Your canadian, you come from a nation of low population with more equal distribution of wealth. I'm from America and corruption is at an all time high. The drug trade is practicly run by law enforcement, whever cops talk about how they need the drug war to "control things" their talking about making the gangs give them payoffs. In case you think i'm making this up i've talked to people who've told me about drug dealing cop reletives of theirs, i've also talked to honest cops who've told me cops these days are getting more and more crooked.
This is a communist cartoon from the 20's and although i'm not communist I think it shows the problem pretty well
Justicar_Thunderflanks wrote:The Tau are reliant on an Aristocracy of Orwellian proportions led by a ruling caste which condemns the creative mind.
I agree with your other summaries, but I think this one more accurately describes the imperium. "An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded" as the imperial saying goes.
The Tau have advanced so quickly through lack of corruption and encouragement of creativity. The Ethereals may have loyalty-inducing pheromones, but even when not in their presence the Tau genuinely love their leaders and honor their wisdom and experience with reverence. As a race they're remarkably unified, organized and forward thinking. The only known exception to their unity is Commander Farsight, who is still loyal to the Tau race.
I would say the dark side of the Tau is their 'Our way is the only right way. Join us or die' mentality.
On topic: Personally I've always felt that Space Wolves are the most thoughtless and chaotic of the SM chapters. Thinking that they're better than the other chapters just because they don't care about rules.
Do you truly believe I care what happens to any of you after my death?
The night haunter said and did conflicting things at the time of his death.
suggesting some deep sickness within... his cadaverous visage ...
Their have been hints in several books that something was physically wrong with him, like somehow the emps genes had not settled right in him and he was dying. If so that explains some of his self-destructive behavior.
You also have to take into to account whose saying what. Talos is meant to represent both the present legion as well the melancholy of the Legion, and is even rebuked by others who say "he wanted us to survive the long war" "your not the only one he confided in". Sahaal is his hope, his hope against all odds of winning and creating something better for humanity "and the Imperium will prosper under nocturnal eyes. Most likely he said different things to different captains who connected to him on different levels.
Regardless of what he said to Talos Curze enjoyed far more dedication from his sons that Horus whose legion came to despise him.
They chastised him because he was the only one in the Legion who still talked of the Primarch's memory and their better "more honorable, more glorious" days. The rest of the Legion was having way too much fun getting possessed and pillaging random backwater planets, and generally acting like the Chaos Marines they now are. Talos' visions were the only reason he was tolerated enough by the Exalted to let live.
"Sahaal is his hope"? Get real. If that's the case, his hope was misplaced, since the Talonmaster was both a traitor and a coward, who snatched up pieces of his father's gear and fled the planet before the other captains could swarm him for his prize. His claim was no stronger than that of anyone else, which is shown when Abaddon offers Talos leadership of the Night Lords, and Talos laughs at the impossibility of bringing his shattered Legion together under one man. Whatever was wrong with him, Kurze was a deranged lunatic at the head of a Legion of murderers and madmen. Any attempt to allot him noble qualities is misplaced.
I can see you're not an essay writer, as you didn't explain what makes you feel that way.
Punitive and retributive, yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. Arbitrary? Hardly.
Arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
A judge can choose to throw the book at you, or give you the minimum sentence. Depending on the crime, this can be time served or a 60 year sentence. That's a pretty big difference and it's up to the judges 'personal whim' rather frequently.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
You think laws are just randomly passed for no purpose? A code of laws is needfully specific, having it simplified down to "Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't hit, Don't rape" just doesn't work. Every law passed is thoroughly thought out and voted on.
No, they generally have a purpose: They're thought out by the rich and powerful, voted on by the rich and powerful, and are structured so that the rich and powerful remain so. Any laws passed to the benefit of the common man is almost purely coincidental, or done to legitimize the government's position or re-enforce the public image the government is trying to project.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Is rape "sometimes" okay where you live?
Rape I'm unsure of, but Robbery, Assault and Murder, yes.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
In-proportionate. Are you saying criminals should spend the weekend in jail for genocide orrrr...? Or are you saying it is too light?
'Repeat offenders' can face a mandatory life sentence in some places for shoplifting a loaf of bread. But if you steal 500 million dollars once, you face a max of 20 years.
And if you don't believe me, here's what Judge Otis D. Wright II said in the recent case of Nexon America Inc. v. Kumar:
"...even the minimum statutory amount awardable under the DMCA in this case [is] a significant windfall to Plaintiff far in excess of any amount necessary to deter future infringing conduct. Further, the minimum award here likely bears little plausible relationship to Plaintiff's actual damages."
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Corruption is rarer than you seem to think. Very few police officers are ever corrupted. Especially not individuals. You usually see this happen with entire precincts, and there is nothing subtle about it.
Why corrupt police officers when you can corrupt judges and the politicians that make the rules in the first place? A single crooked beat cop is a waste of money. A crooked department is about break even. An entire crooked political structure from the chief of police all the way to the Congressman? As the man once said: That's fething golden.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
The wealthy and influential are brought down harder than anyone. Have you seen the stories in the news about the British man being put on trial for accusations of manipulating prime ministers? Forget the name. Anyways, when rich people are brought down, they really are put to ruin. Even on the occasion they escape conviction with a team of crack lawyers, they are brought down twice as hard by the condemning media and the people.
You obviously have not been paying much attention then to the Murdoch trial then, have you (BTW: he's Australian, not English). Further, please point me to (other than OJ Simpson) a member of the wealthy and powerful who got off and failed to remain wealthy and powerful. The majority of the time, they keep right on going.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
And WHEN has a major government ever changed the laws to protect themselves? Especially on the personal basis you seem to be hinting at.
The US Government has a law on the books that they can't be sued unless they permit it.
However, what I said was 'to get their way'. The US, in particular, has quite a long history of this.
For example, international treaties have the force of law in the US, as long as approved by Congress. Let's put the put the breaking of one TO MUSIC!
Rape I'm unsure of, but Robbery, Assault and Murder, yes.
I put crimes into different catagories, you have deviant crimes such as rape and murder, crimes in which the offender should just get a bullet in the back of the head. Then you have money crimes like selling drugs. Money crimes are caused by currupt system that allows drugs into the system, makes money off of the trade, and then sends people to prison for possesion. People guiltty of using or selling drugs should be reformed because they can be reformed. On the other hand murderers and sex offenders have gone too far to ever come back and should just be executed for the collective good. Anyone who has ever been around real evil knows the truth of my words.
However, what I said was 'to get their way'. The US, in particular, has quite a long history of this.
The only "good guys" are a few Space Marine Chapters like the Ultramarines and Salamanders. As for the Space Wolves they don't keep their planet a feral savages they just don't anything to help them. In combat they do fight with honour and try to protect civilians so I say they're pretty "good" too.
I can see you're not an essay writer, as you didn't explain what makes you feel that way.
Punitive and retributive, yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. Arbitrary? Hardly.
Arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
A judge can choose to throw the book at you, or give you the minimum sentence. Depending on the crime, this can be time served or a 60 year sentence. That's a pretty big difference and it's up to the judges 'personal whim' rather frequently.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
You think laws are just randomly passed for no purpose? A code of laws is needfully specific, having it simplified down to "Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't hit, Don't rape" just doesn't work. Every law passed is thoroughly thought out and voted on.
No, they generally have a purpose: They're thought out by the rich and powerful, voted on by the rich and powerful, and are structured so that the rich and powerful remain so. Any laws passed to the benefit of the common man is almost purely coincidental, or done to legitimize the government's position or re-enforce the public image the government is trying to project.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Is rape "sometimes" okay where you live?
Rape I'm unsure of, but Robbery, Assault and Murder, yes.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
In-proportionate. Are you saying criminals should spend the weekend in jail for genocide orrrr...? Or are you saying it is too light?
'Repeat offenders' can face a mandatory life sentence in some places for shoplifting a loaf of bread. But if you steal 500 million dollars once, you face a max of 20 years.
And if you don't believe me, here's what Judge Otis D. Wright II said in the recent case of Nexon America Inc. v. Kumar:
"...even the minimum statutory amount awardable under the DMCA in this case [is] a significant windfall to Plaintiff far in excess of any amount necessary to deter future infringing conduct. Further, the minimum award here likely bears little plausible relationship to Plaintiff's actual damages."
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Corruption is rarer than you seem to think. Very few police officers are ever corrupted. Especially not individuals. You usually see this happen with entire precincts, and there is nothing subtle about it.
Why corrupt police officers when you can corrupt judges and the politicians that make the rules in the first place? A single crooked beat cop is a waste of money. A crooked department is about break even. An entire crooked political structure from the chief of police all the way to the Congressman? As the man once said: That's fething golden.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
The wealthy and influential are brought down harder than anyone. Have you seen the stories in the news about the British man being put on trial for accusations of manipulating prime ministers? Forget the name. Anyways, when rich people are brought down, they really are put to ruin. Even on the occasion they escape conviction with a team of crack lawyers, they are brought down twice as hard by the condemning media and the people.
