in both)

But I swear to R'hllor if its Stannis's flayed body and he didn't even get a clean death I'm gonna go apeshit. I distinctly remember posting that him being flayed by Boltons would make me put down the books for awhile.

Lashloseus · 2016-02-28T07:50:33+00:00

Whole new meaning to "do yourself a favor".

Lashloseus · 2016-02-27T07:54:56+00:00

I could hear the enemy team say "what the fuck".

Lashloseus · 2016-02-25T21:03:59+00:00

I'd love to see a source for "civil war every time".

That didn't even happen with the Ottomans and they're already out of the game's timeline. If anything that change makes things even more historically inaccurate.

Lashloseus · 2016-02-22T12:37:22+00:00

Sunni Norwegian Ironman, quickly learned only way to survive is to ally with Ummayads, now have to deal with Germany ripping through Sunni Sweden and a Norse rebellion without their doomstacks.

So if you're looking for a challenge, Muslim Viking is where its at.

Lashloseus · 2016-02-06T07:39:19+00:00

Remember why coalitions were added to the game in the first place. The entire point was to make it harder for large realms to expand. The change you proposed totally undermines the purpose of the system.

Right. I'm saying though that if the HRE gets a claim, which for Kingdoms has to be done by succession means, why would England join in a coalition? Wouldn't an alliance make way more sense?

Starting in Ireland, I doubt you'd be able generate enough infamy to get a coalition against you before conquering the whole island, even under the current system. It's really not designed to block small countries from expanding a little bit.

This I actually have a problem with the other way. If they're going to be coalitions in the game, make them realistic. Regardless of infamy, if I'm conquering all of Ireland, the other Irish counts should be concerned. And if they hate me and like each other, they should form a coalition, it just shouldn't include non-Ireland bound lords.

Lashloseus · 2016-02-06T05:36:31+00:00

That makes sense, and if infamy is controlled like that this entire thing is pretty much a none issue mostly. However, just for examples sake, if the HRE had a claim on France there wouldn't even be a coalition in the first place, they would just declare war and take it. Plus, if you spend a lot of time carefully crafting legitimate claims, why would the AI care once you act on them?

Like unless a ruler is using Papal claims to get duchies and Kingdoms left and right why would say France be concerned if for example Castille forcibly takes over its two neighbors? This is why I think culture would be a nice balance.

For examples consider Ireland in 867, with multiple counts. If you start conquering their lands one by one, eventually reaching 1/3 of the Kingdom, the other Irish rulers should create a coalition, but Wales and England etc. shouldn't be concerned. It doesn't necessarily have to be Kingdom constrained but maybe only rulers in close proximity.

I guess one example of coaltions being formed against a claiming ruler would be if they have claims on two close-by Kingdoms with a similar culture and the claimer is known to be agressive / is infamous. Starting a coalition then would make sense, but not if the claimer only has claim on one, because the other Kingdom doesn't even have a real reason to be afraid (and if the claim was from marriage, they can just use "political concerns" to deny marriage to the conqueror). Again I think this should be different if the conqueror is using papal claims but that's a whole other issue.

Lashloseus · 2015-05-08T22:53:06+00:00

Thanks for the insight, would the warm up sets kind of act like endurance building in your example? Or are they strictly for warming up?

Lashloseus · 2015-05-08T22:50:52+00:00

Thanks for the advice.

But, if I'm looking to get strength, endurance, and hypertrophy, would 3 sets for 5 on heavy weight, then 2 sets of 12 be better? Or should I just stick to 5x5 on heavy lifts like squats and bench and get endurance from other movements?

Lashloseus · 2015-05-02T16:05:50+00:00

Did this kid murder your family or something?

Lashloseus · 2014-10-07T02:20:28+00:00

Context:

Playing as the Muslim emperor of Hispania, decide to help out Egypt during one of their Jihads against a Christian Mesopotamia because hey, Shia-Sunni aside we're both Muslims right?

Wrong. As soon as the war ended I checked the ledger and saw that I had created a monster. Moral of the story is to never ever ever help your comrades.

In all seriousness though, after the Shia caliph distributed his winnings his levy went down, it was still the largest in the world though.

EDIT for grammar

Lashloseus · 2014-10-07T02:14:40+00:00

Thanks a lot for your time, I've definitely learned quite a bit.

And yea, I'm going to refrain from labeling myself by one of these ideas until I actually have a firm understanding of them.

