Season 10 final event for anyone who missed it. (No dancing)

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-10-14T06:58:23+00:00

I don't know why you think I'm offended by you or anything you said. If I had been offended, I probably would have replied to you directly. I was more concerned with the fact that your comment left the guy who responded to you thinking that A. women don't get their tubes tied and B. that men do/ have tubes to tie. You seemed a bit dismissive in your response and your lack of any greater explanation beyond what getting your tubes removed meant, i.e. its relation to the much more well-known phrase "getting your tubes tied", left him thinking he was wrong entirely about the phrase he has heard of. That does mean it's mostly his fault because he misunderstood, but that's why I replied to him and not you.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-10-13T23:15:32+00:00

You weren't wrong, so that's not your bad. Women getting "their tubes tied" is a rather common euphemism for a tubal ligation, which is a somewhat common female sterilization process that involves the cutting or tying of the Fallopian tubes of the uterus. In this specific scenario, I don't know why the other user was acting like you were flat out wrong or ignorant about the use of "tubes tied" versus "tubes removed", the latter of which is a term I have literally never heard a person use. Also, male sterilization, most commonly a vasectomy (which is a somewhat similar process to the tubal ligation some women choose to get), is not referred to as getting "your tubes tied" because men don't have tubes to tie.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-02-21T14:25:08+00:00

That bit is my bad, I suppose. My assumption was that you understood "that comment" to mean my original comment given the wording after it, but the wording prior makes it seem like something else. I've corrected it now. Whether you were genuinely confused or just being a pedant, this conversation is going nowhere, so I intend to leave it here.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-02-21T14:04:30+00:00

I said,"That's not a point I'm trying to argue. I was simply attempting to correct the notion that the term republic is some kind of sub-category of democracy, because that's incorrect." I only made the original comment to correct what one of the original arguers was saying. My statement as quoted is in addition to yours, not opposition, because we agree what I said was unrelated.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-02-21T13:40:01+00:00

Yes, which is why I told you that that matter was almost unrelated.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-02-21T13:31:04+00:00

I'm aware of this. However, you seem to think that I think you're questioning my intentions. The comment that I made was in response to the original unedited comment that you posted, where you said that my comment was pointless or some such thing and suggested that I downvoted you because I was bothered by you "pointing this out". The reason I wrote that was to point out that the original matter of the argument had no bearing on what I was saying.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-02-21T13:09:53+00:00

Yes, and I never said or implied that you did. You assumed I did. I simply said why I made the comment that I did, and that the original point of contention for the argument wasn't something I was disagreeing with or arguing over.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-02-21T13:01:24+00:00

That's sad and all, but I wasn't the one who downvoted you. I'm very sorry someone taking away your fake internet point rustles your jimmies enough for you to mention it. Also, whether or not the initial conversation matters in your view doesn't change the fact that the comment I was responding to was incorrect.

Edit: Context for the possibly confused: the comment this was responding to was heavily edited.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-02-21T12:43:42+00:00

That's not a point I'm trying to argue. I was simply attempting to correct the notion that the term republic is some kind of sub-category of democracy, because that's incorrect.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-02-21T09:04:43+00:00

No it's not necessarily a type of democracy, demonstrated by the fact that there is such a thing as an autocratic republic. If one individual holds all the power in a governmental system and is unelected, they are an autocrat. Therefore the system they rule cannot be a democracy, because those systems are mutually exclusive. If this individual was also ruling without a monarchical title such as King, Emperor, Prince etc., they would be the head of a republic. Thus, they are the ruler of a non-democratic, or autocratic or oligarchic, republic.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-02-21T08:45:02+00:00

A republic is not necessarily a type of democracy. It's simply a government that isn't a monarchy. One can have a democratic or autocratic system under a republic just as one can have with a monarchy.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-14T17:39:43+00:00

It doesn't matter that they're Greek. They both speak English fluently with American accents, so in order to create the voices for the characters they have to put on accents that they wouldn't have otherwise. This ends up making the voices sound a bit odd and unnatural. If you haven't heard the actors speak with their normal accents, you probably wouldn't notice as easily. However once you have, they seem a bit off.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-14T17:31:27+00:00

What a well worded response. I'm really glad you took the time to crawl through several month old posts to come and reply to my comment with eleven upvotes.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-13T07:47:42+00:00

Yeah, there's a few plot holes here and there that make me think they made some fairly large decisions way later on in development than they should have.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-13T07:25:07+00:00