You obviously have not been paying much attention then to the Murdoch trial then, have you (BTW: he's Australian, not English). Further, please point me to (other than OJ Simpson) a member of the wealthy and powerful who got off and failed to remain wealthy and powerful. The majority of the time, they keep right on going.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
And WHEN has a major government ever changed the laws to protect themselves? Especially on the personal basis you seem to be hinting at.
The US Government has a law on the books that they can't be sued unless they permit it.
However, what I said was 'to get their way'. The US, in particular, has quite a long history of this.
For example, international treaties have the force of law in the US, as long as approved by Congress. Let's put the put the breaking of one TO MUSIC!
HIT IT Mr Cash!
1. I bolded the area that doesn't make sense. Time served OR a 60 year imprisonment? Da fuq? Oh, and judges have much less power than you seem to think. They can't even pass judgement, that falls to the jury. There are minimum and maximum sentences for most major offenses. Unless you'd prefer we simply use an algorithm, which cannot possibly account for all possible factors?
2. That is simply the conservative ideal, not a generalized trait of all governements. Is Welfare for the rich and powerful? Unions? employment insurance? Free health care? No?
Also, politicians being rich is not something that happens in every human governement. In fact, in the time of CD Howe, all the ministers inferior to him were dollar-a-year-men, and not in the stock option kind of way...they were literally paid a dollar a year.
3. Robbery? No. Even police cannot enter your home unless invited or given a search warrant. Assault? You would no believe how specific and unrealistic the conditions for it being considered self-defense are. Murder? Same as assault, except even if you manage to convince the jury that a calm, rational human being in the sane situation would have done the same, your best home would be getting it reduced to manslaughter.
4. Minimum sentence is never life for shoplifting. even in California with the strike system, it isn't life, the third felony is 25 yrs.
5. Bernie Madoff
6. You miss the point. This man will, even if he escapes the trial, never lead a "normal" life again (quotation marks for fabulous wealth) when the press focuses negative attention on you, you are forced to behave extremely well. Imagine it is highschool, and you let rip a massive belch in class, right in the popular girl's face. You will eventually live it down, unless you do the same thing again tomorrow, in which case you should just move to a new school. Bad analogy but you get the point. Either way, it is irrelevant, as this was just the icing on the cake, the main punishment for the rich is when they go to prison
7. A lawsuit is a civil action...it is irrelevant. If the president shot a random old lady in the face...he would be made to answer. No individual, leader or no, has been free from judgement in any significant government since the Magna Carta.
War crimes are a different matter. It is simply not in the nature of any animal to not retaliate when pushed to extremes. If your enemy is using flamethrowers-a warcrime-you will be at a disadvantage unless you do so as well. Being at a disadvantage means your entire civilisation could be wiped from the earth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I put crimes into different catagories, you have deviant crimes such as rape and murder, crimes in which the offender should just get a bullet in the back of the head. Then you have money crimes like selling drugs. Money crimes are caused by currupt system that allows drugs into the system, makes money off of the trade, and then sends people to prison for possesion. People guiltty of using or selling drugs should be reformed because they can be reformed. On the other hand murderers and sex offenders have gone too far to ever come back and should just be executed for the collective good. Anyone who has ever been around real evil knows the truth of my words.
Evil does not exist. No one is like Cobra, where they simply want to destroy for the sake of their target being destroyed. The human mind is a complex thing. Anything you could even consider evil would be nothing but logical to the perpetrator.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
In fact, in the time of CD Howe, all the ministers inferior to him were dollar-a-year-men, and not in the stock option kind of way...they were literally paid a dollar a year.
I keep forgetting you are in Canada. I'm told that the 'service' part of civil service' still holds some water there. Give it time, it will rot like every other government does. Also explains why you keep coming back to the police.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Robbery? No. Even police cannot enter your home unless invited or given a search warrant.
In New York state, if you have a prior drug charge (not conviction, charge) if you are found in possession of more then $500 (IIRC) by the police it can be sized on the grounds that you were going to buy drugs with it. IF you work at a place of employment that is a front for organized crime, even if you had no knowledge of this, in theory everything you own can be seized by the US government, because you count as part of a criminal conspiracy.
If the government feels that the property you live on might be better used by Wal-Mart inc, your property can be seized under imminent domain laws and given to a developer to build a Wal-Mart.
"As through this world, you travel, you meet lots of funny men. Some will rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen."
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Assault? You would no believe how specific and unrealistic the conditions for it being considered self-defense are. Murder? Same as assault, except even if you manage to convince the jury that a calm, rational human being in the sane situation would have done the same, your best home would be getting it reduced to manslaughter.
In some states, I just have to feel threatened. It's called a Stand your Ground' law, and is currently the subject of some controversy.
Or I could join the police. There seems to be a very broad spectrum these days for what's 'justifiable' behind the Blue Shield.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
4. Minimum sentence is never life for shoplifting. even in California with the strike system, it isn't life, the third felony is 25 yrs.
Unless they softened it recently, the definition of a three strikes law is life without parole on the third felony. BTW: Yes, it can be. If a store sells stamps, and you shoplift there, they can nail you for robbing a post office, which is a felony.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
5. Bernie Madoff
Madoff was convicted of fraud, not theft. And he was convicted.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
6. You miss the point. This man will, even if he escapes the trial, never lead a "normal" life again (quotation marks for fabulous wealth) when the press focuses negative attention on you, you are forced to behave extremely well. Imagine it is highschool, and you let rip a massive belch in class, right in the popular girl's face. You will eventually live it down, unless you do the same thing again tomorrow, in which case you should just move to a new school. Bad analogy but you get the point. Either way, it is irrelevant, as this was just the icing on the cake, the main punishment for the rich is when they go to prison
I hold up Ted Kennedy as an example of you being wrong. Sure, the Media never forgot Chappaquiddick, but frankly, that proved barely a speed bump.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
If the president shot a random old lady in the face...he would be made to answer. No individual, leader or no, has been free from judgement in any significant government since the Magna Carta.
You forget the Reign of Henry the 8th or Robespierre or Stalin then. They were every bit as guilty of murder as men like Whitey Bulgar. You forget the US government deliberately exposing people to deadly diseases just to see what would happen and then men that came up with these experiments being rewarded rather then punished.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Evil does not exist. No one is like Cobra, where they simply want to destroy for the sake of their target being destroyed. The human mind is a complex thing. Anything you could even consider evil would be nothing but logical to the perpetrator.
Evil isn't just about destruction. What you are describing is obsession, which is a totally different thing. Evil is about not caring about what happens to others as long as you get what you want. Evil is destroying people's lives and not caring, spurning ethics and morality.
Evil does not exist. No one is like Cobra, where they simply want to destroy for the sake of their target being destroyed. The human mind is a complex thing. Anything you could even consider evil would be nothing but logical to the perpetrator.
You really should read up on john gacey, then tell me if he was not evil. The reason we believe in evil is not because it exist, but because we need it to exist, man is fractious quarrel some creature far more defined by his hates than by his loves, your ideal is usually less about what you love and more about striving to be different than what you hate, its why we must choose our enemies wisely because they more than anything else define who we are.
Or I could join the police.
Or if your more of a sexual defiant you start a religion, like L ron Hubbard or David Koresh.
Space Wolves are too masculine to be concerned by our insignificant assessments! We are like effeminate insects to them! Flee, fools, lest your incessant feminine prattling draw their attention! You'll wish you had gone about your womanish work in silence then, I wager!
TheSovereign wrote:Space Wolves are too masculine to be concerned by our insignificant assessments! We are like effeminate insects to them! Flee, fools, lest your incessant feminine prattling draw their attention! You'll wish you had gone about your womanish work in silence then, I wager!
*TheBaron unsnaps the sheath on his power sword and daggers.*
The funny thing about fighters like space wolves is they have no finesse and understand only strength. Turn that strength against them, laddybuck, and their helpless as babes. Their joints, for example, still have those same weaknesses as men, even through power armor. Oh, and there's always the option of simply sinking the boat. It's hard to swim in power armor.l
I'm guessing you did'nt read Lord of the Night, were he was imprisoned by the Eldar for 10,000 years. His obsession with the corona nox stemed from the fact that it had the power to remove the taint of chaos from the Night Lords Legion.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
In fact, in the time of CD Howe, all the ministers inferior to him were dollar-a-year-men, and not in the stock option kind of way...they were literally paid a dollar a year.
I keep forgetting you are in Canada. I'm told that the 'service' part of civil service' still holds some water there. Give it time, it will rot like every other government does. Also explains why you keep coming back to the police.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Robbery? No. Even police cannot enter your home unless invited or given a search warrant.
In New York state, if you have a prior drug charge (not conviction, charge) if you are found in possession of more then $500 (IIRC) by the police it can be sized on the grounds that you were going to buy drugs with it. IF you work at a place of employment that is a front for organized crime, even if you had no knowledge of this, in theory everything you own can be seized by the US government, because you count as part of a criminal conspiracy.
If the government feels that the property you live on might be better used by Wal-Mart inc, your property can be seized under imminent domain laws and given to a developer to build a Wal-Mart.
