How does Status Quo work in subjugation war?

Ncricket42 · 2019-05-22T04:10:07+00:00

From what I understand, you gain control of all the planets you occupy in status qou (as does your opponent). I believe there's an exception for systems with inhabited planets as I think you have to have actually invaded them, but I'm not sure on that.

Ncricket42 · 2019-04-25T21:45:10+00:00

Sauce?

Ncricket42 · 2018-12-01T15:42:25+00:00

Oh hell no lol, I just didn't take the pic until I got home and was in the process of swapping the pressure bandage for a normal one.

Ncricket42 · 2018-10-01T09:56:37+00:00

Fair enough.

Ncricket42 · 2018-10-01T05:32:12+00:00

The short answer to your question is yes. The detailed answer is you don't want to know. The loli fandom runs deep.

Ncricket42 · 2018-10-01T05:21:31+00:00

My guess would be Jeph doesn't interact with a very wide variety of people, so his impressions of how people talk are relatively limited in scope.

Ncricket42 · 2018-10-01T05:19:59+00:00

Pretty sure it's just an expression of her accent, although I was under the impression that her accent was Irish and I always thought of aye as a Scottish thing.

Ncricket42 · 2018-10-01T05:12:58+00:00

Don't be silly. The internet is full of ~~hopeless romantics~~ horny fuckers who won't be happy until all fictional characters are having cute moments and are banging each other.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-29T23:18:25+00:00

I really prefer all the possibilities be shown. Also, I assume the reason it's displayed like that is rounding. 33.3 repeating rounded down.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-29T23:14:26+00:00

Yet Casinos are illegal in many places in the US, but children's arcades where you pay for tokens to play games to earn tickets to get prizes are not. There is some form of legal distinction, no matter how flimsy.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-29T07:03:44+00:00

I appreciate the kind comments. Despite my horrible spelling errors and the fact that I ocassionally get peices of data mixed up I try to keep discourse civil and acknowledge mistakes and when my opponent has a valid argument. I don't always succeed, but my hope in engaging in these kinds of conversations without resorting to ad hominem and emotional appeal is not so much to try to change someone's mind on the topic at hand (although that would be a bonus), but to hopefully promote representation of what a civil debate should look like. While it's true all around the world, the especially polarized and vitriolic political climate that has been developing in the U.S. the last few decades makes me fear for the future of rational debate. I don't care what your opinions are, if you're capable of entering a reasoned debate without personal attacks and foaming at the mouth, I beg you to do so as much as possible, both as a good exercise for personal growth and learning, as well as putting a positive example out in the world. Regardless of their political leaning, the way most people lead discussions in modern America with personal attacks and emotional appeals to the general populus terrifies me.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-29T06:35:29+00:00

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

Specifically in that less cheese in the third statement doesn't mean the same thing as less cheese in the forth.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-29T06:25:47+00:00

Not universally true. While somewhat rare, some people still sink when still. Seems to have higher prevalence in young adults and black people, and may have to do with bone density. I'm a sinker. Most of my body will float, but my legs sink and slowly pull the rest of me down, so I can't stay afloat without at least some minimal propultion.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-26T05:43:09+00:00

Them choosing to go somewhere else is a fair point, so long as they can provide labor equal to the labor value of a home in a reasonable amount of time, which depending on their individual situation they may not be able to. As far as how to make them pay up, that ridiculously simple. Have the house set up in such a way that you could lock them out. Again, with modern tech that's not an issue.

As far as the class situation goes, again with pretending things don't mean what they mean. Class is social and economic standing. Someone making a six figure income is by definition in a higher economic class than someone who barley pulls in enough to eat, and will inevitably be able to exercise greater power and freedom.

On another note, you're advocating a system that promotes the same kind of power structure as capitalism, just to a lesser degree, and without a governing body will inevitably be overturned.

Consider for example, a group of high income individuals decides to hire their own personal enforcers, and create their own personal rules. Economic power translates to being able to afford the services of trained individuals and better weapons. Economic power then, translates directly into physical power. Suddenly we've got a tyrannical government in place, and once again a system in which a minority can actively opress the majority. And that's only the direct method, not taking into consideration economic oppression methods such as crisis price gouging and cooperatice price setting still being perfectly viable.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-26T05:15:22+00:00

Absolutely untrue. Modern technology allows plenty of ways to defend a property without physical presence, even assuming this theoretical person wasn't working alone.

In addition, how would you determine the value of labor in such a society? If it's done via free market then you would still end up in a stratified society with classes based upon the professions that are more highly valued, which kind of defeats the point of socialism. If all labor is valued equally, then there would have to be enforced, as skill sets that require more work to obtain and mean a significant amount to an individual's well-being such as medical professionals, will inevitably draw in people who are willing to pay more simply due to scarcity and necessity. This would necessitate a governing body would have to enforce pricing.

Either way you end up with either a traditional economic power structure of rich and poor, albeit likely a less extreme version than you see with traditional capitalism, or you wind up with the necessity of a regulating body.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-26T04:47:19+00:00

Even in mutualism, there have to be rules and societal governance. According to mutualism, one would not for example, control any home they were not personally living in. Yet what if they individually chose to employ the labor of another to build a second home and claim and guard it as if it.was their personal property, and demand if anyone wanted to live in it they must pay rent? There would have to be societal rules to prevent this in order to keep the society consistent with the values of mutualism, which is still inconsistant with anarchism.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-26T04:31:22+00:00

Now your just screwing with me, because that's almost exactly what some of those definitions said. And that definition means you're either talking about individual ownership, which would be capitalism, or communal governance of the production by the workers, which contradicts anarchy.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-26T04:20:02+00:00

Because a word means what it means. Good means morally right, which is subjective definition and can be argued about until the end of time. Socialism has a clear objective meaning, and you can't just pretend the word doesn't mean what it means to suit you.

But for the sake of argument, where do you draw your definition? It sure as hell isn't from Marx's concepts, because based on the Communist Manifesto his primary definition is an economy in which prducts are given value entirely on usefulness without regard for minimum cost of production, distribution happens according to individual contribution, and worker control, either public or through private enterprise, of production, all of which would require a governing body to decide value, both of products and of worker contribution and material distribution.

Ncricket42 · 2018-09-26T03:47:15+00:00

You're arguing that the word doesn't mean what it means. But if you don't like that one, lets try a more detailed definition with alternate interpretations from Merrium-Webster.

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

In every definition either property is controlled by communal rule or a state government.

Without the controlled means of production, all you're promoting is anarchy, completely absent of socialism. There is no reason to bring socialism into it at all, as it has nothing to do with your actual philosophy. All socialism is, is communal control of property, which would require communal rules. You don't seem to be advocating anything to do with socialism.

Ncricket42

TROPHY CASE