All posts by HeWhomForgetsPasswords
You Enclave dudes are cool....
Loot drops.
The CoM is really not good. Cultures that use human sacrifices aren't long for this world.
I made a mistake. They won't fail because they are godless. I shouldn't have used that word. My passions can get the better of me. For that, I'm sorry. Not just to you, but whomever else I offended.
All earthly kingdoms fail. For none of them are eternal.
The NCR would be better for X-amount of people; Worse for X-amount. You can swap out NCR with any of the other 3 factions. What those numbers are for the 4? I have no idea, dude. What is unique about, primarily Yes Man, is all the good/bad things that can happen. They are located in the Mojave/Vegas. With the NCR and Legion, good/bad things will scale along with their growth. Which is, everything in their borders and what their borders touch. *A Dad Farmer Joke; I don't want all the land, I just want all the land that borders my land.* A larger "tax base" allows any governing body to become bigger and more powerful. Which makes them dangerous. I'm more for decentralizing power rather than expanding it.
If one uses the justification that since the Mojave/NV {reason(s) x,y,z,} for "their safety," they should be under the flag of the Bear. That gives justification for NCR placing all the various groups/peoples/cultures that the NCR can get to under "their safety."
The NCR can go back to where they belong; New California. NCR and Mojave/NV can exchange trade with each other, which helps in preventing soldiers crossing borders. The Legion *The OG Old World Larp'ers,* can be smoked and Mr. House can have his true sleep. A roll of the dice, taking the chance that the Mojave/NV can govern themselves. They can't, bummer. For governing bodies using coercion will come back.
I got a thread locked here? What did I say here that would get this locked?
I believe Yes Man to be a better option out of the 4. For it doesn't elevate a potential empire.
Yes. They will all fail. For they are all godless.
Democracy is Mob Rule. The minority is at the mercy of the majority. Democracy is super neat for the majority and not so super neat for the minority.
Dude. Taxation is coercion.
I've lived my whole life under their rule. Your arguments are their arguments.
Fallout is a post apocalyptic landscape due to strong nations that developed into nuclear powers, warred with each other and nuked most of the known world. *Vaut-Tec might have had a hand in it too.* Seems like a bad idea to run back the system that played a hand in turning the world into a post apocalyptic landscape. You say a nation spreading itself, I say a potential empire aggressing/invading onto peaceful people. To each their own.
Healthcare - Hell if I know which is better. What is apparent, that there will be healthcare in the Mojave; regardless who wins.
Security - You left out the part that people would be allowed to protect themselves and/or hire people for that.
Equality - Those are still unfortunately going to happen whomever is ruling.
Culture - There will be culture no matter who wins. You seem to value the NCR's culture above any other culture that is or could be in the Mojave. Fair enough.
Opportunity - The NCR's biggest problem isn't even to do with their own govt or society, it's that New California's prewar resources are nearly exhausted and pushing the nation towards constant expansion. Just how structured is this NCR society? Seems like it is falling apart unless it can take from others. That makes the NCR a predator and its citizen's opportunities are scavenging off of the NCR's kills.
All those things can be done without coercion.
Score one for the NCR.
Doesn't look so good for those NCR dudes on the TV show.
Generally speaking. BoS > NCR. **We shall see in the TV show though.**
It is neat that "goods and services" provided through coercion gets baptized as a righteous thing.
Healthcare - The Followers of Apocalypse, traveling doctors, etc.
Security - Securitron *This is the most alarming thing to bank on for YM/MR. H,* and the people themselves.
Equality - I don't even know what that term means anymore
Culture - Every group has a culture, regardless of the nation/form of governance.
Opportunity - What in the NCR does those citizens have that citizens of the Mojave couldn't have?
*Lets check in on the "best nations of today's world right now.* Yikes.
I'm sure that if the NCR gets Hoover that the NCR will be content with what they have and that they will never have the need nor desire for other resources ever again and will never need to expand....
Your post is nearly word for word for what a USA Neocon politician has used to "spread Democracy *Inc,*" to justify invading some foreign nation who has stuff that the USA wants from them.
It is a mistake for Yes Man dudes to pick that option because the Mojave/NV will become a utopia of bad things never happening. The same can be said for those who pick any other of the 3 options for that same thinking.
Dude, you are admitting here that the NCR is a nation of adventurist imperialists who will use violence to take from others what they want themselves. I've been told this whole time that the NCR are the good guys!?!
That statement is so sugary I went into a diabetic coma. NCR murders, enslaves *taxation+conscription* and I'm sure there are some pedos in there as well.
Whichever one of the 4 choices a player chooses, they are all doomed to fail. For all 4 are all godless.
It is a matter of whom to "hand the keys over to" when the dust settles at Hoover Dam. I'd rather not hand the keys over to potential expanding empires.
Look what advancing civilization brought upon the world of Fallout.
Democracy = Mob Rule.
First World Technology = The capability of making Nuclear Weapons.
Yes Man ending allows the decentralization of power and not allowing any of these potential empires from "taking off." The Yes Man ending either gets rid of these powers OR "nips them in the bud."
To each their own though.
When NCR's entire borders is the entire North American continent and only then would NCR dudes might realize that was a bad idea.
Bottle Caps essentially have a uncompromising value. For one can't divide a bottle cap. Anything that isn't exactly divisible by $2.50 in NCR currency, *excluding 1 Bottle Cap = $3.50 NCR currency.* Either the buyer or seller isn't going to be happy.
For example, some dude buys $9.00 worth of goods in NCR territory. Using Caps, either the buyer pays 4 bottle caps or the seller accepts 3 bottle caps. Neither is going to like that transaction. Further bartering would have to take place and/or the use of NCR currency to make up the difference.