"As through this world, you travel, you meet lots of funny men. Some will rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen."
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Assault? You would no believe how specific and unrealistic the conditions for it being considered self-defense are. Murder? Same as assault, except even if you manage to convince the jury that a calm, rational human being in the sane situation would have done the same, your best home would be getting it reduced to manslaughter.
In some states, I just have to feel threatened. It's called a Stand your Ground' law, and is currently the subject of some controversy.
Or I could join the police. There seems to be a very broad spectrum these days for what's 'justifiable' behind the Blue Shield.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
4. Minimum sentence is never life for shoplifting. even in California with the strike system, it isn't life, the third felony is 25 yrs.
Unless they softened it recently, the definition of a three strikes law is life without parole on the third felony. BTW: Yes, it can be. If a store sells stamps, and you shoplift there, they can nail you for robbing a post office, which is a felony.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
5. Bernie Madoff
Madoff was convicted of fraud, not theft. And he was convicted.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
6. You miss the point. This man will, even if he escapes the trial, never lead a "normal" life again (quotation marks for fabulous wealth) when the press focuses negative attention on you, you are forced to behave extremely well. Imagine it is highschool, and you let rip a massive belch in class, right in the popular girl's face. You will eventually live it down, unless you do the same thing again tomorrow, in which case you should just move to a new school. Bad analogy but you get the point. Either way, it is irrelevant, as this was just the icing on the cake, the main punishment for the rich is when they go to prison
I hold up Ted Kennedy as an example of you being wrong. Sure, the Media never forgot Chappaquiddick, but frankly, that proved barely a speed bump.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
If the president shot a random old lady in the face...he would be made to answer. No individual, leader or no, has been free from judgement in any significant government since the Magna Carta.
You forget the Reign of Henry the 8th or Robespierre or Stalin then. They were every bit as guilty of murder as men like Whitey Bulgar. You forget the US government deliberately exposing people to deadly diseases just to see what would happen and then men that came up with these experiments being rewarded rather then punished.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Evil does not exist. No one is like Cobra, where they simply want to destroy for the sake of their target being destroyed. The human mind is a complex thing. Anything you could even consider evil would be nothing but logical to the perpetrator.
Evil isn't just about destruction. What you are describing is obsession, which is a totally different thing. Evil is about not caring about what happens to others as long as you get what you want. Evil is destroying people's lives and not caring, spurning ethics and morality.
And there's a whole lot of that in existence.
1. I thought you were being dramatic before. I KNOW you are being dramatic now.
2. Not sure I believe the part about that law. Can I get a link to some documentation? The part about the criminal conspiracy makes sense. Being associated with criminals, simply saying "oh, I didn't know he was a criminal" is a weak reply.
3. There are parameters for what is considered sufficient. Someone smashing down your door and waving a gun at your children, yes I can see how retaliation would only be natural. Feeling uneasy around a creepy guy on the bus, and he makes a sudden movement, so you shoot him? No.
4. It was never softened. 3rd strike=25 to life, with minimum sentencing being the common thing.
5. I didn't say he wasn't convicted. He is an example of a rich person being completely unable to dig his way out with his money.
6. AN EXAMPLE ZOMG...there are plenty of examples of guilty poor people not getting convicted...simply because they have to be 100% certain not to imprison innocent men, that creates certain exceptions where justice is not administered. It is not a broken legal system, it is a margin of error caused by a thorough dedication to fairness.
7.
Wikipedia: Maximilien Robespierre wrote:As a member of the Estates-General, of the Constituent Assembly and of the Jacobin Club, he defended the abolition of slavery and of the death penalty, he supported equality of rights, universal suffrage and the establishment of a republic. He opposed war with Austria
OMG HOW EVIL. Plus, how was he not made to answer? He was executed...also, he was "a capable articulator of the beliefs of the bourgeoisie (working man/middle class)" which is quite contrary to what you have said earlier this article in regards to the governement-people relation. Quite an odd example.
Henry the VIII...he wasn't a good leader, but is irrelevant to this point for two reasons.
A. He didn't brake any laws personally to veto answering to...no constitution.
B. He was a monarch, which is not the type of government about which we are arguing, since they do not have to answer to the people.
8. So now apathy is evil? Not caring is evil? It is evil to have priorities that do not consign to someone else's biased view of morality? No, evil is a conscient and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing "unnecessary" pain or suffering, for selfish or malicious intentions and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence. Basically going out of your way to hurt someone else simply for the sake of hurting someone else, not even for personal gain, but for the sake of suffering.
Apathy is the most neutral of things, it cannot ever be evil, good or anything else.
Anyways, good is both non-existant and childish. It is amongst the MOST childish things, in fact. The whole concept, the belief in something unfailingly evil...hogwash.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, having been in the police, I can tell you it is hardly a way to escape punishment.
Sure, out of respect a fellow officer may tear up a traffic ticket for you, but that's as far as it goes. The police have cast a very much inward eye, and punishment for errant officers is more than significant.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Also, having been in the police, I can tell you it is hardly a way to escape punishment.
Sure, out of respect a fellow officer may tear up a traffic ticket for you, but that's as far as it goes. The police have cast a very much inward eye, and punishment for errant officers is more than significant.
Only the RCMP get away with bull gak
Ah. My experience during my six year career busting politicians for corruption was that if you point to a random hole in the ground, you'll probably find where they tried to bury their vacation to Bermuda on the tax payers dime, their ties to a major corporation where they tried to bypass bribery laws by having a family member receive the 'gift' or some other compensation, or their ties to organized crime.
Granted, at the time I lived near Youngstown, OH. (Yes, that one, the one they call Y-town, 'Yompton' or 'Murdertown USA', Mob Town, and home of the 'Youngstown tune up' [aka a car bomb]. You know, where you can show an actual video on TV of the incumbent taking a bribe from the Mob and have him win anyway. [this was for Sheriff, btw] I think you might see where my cynicism about politicians and police comes from..)
On the three strikes thing: you're overlooking that even at the minimum sentence you're likely looking at 50-75 years because of the way it's structured. Remember that if they can dream up two charges, you have to serve those sentences consecutive.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Also, having been in the police, I can tell you it is hardly a way to escape punishment.
Sure, out of respect a fellow officer may tear up a traffic ticket for you, but that's as far as it goes. The police have cast a very much inward eye, and punishment for errant officers is more than significant.
Only the RCMP get away with bull gak
Ah. My experience during my six year career busting politicians for corruption was that if you point to a random hole in the ground, you'll probably find where they tried to bury their vacation to Bermuda on the tax payers dime, their ties to a major corporation where they tried to bypass bribery laws by having a family member receive the 'gift' or some other compensation, or their ties to organized crime.
Granted, at the time I lived near Youngstown, OH. (Yes, that one, the one they call Y-town, 'Yompton' or 'Murdertown USA', Mob Town, and home of the 'Youngstown tune up' [aka a car bomb]. You know, where you can show an actual video on TV of the incumbent taking a bribe from the Mob and have him win anyway. [this was for Sheriff, btw] I think you might see where my cynicism about politicians and police comes from..)
On the three strikes thing: you're overlooking that even at the minimum sentence you're likely looking at 50-75 years because of the way it's structured. Remember that if they can dream up two charges, you have to serve those sentences consecutive.
No, it's 25 as a minimum. If you're busted for three felonies at the same time (in which case you're fethed in any court system) the minimum is 25. That's how it works.
I personally hate the SW, i dont really like the vikings and wolves in space deal, and find them to be very hipocritical. so i would not agree that they are "good guys"
Sure, out of respect a fellow officer may tear up a traffic ticket for you, but that's as far as it goes. The police have cast a very much inward eye, and punishment for errant officers is more than significant.
In the US we have problems with cops selling drugs and torturing people, stop talking about canada, your the only one here from disneyland.
Sure, out of respect a fellow officer may tear up a traffic ticket for you, but that's as far as it goes. The police have cast a very much inward eye, and punishment for errant officers is more than significant.
In the US we have problems with cops selling drugs and torturing people, stop talking about canada, your the only one here from disneyland.
I'm talking about the US also, and mostly.
There are cops selling drugs, but that is on an individual basis, and it would be quite odd if it weren't so considering NYC alone has 50,000 police officers.
Torture is a military act, not a police thing. Also, surprisingly, Canada (just a few months ago) legalized torture as a military means for obtaining information from non-Canadian persons.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
No, it's 25 as a minimum. If you're busted for three felonies at the same time (in which case you're fethed in any court system) the minimum is 25. That's how it works.
Not here. California's Three Strikes law is 25 years per felony, to be served consecutively. So 25 + 25 + 25 = 75 years. I went and double checked this, since you were insisting that it was usually the minimum sentence yet I know over 4,000 people are currently doing a lot of hard time for non-violent felonies.
For example: That shoplifting incident? We got one. He had a knife in his boot/jacket/on his belt? That's two. It was covered by his coat? Concealed weapon.
75 year sentence.
"Swam across the river, and I lay down to sleep and I woke up with shackles on my feet...."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZSO SAHALL wrote:
In the US we have problems with cops selling drugs and torturing people, stop talking about canada, your the only one here from disneyland.
