|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:48 pm
In revolutions, are reigns of terror justified? (I'm thinkin' French right now, but there have been others.) Have the oppressers really been so cruel to deserve that treatment?
(Sorry it's a skimpy topic. It'll be longer next time.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 9:02 pm
It depends on what the oppressors have done, honestly. From what I know of the French Revolution, (which isn't much, I gave it a cursory glance) all Marie Atoinette and her husband did was act like opulent fools. Which really isn't cause for death-by-guillotine, in my book. They were negligent rulers, not oppressive ones, from what I've read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Draven Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 10:25 pm
I tend to think that really, reigns of terror are never justified. You should never be remembered as the ones who slaughtered everyone. While I do understand the need for a little killing to keep people in mind, Robespierre was just a ******** moron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:20 am
It depends on the populace. I'm a great believer in reigns of terror if n00bs are on the receiving end of it. Not so much if it's me suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Draven Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:55 am
SilverDratini It depends on the populace. I'm a great believer in reigns of terror if n00bs are on the receiving end of it. Not so much if it's me suffering. I suppose the problem is that we (by which I, of course, mean I) can't advocate separating the populace by intelligence, without being hit with cries of "Eugenics!" and general snubbing. (I know, I've tried. The worst part is that Godwin's Law is inadmissible in vocal debate.) If it were possible, I would completely understand giving preferential treatment to intelligent people, after a certain point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:40 am
Cougar Draven SilverDratini It depends on the populace. I'm a great believer in reigns of terror if n00bs are on the receiving end of it. Not so much if it's me suffering. I suppose the problem is that we (by which I, of course, mean I) can't advocate separating the populace by intelligence, without being hit with cries of "Eugenics!" and general snubbing. (I know, I've tried. The worst part is that Godwin's Law is inadmissible in vocal debate.) If it were possible, I would completely understand giving preferential treatment to intelligent people, after a certain point. Oh, nothing to do with intelligence. Nominally. Do it on behaviour. I don't care whether your IQ is 50 or 185. You post/do something stupid, I invoke a reign of terror on your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Draven Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:53 am
SilverDratini Cougar Draven SilverDratini It depends on the populace. I'm a great believer in reigns of terror if n00bs are on the receiving end of it. Not so much if it's me suffering. I suppose the problem is that we (by which I, of course, mean I) can't advocate separating the populace by intelligence, without being hit with cries of "Eugenics!" and general snubbing. (I know, I've tried. The worst part is that Godwin's Law is inadmissible in vocal debate.) If it were possible, I would completely understand giving preferential treatment to intelligent people, after a certain point. Oh, nothing to do with intelligence. Nominally. Do it on behaviour. I don't care whether your IQ is 50 or 185. You post/do something stupid, I invoke a reign of terror on your head. I'm trying to figure out whether "homonymize" is a proper word when, all of a sudden, I think OH GOD MY BRAIN and have this interesting thought: Can it rain terror? And yeah, I'm thinking a simple, yet exponentially sadistic, three-strike program. First offense, slap on the wrist and a $500 fine. Second offense, a year in prison. Third offense, the death penalty. It makes sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:03 am
Cougar Draven SilverDratini Cougar Draven SilverDratini It depends on the populace. I'm a great believer in reigns of terror if n00bs are on the receiving end of it. Not so much if it's me suffering. I suppose the problem is that we (by which I, of course, mean I) can't advocate separating the populace by intelligence, without being hit with cries of "Eugenics!" and general snubbing. (I know, I've tried. The worst part is that Godwin's Law is inadmissible in vocal debate.) If it were possible, I would completely understand giving preferential treatment to intelligent people, after a certain point. Oh, nothing to do with intelligence. Nominally. Do it on behaviour. I don't care whether your IQ is 50 or 185. You post/do something stupid, I invoke a reign of terror on your head. I'm trying to figure out whether "homonymize" is a proper word when, all of a sudden, I think OH GOD MY BRAIN and have this interesting thought: Can it rain terror? And yeah, I'm thinking a simple, yet exponentially sadistic, three-strike program. First offense, slap on the wrist and a $500 fine. Second offense, a year in prison. Third offense, the death penalty. It makes sense to me. It can rain fish and frogs. And water. If any of those terrify you, it can assuredly rain terror. Homonynize isn't in Collins English Dictionary- Desktop Edition. Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Draven Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:11 am
SilverDratini Cougar Draven SilverDratini Cougar Draven SilverDratini It depends on the populace. I'm a great believer in reigns of terror if n00bs are on the receiving end of it. Not so much if it's me suffering. I suppose the problem is that we (by which I, of course, mean I) can't advocate separating the populace by intelligence, without being hit with cries of "Eugenics!" and general snubbing. (I know, I've tried. The worst part is that Godwin's Law is inadmissible in vocal debate.) If it were possible, I would completely understand giving preferential treatment to intelligent people, after a certain point. Oh, nothing to do with intelligence. Nominally. Do it on behaviour. I don't care whether your IQ is 50 or 185. You post/do something stupid, I invoke a reign of terror on your head. I'm trying to figure out whether "homonymize" is a proper word when, all of a sudden, I think OH GOD MY BRAIN and have this interesting thought: Can it rain terror? And yeah, I'm thinking a simple, yet exponentially sadistic, three-strike program. First offense, slap on the wrist and a $500 fine. Second offense, a year in prison. Third offense, the death penalty. It makes sense to me. It can rain fish and frogs. And water. If any of those terrify you, it can assuredly rain terror. Homonynize isn't in Collins English Dictionary- Desktop Edition. Draw your own conclusions. I'm going to go with no for now. I like my three-step program, because in essence, it aligns with a mantra. Give me one point, I have a point. Give me two, I can draw a line. Give me three, I can draw a curve, and actually have a proper function. As far as I'm concerned, where x is the offense number, and F(x) is the intensity of punishment, at least in offenses of stupidity, F(1) should be 1, F(2) should be 4, and F(3) should be infinity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:46 am
I suppose it would depend on what you mean by a reign of terror.