As mentioned above, if one wanted to exchange bottle caps for NCR Currency, there would be an exchange rate. Which is at the disadvantage to the dude w/Bottle Caps.
Huh.
Well, no objections on my end.
I can't say I have. Who is it?
A Need for human beings is human interaction. Sharing a meal with one another is one of the more popular and satisfying ways to do that. That was me pushing back on the notion that the only benefit for eating is not dying. *While I also poorly worded that response and adding to much filler to it.*
I mentioned the fasting part for you because in a previous post you made. You were taking for granted when one benefits when their needs are meet. The "best" way to truly appreciate those things, is when they are removed from a person. Hopefully, voluntarily and temporarily. That and the sentiment before that was causing my frustration. For the sentiment before that, until later admitted. Was trying to separate benefit from Needs/Wants and overall being slippery with what benefit actually means. For the overwhelming reason one fulfills a Need/Want is to benefit from fulfilling a particular Need/Want. That is why people could choose to do a "necessary evil(s)".
If you feel that I berated you and others, I'm sorry for that. Don't be so precious on your end though. You have called me a MF'er, a kid, and a bot.
Fasting may be more trendy now, for others, it has been a way of life for thousands and thousands of years. Fasting in the culture now is incomplete, for it doesn't consider the entire being of a human.
Would it make you feel better if I select See Results?
I'm not even a supporter of the cannibal option.
"it may be necessary to eat a corpse you found (or eat with sketchy tribals), but to kill and eat the person, perhaps not."
What type of corpse are you talking about here? What is one "eating" with sketchy tribals? Forgive me if I assume incorrectly, to me those read as human flesh. Which, I'm not entirely sure how against cannibalism you claim yourself to be. Perhaps not means just as much as perhaps so. You aren't supporting either for/against on the issue.
"Is it necessary to kill AND eat someone to survive? That's gotta be double evil. It may be necessary to kill at some point,"
"Slavery isn't necessary but if anyone wanted to get any large scale projects done and couldn't convince anyone to help they would need it."
"I'm going with drug dealing" - - - - "prostitution is icky and fills the same need as drug dealing."
*And possibly above Cannibalism looking post,* Those encapsulates my entire point. Whatever one considers as a "necessary evil." That person is cracking the doors open for all of them. I reject the notion that one can *fictionally or not,* pick a necessary evil and outright disqualify any other "evils."
If one is willing to bail on their beliefs the moment things get bad, just how important are those beliefs to that person?
I didn't bring up fasting. Littlebigpig did. I responded to his erroneous view on it.
Bingo. For if a person thinks it is a benefit to be alive and cannibalism is a necessary evil that one is willing to resort to. That is what I was trying to unearth from you. For when you said these two things previously "If the only benefit for an action (eating) is the lack of a punishment (slow agonizing death) caused by not fulfilling said action, can you even call it a benefit at all?" & "Also as sax said, eating isn't something you do to "benefit" you, it's a need," You weren't fully being honest with yourself.
Fair enough.
Option 3. I'm a dude who isn't above making mistakes and recognizing when I do so. I could have worded that better.
Treating your soul well is necessary until it isn't. You aren't being honest with yourself.
Also I like how you're insinuating sharing human flesh with people you care about, as that's the only "food" being discussed, while taking the position you do.Forgive me, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Do you think I'm taking a pro-cannibalism side now? I'm truly lost.
Why would I participate in a poll when I think none of them are necessary? As too what I want to accomplish? Being better.
Eating just not to die isn't the only reason for eating. Our bodies need sustenance to fuel us. We all have tasks that need to be accomplished; as such, that will take "fuel" to get that done. *Also the soul and body need voluntary fasting, but, that is a different conversation.* There is also the social/communal benefit with sharing a meal with people you care for. If you disagree with my answer; do a strict fast for 10 days while also being crazy active. Tell me if your opinion changes or not.
--
What an odd implication. Completely wrong none the less. For that isn't what benefit means at all.
There are many differences between fasting and starving. The key difference is fasting is voluntary. Anyone truly being honest recognizes that Wants and Needs being met can be beneficial. Why are you playing these ridiculous word games?
Stating the obvious means nothing if the one doesn't even fully understand what they are saying. You as well can join Foto on a strict fast while being active and see if your opinion changes. The spirit of your response shows how truly ungrateful you are to the things that benefit you, and just how much you take them for granted. One of the things that fasting does is the recogination of one's blessings.
Treating your soul in a healthy way isn't necessary when things are bad? I strongly oppose that sentiment.
Yes these things are all soulless, they're done out of desperation and the will to survive an inhospitable nuclear wasteland.
That is why in my initial post I said that if you open the door for one of these, you are cracking the door open for all of those.
Alcohol has health benefits when consumed wisely. We should define benefit how it is defined. That it is, we are in agreement with that twice. 1) That fulfilling a need can be beneficial and 2) it is a redundant statement.
Also as sax said "eating isn't something you do to "benefit" you, it's a need"
The difference between benefit and need is that if you don't do the things you need to do you die
I'm the one playing word games?
Replacing "Want" with "Benefit" is a mistake. Because fulfilling a Want and a Need can benefit a person(s). That is why dudes fulfill a Want or a Need, it is to benefit them and/or others.
Also as sax said, eating isn't something you do to "benefit" you, it's a needWhat is the distance between benefit and need?
in this case why wouldn't you eat them?There is more to life than merely surviving.
Such disregard for one's own soul in all these replies.
Opening the door for one of these is cracking the door open for all of them. For they all have the same root. I do X, even though evil, but X will "benefit" me.