I knew one from Philadelphia that took a break on his patrol to conduct a little armed robbery of a drug deal he knew about. In uniform.
He eventually was punished. Not for the armed robbery, but because he had used his squad car for personal use.
That said, I view the US very much as Disneyland. Want to get the cops to kill your enemies? Arrange an anonymous tip to the police about their dealings in a town where the cops are known to be on the take. Then call ahead and tell them the police are coming to kill all of them.
You'd be amazed how many idiots will fire on the cops. And then usually all bets are off.
All political/philisophical debate aside, clearly SW are not 'good guys', much less the only good guys in 40k.
Let us agree on the following:
-there are no good guys in the grim future, only varying degrees of oppressive government.
-the term 'good guys' is fairly arbritary, and therefor lends contention/frustration to the discussion.
-fans of any 40k faction will, obviously, like their chosen faction. They will rationalize any unseemly deeds done by their faction, and focus on the praiseworthy ones.
- SW are an arrogant, hypocritical, ignorant pack of mongrels.
...ok, you don't have to agree to that last one, but the rest should be pretty solid across the board.
Justicar_Thunderflanks wrote:The Tau are reliant on an Aristocracy of Orwellian proportions led by a ruling caste which condemns the creative mind.
I agree with your other summaries, but I think this one more accurately describes the imperium. "An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded" as the imperial saying goes.
The Tau have advanced so quickly through lack of corruption and encouragement of creativity. The Ethereals may have loyalty-inducing pheromones, but even when not in their presence the Tau genuinely love their leaders and honor their wisdom and experience with reverence. As a race they're remarkably unified, organized and forward thinking. The only known exception to their unity is Commander Farsight, who is still loyal to the Tau race.
I would say the dark side of the Tau is their 'Our way is the only right way. Join us or die' mentality.
On topic: Personally I've always felt that Space Wolves are the most thoughtless and chaotic of the SM chapters. Thinking that they're better than the other chapters just because they don't care about rules.
The Tau do not have a 'join us or die' mentality. There has been no time that i have seen (in the 8 years since i started W40K) that suggests this at all. They didn't kill the Vespid when they refused, and several other races are only trading with them instead of being an actual part of the Empire. The only things i can think of that even slightly suggest this would be things such as the Dawn of War games, but in those times it is someone who is already their enemy refusing to join.
Nothing suggests there is anything controlling the Tau (such as pheremones) other than random Imperial Speculation because they refuse to believe the Tau would just obey.
It depends on which books you've read. Prospero Burns and A Thousand Sons portray the Wolves very differently (on purpose, I think, as the stories are written from different perspectives). Ultimately, the Wolves are what you want them to be: either bestial, noble warriors or vicious, uncaring savages. As an avid Space Wolves player, I can say there are probably elements of both within the chapter. The one constant among Wolves is that above all, they're individualistic.
But definitely wouldn't say they're the only good guys. I'd also throw in some chapters others have mentioned, like Ultramarines, Salamanders, White Scars, etc.
TheSovereign wrote:It depends on which books you've read. Prospero Burns and A Thousand Sons portray the Wolves very differently (on purpose, I think, as the stories are written from different perspectives). Ultimately, the Wolves are what you want them to be: either bestial, noble warriors or vicious, uncaring savages.
or secret answer D) all of the above. You were right in saying that elements of both are present, but it doesn't matter whether you want them to be or not; they are what they are. A successor chapter might escape their bestial/savage side a bit if you want them to, or embrace it fully. The Space Wolves have good aspects to them, and bad aspects to them. That's what makes them (super)human.
either bestial, noble warriors or vicious, uncaring savages.
Couldn't agree more, all the Legions are meant to be both noble and savage, same for the Night Lords, they can either be seen as sadistic criminals no different from those they supposedly opposed, or they can be a noble legion lead by a just man who opposed the Emperor attaining Godhood at the expense of mankind.
My own take on the conversation between Curze and Lion.
Lion:"We shall expunges the eighth Legion from Imperial records, uttering the name of your Legion will be punishable by death, the Night Lords will be forgotten.
Curze: The universe will remember that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many, and that by the end of the Heresy even a God King could bleed.
BaronIveagh wrote:Minor detail: SW have, as far as I know, never successfully had a successor chapter.
I want to say thats correct. I think they tried to create the Wolf Brothers chapter. IIRC every single wolf brother turned wolfen, the SW geneseed mutation. After that they were like, let's not try that again.
ZSO SAHALL wrote:In the US we have problems with cops selling drugs and torturing people, stop talking about canada, your the only one here from disneyland.
1 Canadian on 3 commits fraud every year. Last year, in Quebec City (voted top 5 best cities worlwide to raise a kid in an european education magasine 2-3 years ago), 5 cops were arrested for setting up a gun black market with confiscated weaponry. You seem to have a very adolescent view on authority. Things aren't as bad in the US as you claim, just like they aren't as bright as you interpret them to be from Je suis2 au hazard's account in Canada.
You can't really view this from a government point of view either. Citie's corruption varies completly from one another, and from the general level of corruption of a country. Montreal's bureaucracy is probably on of the most corrupt in North America, and yet it's located in one of the the province with the lowest crime rate.
BaronIveagh wrote:Ah. My experience during my six year career busting politicians for corruption was that if you point to a random hole in the ground, you'll probably find where they tried to bury their vacation to Bermuda on the tax payers dime, their ties to a major corporation where they tried to bypass bribery laws by having a family member receive the 'gift' or some other compensation, or their ties to organized crime.
Probably isn't worse than the ''1 canadian on 3 commits tax fraud''. 1 politician on 3 commits tax fraud.
Je suis2 wrote:OMG HOW EVIL. Plus, how was he not made to answer? He was executed...also, he was "a capable articulator of the beliefs of the bourgeoisie (working man/middle class)" which is quite contrary to what you have said earlier this article in regards to the governement-people relation. Quite an odd example.
Well you would have been much safer saying that there's hasn't been any leader with complete freedom of agency since we came unto a Rule of Law system (so last century), that would have been much more accurate (and you should also restrict it to western civilization, but that's often assumed on these forums anyway)
So now apathy is evil? Not caring is evil? It is evil to have priorities that do not consign to someone else's biased view of morality? No, evil is a conscient and deliberate wrongdoing,
Yes it's evil. Legally, apathy is a complete mens rea for a large number of crimes. It is so because inaction, in a large number of cases, is either a form of guilty action, or a reprehensible absence of moral sensibility.
Anyways, good is both non-existant and childish. It is amongst the MOST childish things, in fact. The whole concept, the belief in something unfailingly evil...hogwash.
Weren't you the one attacking the other post for ridiculous claims without any support to them? Because saying that an entire category of human experience is a childish illusion, well, that's the kind of stuff I would flunk you for...
Yes it's evil. Legally, apathy is a complete mens rea for a large number of crimes. It is so because inaction, in a large number of cases, is either a form of guilty action, or a reprehensible absence of moral sensibility.
No, it isn't. lack of goodness =/= presence of foulness. If there is any motive, any at all, other than the infliction of pain, there is no evil present. Bullies are not evil, because their driving reason is not simply wishing to inflict suffering, it is to make themselves feel bigger. It doesn't make it excusable by any means, but it means that it isn't evil. Nothing in the world fits into that category. Nothing causes suffering for no reason other than the suffering in and of itself. The only time you would ever see that is in someone with severe mental instability, but in their warped mind, it may very well not be evil. You cannot ever judge someone else as being evil, because their circumstance, thoughts, motives, beliefs etc. will forever remain a mystery. Even if they tell you their motives, not everything can be conveyed by language. So not being able to judge others as evil leaves only judging yourself as evil, right? Wrong. Anyone with the meta-awareness and desire to question their own morality is not evil, because someone "evil" would not do that.
*looks at the thread title and what is being discuss*
Umm. guys and girls, can we get back to space wolves instead of talking about North America Corruption.
Necrosis wrote:*looks at the thread title and what is being discuss*
Umm. guys and girls, can we get back to space wolves instead of talking about North America Corruption.
Necrosis wrote:*looks at the thread title and what is being discuss*
Umm. guys and girls, can we get back to space wolves instead of talking about North America Corruption.
If the question is ''Is X the only good protagonist in this setting'', then defining what is ''good'' in that setting is completely on topic. Furthermore, drawing comparison to OUR setting is the only proper way we have of doing this.
If you cannot draw inferences properly, at least don't restrict those who can.
Je suis2 wrote:
No, it isn't. lack of goodness =/= presence of foulness.
Not necessarily, it depends on the actual topic. Not caring about your neighbor's tax evasion fraud is definitely not as perverted as not caring about a murder being committed in front of you. But that's only because we don't think it's reasonable to draw empathy on small actions of which the consequences are not seen. A lack of goodness in regards to the normal empathy reserved toward human beings directly present to your perception? Evil.
If there is any motive, any at all, other than the infliction of pain, there is no evil present [....] And that, my friend, is why evil does not exist.