I know, that's the philosopher cop out response. However...
If you mean it's a society in which everyone is in fear, I don't see any reason why such a society could function in a completely normal and moral fashion.
After all, many people fear retribution, and thus refrain from commiting murder. Otherwise, they'd be killing. *coughDravencough* If people fear the right consequences, for the right reasons, I don't see how a reign of terror is immoral.
Also, I like the three step approach. But I thought three points made a triangle, not a curve. I suppose if they're positioned correctly, they could give you a curve... but a line also extends infinitely in both directions, so I really don't get the joke.
I'm probably just not enough of a math geek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Draven Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:41 pm
AllieLeota After all, many people fear retribution, and thus refrain from commiting murder. Otherwise, they'd be killing. *coughDravencough* If people fear the right consequences, for the right reasons, I don't see how a reign of terror is immoral. Shh... stare AllieLeota Also, I like the three step approach. But I thought three points made a triangle, not a curve. I suppose if they're positioned correctly, they could give you a curve... but a line also extends infinitely in both directions, so I really don't get the joke. I'm probably just not enough of a math geek. Well, in order to prove a function, you need at least three points. If you have F(1) = 1 and F(2) = 4, you can assert that F(x) = 3x-2. However, to prove that, you need F(3) = 7. (I don't know exactly what F(x) for F(3) = infinity, though.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:37 pm
Cougar Draven AllieLeota After all, many people fear retribution, and thus refrain from commiting murder. Otherwise, they'd be killing. *coughDravencough* If people fear the right consequences, for the right reasons, I don't see how a reign of terror is immoral. Shh... stare AllieLeota Also, I like the three step approach. But I thought three points made a triangle, not a curve. I suppose if they're positioned correctly, they could give you a curve... but a line also extends infinitely in both directions, so I really don't get the joke. I'm probably just not enough of a math geek. Well, in order to prove a function, you need at least three points. If you have F(1) = 1 and F(2) = 4, you can assert that F(x) = 3x-2. However, to prove that, you need F(3) = 7. (I don't know exactly what F(x) for F(3) = infinity, though.) I'm still confused. I don't understand functions very well, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:01 pm
I fail at Math. I'm more of a English/History Nerd. And some sciences. Like not physics.
As far as Reigns of Terror, I would have to say they are never justified.
However, I am afraid of getting caght in the rain, so I think that would count as a Rain of Terror.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 7:36 pm
Maybe the occasional light shower would be ok. I mean, constant, oppressive fear can't be good for the populace. Seriously, thats gotta be detrimental to society. But every now and then jsut rummaging through the world and picking out a few people to get knocked off? Might help keep the plebians in order, y'know. A lil fear never hurt anyone, and its a great tool for getting respect.
And what the hell do triangles, lines and curves have to do with anything? Now I'm all confused.(which happens anytime I'm brought in vicinity with anything other than very basic algebra).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Draven Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:34 am
Denzyz Maybe the occasional light shower would be ok. I mean, constant, oppressive fear can't be good for the populace. Seriously, thats gotta be detrimental to society. But every now and then jsut rummaging through the world and picking out a few people to get knocked off? Might help keep the plebians in order, y'know. A lil fear never hurt anyone, and its a great tool for getting respect. Where should one draw the line, then? How much fear is too much? Denzyz And what the hell do triangles, lines and curves have to do with anything? Now I'm all confused.(which happens anytime I'm brought in vicinity with anything other than very basic algebra). I drew a connection between my three-step program for offenses related to stupidity, and geometric functions. (I like math, for the rules never change.) And those of you who are already on my cabinet, or may be when I take over, the three-strike program will be applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
