Is Chaotic evil more evil than Lawful evil?

[WayneLigon]

Man, I can hear the impending CLUNK from here. Thanks, guys.

 

[S'mon]

Example from the SF genre - Star Trek takes a romantic view of human nature, Babylon-5 a pragmatic one. This doesn't make either show good or evil, though.

 

[buzzard]

of course he was.

But my point, which went right past you, was that his philosophy of government, which able to be described as Conservative in a European sense is not in an American sense. You apparently have no grasp of American conservative philosophy beyond a cartoon level.

Gufffaw!!!! Tell that to an Italian!

Tell that to a history book. Mussolini started as a Socialist. That is as fact. You can flaunt your ignorance further by disputing this.

You are so ignorant. Julius Caesar instituited social programs, so did assorted King's of England, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, that has nothing to do with being left wing or liberal or socialist. Your newspeak is so orwellian I can't believe you can spew it out without choking on it.

DB

You accuse me of Newspeak and then you turn around and say that instituting social programs is not socialist. Accusing someone of both ignorance and double speak when you flaunt both to an incredible degree is such alarming hypocracy that I am aghast.

Of course this likely will get slapped shut by the moderators, but I would like to say that I just wanted people to lay off the politics in the first place. You have completely disregarded that suggestion in contravention to the policies on this site.

buzzard

 

[Drifter Bob]

Tell that to a history book. Mussolini started as a Socialist. That is as fact. You can flaunt your ignorance further by disputing this.

That doesn't mean that his policies as a leader were socialist. Ronald Reagan used to be a liberal as a youth, does that mean that he was a liberal president?

You accuse me of Newspeak and then you turn around and say that instituting social programs is not socialist. Accusing someone of both

As I have pointed out, nearly every monarch, i.e. king or queen over the ages years has instituted social programs of one kind or another. Does that make them socialists?

Of course this likely will get slapped shut by the moderators, but I would like to say that I just wanted people to lay off the politics in the first place. You have completely disregarded that suggestion in contravention to the policies on this site.

Rather than write the response to this that I am itching to write, (and which I would tell in a second if you were here in person to discuss this with in a bar room or something) I am going to recognize something about the internet.

A wize man once told me that arguing on the internet is like entering the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.



I would also like to propose a theory, which I will call the Alignment Uncertainty Princple. This is a variation of Heisenburgs Unceratinty principle, known to students of Quantum Mechanics, which states that you cannot know the true state of observed phenomena, because the act of observing actually changes the phenomena.

I now believe that one cannot understand alignments as presented in D&D, because one's own alignment will get in the way. Thus if you are lawful, you will percieve chaos as evil. If you are chaotic, you will percieve law as evil. If you are yourself evil, you will tend to percieve evil as good, and good as evil (a manichean outlook)

This is why alignment has been so confusing to those of us who play D&D!


DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

I think the whole concept of 'the political spectrum' is wrong. I see it as more of a line , a continuous line with no beginning and no end, but not infinite. Yup, a circle. Left and right are merely mirror images of each other. The words and descriptions may change, but the results invariable become the same.

I think a more apt examination would look at the relationship between anarchy and government.

By the way, lets try to keep thing civil, before this interesting discussion gets locked.

I actually agree with this to some extent, though that is due to the simple conventional linear analysis being flawed. I would break it down on two axis, economic and political. On the left end of the economic spectrum, collectivism, i.e. communal ownership of all resources. On the right, oligarchy, roman style aristocratic ownership of all resources by the smallest possible minority. On the top, big government Imperial dictatorship or absolute monarchy, on the bottom, total democracy, decentralization, federated governance with local autonomy.


DB

 

[VirgilCaine]

I agree with you that socialism doesn't necessarly mean big government, but I believe what you are talking about really is libertarian socialism or anarchism.

Do you mean anarcho-socialism by this? "Original" "Old Country" libertarianism and not late 20th-century Libertarianism? Or what?

 

[VirgilCaine]

That is a deadly insult to all of the socialists, trade unionists and leftists that Hitler put into the concentration camps. You people are really, really sick. I wish to god you would come and say this to my face.

DB

Personally, I think that Nazism is Nationalist Socialism--using socialism on a national scale only...but thats just me.

Speaking of which, 'capitalist democracy' as modern first-world countries experience it, comes complete with significant chunks of socialism. State ownership, as listed above, is one such chunk; public health and education too...though all of these are slipping away, according to some. So maybe one day socialism will release its grasp on pure capitalism - who knows.

Well those things, and the command agricultural economy for one, here in the U.S.

But who in the world thinks that state control is slipping away? A person who sees a difference between a "gov't lackey corporation" doing something and an honest to goodness public employee?

 

[Umbran]

Drifter Bob:

We are very lucky that the mods have allowed this thread to continue as long as it has. Discussion with tone such as you have used of late will surely kill this thread deader than Rasputin. Please keep it civil. Avoid name calling, foul imagry, insults, and personal attacks upon others. I don't care how strongly you may disagree, you can be polite about it or we won't talk about it at all.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Do you mean anarcho-socialism by this? "Original" "Old Country" libertarianism and not late 20th-century Libertarianism? Or what?

of course, small 'l' libertarianism, i.e. the real thing, not the US version which is actually minarchism...


DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

Drifter Bob:

We are very lucky that the mods have allowed this thread to continue as long as it has. Discussion with tone such as you have used of late will surely kill this thread deader than Rasputin. Please keep it civil. Avoid name calling, foul imagry, insults, and personal attacks upon others. I don't care how strongly you may disagree, you can be polite about it or we won't talk about it at all.

Hmmm.. I seem to have noticed a certain amount of name calling toward me.

Either way, I'm not going to try to argue politics here any further.

With regard to the actual thread, I'm sticking to my theory of the Uncertainty of Alignment principle. Anyone interested in discussing that will find me receptive.

DB