That's a ridiculously restrictive use of the word 'evil'. You erase all proper meaning of the word by attaching it the necessity of intent. It isn't this simple. While humans are submitted up to a level to causality, they are still autonomous beings. Will can become an causal event, which reintroduce, to a limited degree, the idea of free will. The foundation of morals by Schopenhauer is a very quick, very good read on the subject.
Anyone with the meta-awareness and desire to question their own morality is not evil, because someone "evil" would not do that.
I wouldn't use the word evil to qualify a person, unless it's to play caricaturist. A specific act, in specific circumstances, become evil because they contradict both natural and artificial norms. A person can and will perform ridiculous cognitive gymnastics to justify evil actions, of which they are perfectly aware of the consequences and the applicable norms. Unfortunately,the phenomena, known as acrasia (like most other psychological problems) has been horribly represented by philosophers prior to the 18-19th century.
Not necessarily, it depends on the actual topic. Not caring about your neighbor's tax evasion fraud is definitely not as perverted as not caring about a murder being committed in front of you. But that's only because we don't think it's reasonable to draw empathy on small actions of which the consequences are not seen. A lack of goodness in regards to the normal empathy reserved toward human beings directly present to your perception? Evil.
interesting that you brought up free will (later in your post) because that is what this is. YOU choose not to help. Unless they are forcing you too help? taking away your free will and individuality? Is everyone who's different therefore inherently evil? No? That this does not apply.
That's a ridiculously restrictive use of the word 'evil'. You erase all proper meaning of the word by attaching it the necessity of intent. It isn't this simple. While humans are submitted up to a level to causality, they are still autonomous beings. Will can become an causal event, which reintroduce, to a limited degree, the idea of free will. The foundation of morals by Schopenhauer is a very quick, very good read on the subject.
No, that's a proper use of the word evil. People having motives that don't coincide with yours does not make them an intrinsically negative force. By your logic, every person is evil, because every sin makes you evil, because being greedy rather than helpful makes you evil, again, according to your line of reasoning. Does that mean slothful people are evil too?
This is getting ridiculous, I'm unsubscribing to this thread.
This is getting ridiculous, I'm unsubscribing to this thread.
I don't see what's ridiculous here. Again, I'm spending my Friday night on the OT forum of a site about toy soldiers...
Well at least allow me this reply.
interesting that you brought up free will (later in your post) because that is what this is. YOU choose not to help.
Not necessarily. I mean, it's possible for a person to be completely aware of another's distress, of her possibility to help, and then to decide willfully not to help. This is clearly an evil 'action' (act of restraint) and is punished by laws, depending on the consequences of the inaction. But most of the time, that isn't what happens. Someone is afraid of putting herself in danger, or they do not realize the distress. True moral apathy (the aforementioned ''acrasia'') is another different case, where one as a complete realization of the reason behind the immorality of the act, but has a willing incapacity to avoid committing it. It's also considered an element of mens rea, which constitutes the intentional part of a criminal action.
Hence why a lack of intent can make an act evil.
Unless they are forcing you too help?
Not they, the event. Our moral self requires of us that we help those in which it is our power to help.
Is everyone who's different therefore inherently evil? No? That this does not apply.
Having empathy is pretty universal to humankind. The higher specifics may differ, due to cultural differentiation, but the basis is pretty much universal.
People having motives that don't coincide with yours does not make them an intrinsically negative force.
Never said that. I specified it wasn't the person, but the act that was to be qualified. Hence why the intent is not actually that important. It's important for knowing the degree of responsibility of the actor.
By your logic, every person is evil, because every sin makes you evil, because being greedy rather than helpful makes you evil, again, according to your line of reasoning. Does that mean slothful people are evil too?
No. The artificial norms of modern society are very permissive (as it should) toward sloth. But put yourself back into 2000 B.C. China, and they will pretty much match the natural norms, which would view slothfulness as much worse than, let's say, incest.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote: If there is any motive, any at all, other than the infliction of pain, there is no evil present.
Oh, I know it was a violent, evil, act, but to this day, the mental image of that guy realizing I just shoved red hot metal into his hands brings a smile to my face. Inflicting pain itself was the point, but his expression was just so comical.
I'm guessing you did'nt read Lord of the Night, were he was imprisoned by the Eldar for 10,000 years. His obsession with the corona nox stemed from the fact that it had the power to remove the taint of chaos from the Night Lords Legion.
That's what the rest of the Night Lords legion viewed your supposed savior.
But nice of you to disregard the rest of my post that shows your fanboy interpretation to be woefully out of sync with the actual text.
How the hell did this thread start on Space Wolves and end with an argument on the subjectiveness of good and evil and police corruption in North America?
I don't quite get that...Does anyone know what is actually being argued anymore?
Well, until you, nothing anymore. I'll still maintain that it was perfectly on topic, if a little pushed for the actual context.
Is a corrupt government an evil one?
Are you justified in violent defiance against a corrupt government, even if it is the last standing force separating your kind from extinction?
Does good and evil actually exist?
That all matters on the question.
I argued against the finer philosophical points brought up here because that's what interest me. On the question? 40K is GrimDark in part because ''good'' can't really be applied to any recognizable group. Individuals can be good, and they serve as focal point for us to relate to, and feel horrified about the violence of that universe. On an individual basis, I think there is probably even a few 'good' Chaos Marines (admittedly, they probably don't stay 'good' for long).
FifteenHours wrote:How the hell did this thread start on Space Wolves and end with an argument on the subjectiveness of good and evil and police corruption in North America?
I don't quite get that...Does anyone know what is actually being argued anymore?
Personally I was waiting for someone to ask me to explain my last post. It's really a funny story, actually.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?
Let just use this chart:
Spoiler:
Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.
Oh, I've seen the picture before. The topic just came up recently, and reminded me of someone who couldn't figure out that the whole concept for the Tau had been lifted right out of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Oh, I've seen the picture before. The topic just came up recently, and reminded me of someone who couldn't figure out that the whole concept for the Tau had been lifted right out of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
There's a reason the player's ship is named the Fountainhead. Though they haven't caught on yet...
Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?
Let just use this chart:
Spoiler:
Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.
You really seem to hate the Tau. They do not use mind control - no where has said they have it. There has been speculation, but that's it. If somewhere has, please tell me exactly where it is - the Ethereals Calming influence does not count.
The Caste system is because they are each COMPLETELY different from each other and adapted for different purposes. That does not make them bad at all.
They are not aggressive expansionists - they expand in phases, and do not take planets by force all the time. As an example, read the Ciaphas Cain novel "For the Emperor"
Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?
Let just use this chart:
Spoiler:
Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.
You really seem to hate the Tau. They do not use mind control - no where has said they have it. There has been speculation, but that's it. If somewhere has, please tell me exactly where it is - the Ethereals Calming influence does not count.
The Caste system is because they are each COMPLETELY different from each other and adapted for different purposes. That does not make them bad at all.
They are not aggressive expansionists - they expand in phases, and do not take planets by force all the time. As an example, read the Ciaphas Cain novel "For the Emperor"
I wouldn't say his statements are ENTIRELY unfounded, but he's definitely prescribing to the most grimdark side of the fluff.
That said, you're still not seeing the big picture. This is a world where humanity undertakes regular genocide on a planetary scale, as a matter of cold protocol. Where a dying race will send millions to the slaughter to save a handful of their kin. Where a race of machine-warriors have declared holocaust on ALL ORGANIC LIFE. A universe where ones vices fuel an alternate reality, where they take shape as malevolent entities who will either slaughter them mercilessly, use them as pawns on an inter-spatial chessboard, condemn them to lives as eternal pleasure/torture slaves, or turn them into walking plague-carriers. Tribes of great-green football brawlers are going around on simultaneous mixes of pub-crawls, soccer riots, and genocide, for the sake of a good time.
Compared to that, even from the darkest lense, the Tau and their colonies have it pretty good. For starters, you can peacefully submit and still live a fairly normal life. That alone is a leg up on basically everyone else ever in the 40k universe. On top of that, once they have mind-controlled/brainwashed/orbitally bombarded you into submission, and have placed you within their caste system, you're still far better off than you EVER possibly could be within the Imperium, unless you are part of the blessed 99.99999%.
So, over all, you're not giving the Tau their due.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?
Let just use this chart:
Spoiler:
That picture is stupid. By the D&D 3.5 Alignment Chart, there are no good guys in 40k. There might be a few neutral guys, but that's it.
EDIT: Also, it says Chaos is Neutral Evil. WTF? As far as I was aware, chaos was chaos. They want to tear down order and create a society where people just follow their impulses, damn the consequences. That sounds pretty chaotic to me.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?
Let just use this chart:
Spoiler:
Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.
You really seem to hate the Tau. They do not use mind control - no where has said they have it. There has been speculation, but that's it. If somewhere has, please tell me exactly where it is - the Ethereals Calming influence does not count.
The Caste system is because they are each COMPLETELY different from each other and adapted for different purposes. That does not make them bad at all.