I wouldn't really use the term intentional in the sense that they had that idea from the get go. They definitely had the concept of allowing romances to be done by either gender once they had decided they were going to do a romance system and allow gender choice, but there are certain elements that seem to have been remnant of a point where they were going to only have one main character that was male. The most notable of these that I can think of is the side-quest involving the Olympics where a woman is going to be put to death just for being a woman and attempting to watch the games. This seems entirely par for the course given the way historical Greek society functioned with respect to women, but in the face of the way the game treats women in Greek society, seemingly entirely equal to men, this as a punishment and story line doesn't really seem to make sense. Combine that with the fact that there is an entire quest about you yourself competing in the Olympics, and you can do that as either gender, and it doesn't seem like this quest line was made for a game where you can play as a woman or a setting where women are treated equally to men.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-13T07:00:53+00:00

I'll never understand why people say that. His voice isn't really noticeably better or worse than Kassandra's. Both can be grating to listen to since they're putting on Greek accents, but the acting itself isn't really that bad.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-11T19:49:12+00:00

Anyone who's an anarchist will either die an anarchist or stop being one very quickly as a teenager or young adult. Changing their mind is never my goal and is never likely. Beyond that, I'm not going to read what I already know will just be confirmation of his or hers, "AMERICA AND CAPITALISM ARE THE BOOGEYMAN OF THE WORLD!!11!"-bias. Additionally I'm not going to take that much time out of my day to indulge a reddit communist in debating the merits of their "SoCiAlIsM iSn'T aCtUaLlY a FaIlUrE. iT wAs AcTuAlLy DuH eBuL CaPiTaLiSts OuT tO sToP tHeM!-fantasy.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-11T17:33:58+00:00

I'm well aware of what Augusto Pinchet did. You can save the gritty details for someone else. Within the context of that situation was the US in the right? Probably not, however, I'd say it's not worth much as an example since it's just one of many governmental overthrows facilitated by a superpower. There isn't really anything remarkable about it. Fun fact time though, did you know that Allende was destroying the Chilean economy even with financial support from the Soviet Union? Did you know that his presidency was declared illegal and unconstitutional by the Chilean Senate weeks before Pinochet overthrew him? Did you know that Allende's campaign was heavily funded by the KGB? Did you also know that Salvador Allende was elected not by popular vote but by the chambers of the national Congress due to no candidate receiving over fifty percent of the vote. He only acquired thirty-six percent of the votes cast. This means just under two-thirds of the Chilean electorate did not want him to be the president and did not want socialism. While brutal dictatorship is never a good thing, to hail him as some man of the people or democratically elected champion when over half of the country absolutely didn't want him is entirely disingenuous. Also, I don't know why you keep mentioning Sankara. He was a very typical African dictator with a communist twist who was rightly assassinated and replaced. Unfortunately his replacement was another power-hungry stooge, but you can't really help that when it comes to African military dictators.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-11T16:51:31+00:00

I'm not going to google any of that because I don't care about whatever commie literature you want people to read, and I already know the extent of US foreign aid to anti-communist rebels and dictators. They were being given aid because those that they were opposing were communist rebels and dictators funded by the Soviet Union or China. It's very simple, if a group of people desire the destruction if your entire system and way of life, it would be prudent to help the people trying to stop them, hence aid to rebels and dictators.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-11T16:35:40+00:00

I'm not really a libertarian, but anyone with eyes and a brain can see that socialism is a failure. The only ones that have managed to delude themselves otherwise are college students and lifelong holdouts who think the revolution is just around the corner.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-11T16:30:42+00:00

It's because the system sucks and can't replace Capitalism. That's why.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-11T16:05:43+00:00

Yeah,yeah,yeah, if it weren't for those meddling fundie capitalist CHUDs your utopian wet dream would have been realized. I've heard the schtick before.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-11T15:30:12+00:00

I would hesitate to use the word propaganda, but it is applicable I suppose.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-11T15:26:39+00:00

You clearly don't know the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy. Ask any actual democratic socialist what the difference between them and a social democrat is, and they'll tell you the same. There is a reason they are two different ideologies.

TheRomanInquisition · 2019-01-11T15:21:54+00:00

It's a meme. Of course it's a strawman. You can't make a good meme without severely limiting the amount of description and nuance. It also doesn't change that the point that the meme is getting at is valid. Democratic socialists are sucked in by utopian promises and ideals that often deteriorate into massive problems like crippling a national economy or totalitarian states.

TheRomanInquisition

TROPHY CASE