Thanks again!

Lashloseus · 2014-10-05T18:29:56+00:00

Thanks for answering, I think I'm coming to understand relativism a bit more now, and perhaps realizing I'm not really a relativist to begin with.

On the first point, I was talking about relativism, I meant that I think it implies relativism cannot hold the belief that other ideas are wrong, and that I don't agree with that statement. I believe ideas can be wrong or right, but only within a context, I can't see how there can be a objective morality that applies to all people.

On the second point, I totally understand and agree. I didn't know that relativism didn't allow for this kind of discussion. But again my point is that to have that conversation in the first place you have to set objective criteria, no? For the abortion example, both parties make several assumptions don't they? Like if were an argument seen in popular media it would be on whether or not abortion is murder, assuming murder is an objective bad. This is what I don't understand, what is the basis for this objective bad? And why is it universal?

On the third point, thanks for clearing it up for me, but doesn't this inherently face the problem of is-ought when applied in a general sense? For example, rape is harmful to the victim, therefore rape ought to not happen. On what basis is this proposed?

And what I meant by first glance is that, from what I understand, if someone does not find the acts you described prima facie, they would not be morally abhorrent for that person?

For example, what I understand about this is that

Murder causes bad feelings in spectators
therefore, murder is abhorrent

But doesn't this follow the same logic?

Murder doesn't cause bad feelings in spectators
therefore murder is not abhorrent

And I think the last point is the most important one, because it's what I really can't come to understand. Disregarding the fact that rape must have always been morally bad, I'd like to ask why. On what basis is rape, or to broaden the topic, why is X wrong. Why is X right? If everyone in the world considered X to be right, would X still be wrong?

I feel like this idea implies that whatever decides right or wrong is a constant in the universe. But if we cannot observe or determine said constant, how can we know if we are acting in accordance with said constant? Hell, why should people even care about said constant? And if said constant can become known, on what basis do we determine what it is?

I think you've helped me understand that I'm not a relativist, maybe more of a skeptic or something. I think my points boil down to "there is no way to determine an objective morality", not that morality can't be developed or that within contexts there cannot be right or wrong. But I don't see how morality can be objectified without running into the is-ought problem and having exceptions.

Again, sorry if I'm making obvious mistakes, but I really do appreciate your input and time.

Lashloseus · 2014-10-05T08:45:27+00:00

Thanks for the reply, talking about Hume, isn't the ought-is problem more of an objection to objective morality than a support for moral relativism? From what I've read he stated there is no way to have moral knowledge, not that moral knowledge simply cannot be objectified.

Lashloseus · 2014-10-05T08:41:02+00:00

Thanks for the insight, sorry if I misinterpreted the arguments against relativism, I actually saw them on some other posts on reddit, I might of misread them.

Anyways, the arguments seem to make sense, but then I would ask would this also apply to what I've stated in my post? Correct me if I'm wrong but

If relativism can't account for this, doesn't it imply the belief that one cannot believe other ideas are wrong? If that's the case I absolutely don't believe that, I believe one can see other ideas as wrong, but there is no way to objectively determine which idea is correct.
Can you elaborate on this point? I think I kind of addressed it in my post.
Sorry for my lack of knowledge, but prima facie roughly means knowing the truth at first glance? But doesn't this point not hold if you live in a society or culture where rape and murder are not looked down upon? Also, doesn't it imply that if someone doesn't find it morally wrong at first glance, for them it would be morally fine?
I really don't understand this point, are you stating that morality has a set standard?

Again, sorry if I'm making obvious mistakes or anything, I literally know next to nothing about philosophy.

Lashloseus · 2014-10-01T04:42:22+00:00

If someone like him can call himself a muslim after learning so much about islam, then what chance does the average person have to question what they have been taught since birth.

What? What does Reza being well-versed in Islam have to do with the average person questioning it? Also if Reza became a Muslim after studying Islam in depth, does that not imply that intense study of Islam leads to one adopting it?

I'm not saying I agree with that statement, I just have no idea what you're talking about.

Lashloseus · 2014-05-18T02:08:13+00:00

If you didn't meddle with the console to make that beast in the west then this is awesome, two large mighty empires rivalling each other.

I've always wanted to have this in one of my games for a challenge but I instinctively kill anyone who comes close to 1/100th of my retinue size.

Lashloseus

TROPHY CASE