They are not aggressive expansionists - they expand in phases, and do not take planets by force all the time. As an example, read the Ciaphas Cain novel "For the Emperor"
I wouldn't say his statements are ENTIRELY unfounded, but he's definitely prescribing to the most grimdark side of the fluff.
That said, you're still not seeing the big picture. This is a world where humanity undertakes regular genocide on a planetary scale, as a matter of cold protocol. Where a dying race will send millions to the slaughter to save a handful of their kin. Where a race of machine-warriors have declared holocaust on ALL ORGANIC LIFE. A universe where ones vices fuel an alternate reality, where they take shape as malevolent entities who will either slaughter them mercilessly, use them as pawns on an inter-spatial chessboard, condemn them to lives as eternal pleasure/torture slaves, or turn them into walking plague-carriers. Tribes of great-green football brawlers are going around on simultaneous mixes of pub-crawls, soccer riots, and genocide, for the sake of a good time.
Compared to that, even from the darkest lense, the Tau and their colonies have it pretty good. For starters, you can peacefully submit and still live a fairly normal life. That alone is a leg up on basically everyone else ever in the 40k universe. On top of that, once they have mind-controlled/brainwashed/orbitally bombarded you into submission, and have placed you within their caste system, you're still far better off than you EVER possibly could be within the Imperium, unless you are part of the blessed 99.99999%.
So, over all, you're not giving the Tau their due.
Has it actually been said non-Tau are placed within the caste system? Haven't heard that mentioned before.
Still, i haven't seen any evidance of Mind-control or brainwashing (other than propaganda) anywhere, where has it actually (as in definitely, not speculation) been said?. The Ethereals Calming Influence doesn't count as mind-control. Either way though, the Tau are one of the better choices available.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?
Let just use this chart:
Spoiler:
Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.
The mind control and propaganda are supposition/rumour on the part of an imperial observer, meaning it holds no more weight than what my suppositions are.
It is separated into castes because each caste is a different species. I agree that if they were all physiologically/anatomically the same, like humans, and sorted into castes it would be bad. They expand because, other than the Mon'tau, the greatest fear of the tau is having a tiny kingdom that can be wiped out in a nanosecond. This is what originally prompted the tau to leave their homeworld: a single stellar radiation pulse of significant size could destroy everything they have created. This is how the tau mind works. So, they expand. The fire caste are naturally aggressive hunters, but they reign themselves in and are perfectly lawful. In fact, I cannot even picture tau crime. Not being space hippies hardly makes them bad.
They are simply the most forgiving faction. They offer you a good, full life as a member of their empire if you surrender and join. They do not employ brutal battle tactics (the koloth gorge massacre ended with the censorship of the errant commander Brightsword), their first priority is evacuating civilians (source: Savage Scars, note this is not a trait displayed by imperials) and their entire battle plan on tau owned worlds revolves around slowing and weakening the attackers so that they have more time for this evacuation. They do not slaughter entire worlds of theirs simply because they can (see: inquisition) They do not massacre enemy citizens...They really are the good guys.
Before anyone starts with the usual counter points:
They do not sterilize the human populations of their worlds. This was a proposed answer to a fact hinted at in the non-canonical ending of a video-game. They also stated that males and females were separated into separate camps. Maybe THAT had something to do with the human population dwindling?
They do not mind control the vespid. The helmets are purely for communication. Obeying/joining readily does not mean you are being made into a puppet. Several of the primarchs joined the emperor as soon as they saw him, does that mean he gave them hypno-helmets? No? The helmets are necessary because vespid mouths are so different, no tau would ever be able to speak their language and vice-versa and a tau jaw would not be able to handle the words formed by the insectile mandibles.
Ethereals do not use mind control pheromones. If that were true, there would have to be 1 ethereal per tau on every tau world, because they'd have to follow them around, because pheromones cannot cover an entire world. Tau are not constantly around these leaders, and so they would either have every world rebelling on a regular basis, or the ethereals don't use any pheromones.
They do not use kroot for meat grinder tactics. Even in the tau codex (which is upstairs so I won't quote directly) it says that fire caste doctrine does not recognize the concept of expendable troops, and in the rare, specific scenario where there is literally no option but to use a frontal assault, they are supported by marksmen, and the safety of the troops is entrusted to them. Also, most cadres don't even allow kroot to do this as they see it as a high honour
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Has it actually been said non-Tau are placed within the caste system?
Well I have seen
Gue'vesa'saal
Gue'vesa'la
and
Gue'vesa'ui
multiple times, and those are caste ranks, so I would assume that humans are treated as their own caste, albeit with rank limitations since I've seen no Gue'vesa'vre or higher.
"The mind control and propaganda are supposition/rumour on the part of an imperial observer"
Numerous Imperial observers and a few non-Imperial ones as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:Let just use this chart:
Spoiler:
Ugh, that.
Tau would be lawful neutral, as would the Imperium as a whole (with some good and some evil people in them, though the most dedicated heroes of the Imperium tend to be decidedly good), including Space Marines who as a whole can't honestly be put as either good nor evil. Chaos would be Chaotic Neutral leaning towards evil, but there are heroes within Chaos just as there are villains within the Imperium (though the most dedicated heroes of Chaos tend to be decidedly evil).
Orks are Warlike Green, because they have no concept of good or evil even within their own society-- there's only "orky" and "unorky", and "a good waaagh!" or "mucking about" (see here, but if they had to be classified, I'd say chaotic neutral is best, as they're not out to commit evil, so much as they just want a good fight-- something that also happens within good aligned beings in the dnd system, so it isn't a uniquely evil thing. Tyranids are either neutral evil or true neutral by the DnD scale, depending on if one sees the Hive Mind as a malicious devourer of all it sees or simply as an animal seeking to find its next meal. It is neither bound by chaotic nor lawful tendencies. Eldar are definitely Lawful Arrogant, while Dark Eldar are probably Neutral Donkeycave. And Necrons... feth, I have no clue where to place them in the new fluff for them.
Melissia wrote:Tau would be lawful neutral, as would the Imperium as a whole (with some good and some evil people in them, though the most dedicated heroes of the Imperium tend to be decidedly good), including Space Marines who as a whole can't honestly be put as either good nor evil. Chaos would be Chaotic Neutral leaning towards evil, but there are heroes within Chaos just as there are villains within the Imperium (though the most dedicated heroes of Chaos tend to be decidedly evil).
Out of curiosity, who are those heroes? I'm wracking my brain trying to think of some "good" Chaos heroes, but the only ones that come to mind are merely charismatic/sympathetic villains (Talos, Huron, maybe even Honsou and Marduk).
Melissia wrote:Chaos would be Chaotic Neutral leaning towards evil, but there are heroes within Chaos just as there are villains within the Imperium (though the most dedicated heroes of Chaos tend to be decidedly evil).
Wow, Wittgenstein is ringing in my ear right about now.
I think people are investing a little too much into the word "Chaos."
Admittedly, WH40K stole Michael Moorcock's version of Chaos vs. Law which doesn't overlay so well with the Alignment system from D&D as it has developed (funny given that Moorcock's writings also inspired it as well).
Chaotic Neutral has often been interpreted at least a mix of whimsy, mirth, randomness, individuality, self-centeredness, and unreliability. "Roguish" behavior if i need to reach for a generalized catch all term.
That isn't quite Moorcock's take on Chaos - which has a much more biting and dark overtone - as well as partaking of imagery and themes that under other systems of measurement are reserved for "evil."
Its that version/interpretation of Chaos which partakes more of the great big Venn Diagram that is supposed to characterize the faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to drive home a point - has anyone ever heard of Monte Cook? He was one of the 2nd Gen big name game designers associated with D&D during its "AD&D to D&D 3.5" era.
When he went off to make the award winning campaign world, Ptolus, he decided to re-introduce the Moorcockian version of Chaos to D&D players via a lovely supplement entitled Chaositech.
However by that time Chaos as an alignment had essentially been identified with personal freedom - he had to devote sections of his sourcebook to explain what "True Chaos" really was...
A group of children playing can be called “chaotic.” One might very well know a person about whom one could say, “He is chaotic.” A creature, such as a storm giant, can have an alignment of chaotic good. But from a cultist’s point of view, chaos is far more than an interest in individuality or personal freedom.
These things are not of chaos—not according to such texts as the Book of Faceless Hate, a key tome in the religion of deep chaos. Deep chaos is based on the fundamental aspects of hate, destruction, death, and dissolution. In terms of alignment, most adherents of the religion are evil as well as chaotic, although a few are chaotic neutral. Members are never chaotic good, because there is nothing “good” about
this faith. From the chaos cultists’ perspective, “good” is destruction, mayhem, disaster, and slaughter.
Yadda yadda. He had to keep hammering home to the average D&D player reading the book that what they mean by "Chaotic Neutral" in its mainstream/generalized sense doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what True Chaos really is...
Everything I said about the Tau is true. I mean, if you choose to look at the Tau through rose colored lenses that have a bunch of smudges that keep you from seeing everything, you might call them "good".
However, everything we know about the Tau points to subtle mind control, social engineering, oppressive caste systems, and an aggressive expansionist policy that uses the pervasive propaganda of "The Greater Good" to justify a policy of conquering neighboring planets, and subsequently disenfranchising the subjugated. There is absolutely nothing "good" about the Tau. The Ethereals are just sneakier and more subtle about being galactic bastards.
Now, how do the Tau compare to the Imperium with its radical xenophobia, state sponsored genocide, and oppressive state sponsored and heavily armed church? Maybe they don't look "as bad". But unless you want to set the standard for "good" as being the "least evil", then there's no way you can call the Tau "good guys". Sure, the average brainwashed Tau is probably a "good" person, just as the average citizen of the Imperium is probably "good". But in no sense of the word is anything about the Tau Empire good.
Of course, being sneakily evil makes the Tau better, not worse. So it isn't like pointing out the truth about the Tau Empire is criticism. They don't make a lick of sense in 40K as the cheery, BESM cheerleaders for The Greater Good that a lot of their less well read fans try to claim. I can understand if people fell in love with the idea of the Tau as "good guys" are a bit irritated to find out that they were wrong, and that the Tau are really just a combination of classical literary "Big Brother" governments. But the truth is that "The Greater Good" is bullcrap, and they're really just one Soma away from Huxley's novel.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:It is separated into castes because each caste is a different species. I agree that if they were all physiologically/anatomically the same, like humans, and sorted into castes it would be bad.
How does this justify the fact that the individual castes are isolated from power or true decision making?
They expand because, other than the Mon'tau, the greatest fear of the tau is having a tiny kingdom that can be wiped out in a nanosecond. This is what originally prompted the tau to leave their homeworld: a single stellar radiation pulse of significant size could destroy everything they have created. This is how the tau mind works. So, they expand.
That's still a flimsy justification. They are still taking land by force based on a desire for personal gain. While not inherently evil, it is definitely not good. They are conquering land from somebody, and typically unprovoked. Unless preemptive strikes are somehow okay now, lol. I mean, I read a lot of criticism of the same perceived US policy.
They are simply the most forgiving faction. They offer you a good, full life as a member of their empire if you surrender and join.
So they don't exterminate, they just subjugate. "You've got freedom, so long as you only want the exact freedom we are offering."
Ethereals do not use mind control pheromones. If that were true, there would have to be 1 ethereal per tau on every tau world, because they'd have to follow them around, because pheromones cannot cover an entire world. Tau are not constantly around these leaders, and so they would either have every world rebelling on a regular basis, or the ethereals don't use any pheromones.
This is just completely useless. Plenty of stuff exists in 40K that doesn't seem like it can exist in the real world. We can use human ethics and values to make judgements about a fictional society. We can't use basic human science and physiology to make guesses about how an alien biology works. Saying the Tau can't use pheromones because they don't work like we understand human pheromones to work is like saying Space Marines can't exist because they don't work how we understand modern biology. It works, because in the setting, it does.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Everything I said about the Tau is true.
Eee. That depends on the time period really - as in the real world time period from the moment of their creation to the Backlash.
as Originally conceived:
According to Andy Chambers, the chief designer at the time, the Tau were intended "to be altruistic and idealistic, believing heartily in unification as the way forward." Graham McNeill was responsible for much of the background material produced for the Tau, developing what Andy Chambers described as "...their proud, quiet but determined character [developed] to the point where they actually became a rather likeable, if slightly naive addition to the cosmos.
And then the Backlash came. Mind you, i'll show my hand on this - I took part in said Backlash against the Tau Version 1.0.
Intentions are one thing. What actually resulted was something different. Whether it was intentional or not could be called into question, sure. Graham McNeill missing the mark on his fluff isn't surprising in the least, lol. After all, this is the guy who absolutely botched the Ultramarines.
No. Am I the one looking at them with too much bias? I admit, I am inclined to like them, but no more so than you seem disinclined to believe in their goodness.
Aggressive expansion? Hardly. The third phase expansion was mostly taking back planets lost in the DGC, with only six new septs (major planets) added. Almost all tau worlds are previously unsettled.
They do not simply "invade" planets. They offer to make the planet a protectorate, allow them to trade for superior tau technology. They do not "disenfranchise" their auxilliaries, they give them their own worlds within the empire. Notice how Pech, T'ros and Vespid all have single-species populations, are all part of the empire, and none of them have any tau on them?
The greater good is the quasi-religion of the tau, it is so much more than just propaganda.
You speak as if you have already won the argument in that fourth paragraph. This is far from correct. You are adding nothing but opinion, whereas my previous post was fact-based. Less well read? My bookshelves groan under the load of my BL books, codices and white dwarf magazines. There is nothing/next to nothing about the tau I have not read.
Isolated from power? A Shas'O can command all the fire caste assets of an entire world. He can even find the Por'O, Kor'O and Fio'O and organize a coalition. He is completely unfettered on the battlefield, and can even choose to retire and join the council. This is simply a structured way of life. Similar to Sun Tzu's thoughts about commanding an army, really.
@ your next paragraph, typically unprovoked? They act according to the wishes of those on the planet, as you can see based on the fact that the entire population of Taros supported them, other than the arbiters. They annex worlds by negotiating with their leaders, not with threats, but with promises. In fact, nothing they do is unprovoked. The first hostile contact wit the imperium was unprovoked, with the DGC being launched in response to tau trade routes
On taros they were actually protecting the people; they would have been censored for xenos contact. They requested tau military intervention. Tau actually help imperial frontier worlds, even though the imperium loses planets, the tau do what is best for the people, though admittedly not for that reason.
They don't subjugate. They allow their auxilliaries to have their own worlds, under tau protection.
Because even in 40k, something the size of an ethereal being able to spread pheromones over the entire surface of a fething planet is not possible. With pheromones that powerful they should be able to control their enemies, as well.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Intentions are one thing. What actually resulted was something different.
You forget Veteran - the rest of the fanion had to raise an outcry of epic proportions just to even move Andy and Graham from "Noble Naieve Weeboo Samurai Warriors" to something more in line with the Grimdark nature of WH40k.
And frankly - the staunchest (read: loudest) critics of the Tau don't think the marker was ever moved far enough - they essentially agree with Tau Fans like Je suis2 au hazard. Which is why the Tau continue to be on the receiving end of their criticism.
So - what does GW do? It does what it always does - Splits the Difference and lets everyone walk away with their version of the Truth.
Same reason why when you walk up to GW staff during a convention and ask them point blank about things like the Vespid Communion Helms, they give the most non-committal answer to the question.
And why the Tau still are portrayed with a dose of that naievity even into 5th Edition Warhammer - case in point:
From the War of Dark Revelations - M41, Dark Eldar Codex
It was at this desperate time when a Dark Eldar Haemonculus named Urien Rakarth contacted the Tau High Command and made a proposal: he and his Coven, The Prophets of Flesh, would join the war against the Tyranids in return for what he called a 'cultural exchange'. Looking for allies anywhere they could, the Tau eagerly agreed. Initially the new alliance seemed to be working out marvelously:
..........
Battling the Tyranids alongside Tau Fire Warriors, the Dark Eldar deployed a new weapon: long-limbed Grotesques that moaned in despair as they hacked through the Tyranid horde. After six days of carnage the Tau and insidious creations of Rakarth were victorious. However a terrible suspicion began to dawn. Vid-captures from Tau Drones showed that the Grotesques of Rakarth were of a blue-grey coloration all too familiar to the Tau. Mere seconds after the Tau realized to their horror what had become of their "cultural exchange",
..........
Realizing the kind of monster Rakarth was, the outraged Tau refused the deal and became determined to punish the Haemonculus Lord for his crimes. Mobilizing their fleet reserves from the nearby planet Rubikon, the Tau made course for Rakarth's fleet in orbit. However the Haemonculi fleet turned out to be nothing but mirages and empty space. Confused, the Tau then received a desperate message from Commander O'Shaev detailing that Rubikon was now under attack by Rakarth's forces. Now undefended, Rubikon was the subject of a massive bloodbath that saw even Supreme Overlord of Commorragh Asdrubael Vect himself and his Kabal of the Black Heart involved in the fray. The Prophets of Flesh deployed thousands of Wracks, Grotesques, and Pain Engines which overwhelmed the spirited Tau defense. When Tau reinforcements finally arrived, they found Rubikon to be a barren world, its populace stolen away to the horrors of Commorragh.
Really..."Cultural Exchange?" Who in their right mind would ever fall for that?
Of course, that was a little bit better than what happened to them in Tyranid Codex 5th edition - you know the Hive Fleet Gorgon encounter..
From Ka'mais Incident
In 075902.M41 dozens of Bio-ships detached from the main Hive Fleet and invaded the Tau colony of Ka'mais. This triggered the emergence of an unexpected Necron fleet from Ka'kais' dead moon which then set about destroying the outnumbered Tyranid ships. On Ka'mais a day of celebration was declared and as the Necrons landed they were greeted with great ceremony by Ethereal Aun'taniel. Despite the welcome, Aun'taniel was quickly slain by the Necrons and Ka'mais was then harvested.
And so here we see the role of the Tau solidified to that of "village idiot" of WH40k. Not exactly what i had in mind back in 2001 when they first came out and we were allowed "input" into the creation process - but its what we're stuck with.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:Am I the one looking at them with too much bias? I admit, I am inclined to like them, but no more so than you seem disinclined to believe in their goodness.
Yes. But the caveat to that is you also happen to stand in the mainstream majority of how Tau players interpret the Tau.
I mean frankly - they were designed to attract people like that in the first place who wouldn't be attracted to any of the other factions due to the Grimdark of it all.
Melissia wrote:There's also the FFG material and the Relic material as well.
Yes, because the non-canon ending (according to Relic) matters. Somehow.
FFG, actually, if you read some of the books, has the Inquisition capture an Ethereal and find no evidence of any 'pheromones', though to be fair, the Inquisition also suspects it's some sort of trick.
Xenology, well, again, Xenology has been retconned by GW.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:So they don't exterminate, they just subjugate. "You've got freedom, so long as you only want the exact freedom we are offering."
Sarge, that's different from what you doled out in Afghanistan.... how? You can choose your leaders as long as we approve them and they agree with us. Kettle, how black thou art!
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Ethereals do not use mind control pheromones. If that were true, there would have to be 1 ethereal per tau on every tau world, because they'd have to follow them around, because pheromones cannot cover an entire world. Tau are not constantly around these leaders, and so they would either have every world rebelling on a regular basis, or the ethereals don't use any pheromones.
For once we agree. And claiming that 'It's ok because it's in key with the setting' is an excuse so broad and so flimsy that it can even justify 'MULTILAZORZZZZ!' and SW simply jumping tens of thousands of kilometers between starships. The problem is that even the faintest gust of wind would blow it away and the fact that Tau firewarriors are stated to have full chemical sealing on their armor. You know, something that would utterly block it even under the logic of 40k?
BaronIveagh wrote:Yes, because the non-canon ending (according to Relic) matters. Somehow.
It's still evidence of what they would have done in a victory.
BaronIveagh wrote:FFG, actually, if you read some of the books, has the Inquisition capture an Ethereal and find no evidence of any 'pheromones', though to be fair, the Inquisition also suspects it's some sort of trick.
But there were many other horrible things the Tau did in those books.
BaronIveagh wrote:Xenology, well, again, Xenology has been retconned by GW.
But not necessarily in its entirety, also, I didn't mention xenology...
BaronIveagh wrote:Sarge, that's different from what you doled out in Afghanistan.... how? You can choose your leaders as long as we approve them and they agree with us. Kettle, how black thou art!
You realize that this IS a complaint that is constantly leveled against the US to justify why the US is evil and OMGWTF THE DEVAIL!, right? If you want to argue the US is evil, certainly the Tau are far worse because of their highly aggressive and expansionary nature that makes the US look rather tame in comparison
BaronIveagh wrote:Sarge, that's different from what you doled out in Afghanistan.... how? You can choose your leaders as long as we approve them and they agree with us. Kettle, how black thou art!
Try to only use funny quips when you don't understand what they mean.
At what point have I attempted to justify the war in Afghanistan? How can I be a pot calling the kettle black? Just like your silly female Space Marines thread, try to keep your arguments in the realm you're equipped for. However, to make you even sillier looking (not sure that is possible, but I'm going to give ti an honest effort), I've actually used comparisons with the United State's policies and drawn parallels with how American policy has been heavily criticized, and also said that the United States, as much as it has been involved in plenty of charitable and humanitarian efforts, cannot be considered "good" because it has never acted with any real altruism, only a desire to further its own agenda.
Like any successful state.
However, if you can't see the difference between the current war in Afghanistan and aggressive wars of conquest, you are even less well equipped for this discussion than I thought. You really should have chosen something even remotely relevant. Maybe Manifest Destiny and the American conquest of the North American continent. Though ultimately that would have been even more fuel for my argument, so perhaps your ignorance of history and politics worked in your favor this time, lol.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote: Am I the one looking at them with too much bias?
Absolutely. I have no feelings for, or against, the Tau. I simply look at their fluff, identify the influences, and make reasonable evaluations of them.
Aggressive expansion? Hardly. The third phase expansion was mostly taking back planets lost in the DGC, with only six new septs (major planets) added. Almost all tau worlds are previously unsettled.
Are we now just selectively choosing which portions of Tau "history" apply and which don't? And you accuse me of bias? Come on. Let's argue like adults.
They do not simply "invade" planets. They offer to make the planet a protectorate, allow them to trade for superior tau technology.
So they... complexly invade? Trying to figure out what the actual difference is.
They do not "disenfranchise" their auxilliaries, they give them their own worlds within the empire.
Do they?
Notice how Pech, T'ros and Vespid all have single-species populations, are all part of the empire, and none of them have any tau on them?
They still lost their independence and are forced to serve The Greater Good.
The greater good is the quasi-religion of the tau, it is so much more than just propaganda.
Without opening the can of worms on differentiating propaganda and religion, it is still propaganda, even if it has other levels and methods of social control.
You speak as if you have already won the argument in that fourth paragraph.
I won it in my first post. I just waited until the fourth paragraph to highlight the fact.
You are adding nothing but opinion, whereas my previous post was fact-based.
Ahh, the "Nuh uh!" defense comes out. Don't feel too bad. It is ultimately the recourse of all "Tau are good guys!"fans
Less well read? My bookshelves groan under the load of my BL books, codices and white dwarf magazines.
Well, I think that admission just about sums it up. Did it ever occur to you that when I would claim someone, including myself, to be well read, that perhaps I might be talking about real, good books, and not Black Library fluff? The mention of being "well read" means having read enough legitimate material that you can identify influences, and draw realistic and accurate comparisons between one set of material and another, or perhaps between one set of material, and say, history, sociology, or psychology. Don't get me wrong. You might well be a Black Library scholar. And, well, uh, good work on that.
Isolated from power? A Shas'O can command all the fire caste assets of an entire world. He can even find the Por'O, Kor'O and Fio'O and organize a coalition. He is completely unfettered on the battlefield, and can even choose to retire and join the council. This is simply a structured way of life. Similar to Sun Tzu's thoughts about commanding an army, really.
Something tells me the most you know about Sun Tzu was a special on the History Channel. However, ultimately, the Shas'O serves the Ethereals, and has no opportunity for independent action, and never will. He is given power over the armies because the Ethereals have socially engineered Tau society to make the Fire Caste purpose built for that task.
They act according to the wishes of those on the planet, as you can see based on the fact that the entire population of Taros supported them, other than the arbiters. They annex worlds by negotiating with their leaders, not with threats, but with promises. In fact, nothing they do is unprovoked. The first hostile contact wit the imperium was unprovoked, with the DGC being launched in response to tau trade routes
On taros they were actually protecting the people; they would have been censored for xenos contact. They requested tau military intervention. Tau actually help imperial frontier worlds, even though the imperium loses planets, the tau do what is best for the people, though admittedly not for that reason.
They don't subjugate. They allow their auxilliaries to have their own worlds, under tau protection.
A lot of "theys" without specifying who "they" are, and what the actual motivations and controlling factors were. And I think, when you said "protection" at the end, you meant control. After all, those planets didn't need any protection by the Tau, until the Tau arrived to protect them, lol. You seem to have forgotten that the Tau had considered military conquest of Taros, but deemed it too costly, so they engaged in various forms of underhanded "diplomacy" in order to influence the government of Taros. In the end, the Imperium's decision was to remove the Planetary Governor, not to censure the populate (or censor, lol). So this idea that they were "protecting" the people of Taros is ludicrous at best, and an outright lie at the worst. They went to Taros with the intention of slowly but surely infiltrating and converting the planet's highest authorities, and then annexing the planet for "The Greater Good". They cared nothing for the people there. And the "they" was not "the people of Taros", it was the corrupted Planetary Governor, and he didn't need intervention until after the Tau had already convinced him to turn against his own, thus inviting the military action from the Imperium. The Tau started that war. They didn't come to the rescue, lol. I mean, perhaps they didn't intend for it to end in military action, but that really just paints them as inept and stupid. Not as good guys.
Because even in 40k, something the size of an ethereal being able to spread pheromones over the entire surface of a fething planet is not possible. With pheromones that powerful they should be able to control their enemies, as well.
Maybe the Ethereal control is more complex than you are considering. I mean, you've been a little short in all other aspects of your analysis. I figure that's a fairly safe assumption in this case too. I mean, pheromones are simple one suggestion that has been made as to how the Ethereals control and influence the Tau. It doesn;t even necessarily have to be the correct one. In the end, though, we do know that the Ethereals do exert some kind of control. After all, in their absence, Tau revert to their natural tendencies. As another example, Farsight, when separated from the Ethereals, punched his time card and took off, never to return.
The Black Templars and the Salamanders put their bodies and lives between the Ork Hordes and the imperial citizens in the hive cities on Armegeddon in Helsreach. They had to sacrifice entire sections of the cities and abandon entire hive cities all together, but it was always "the needs of the many over the needs of the few" type decisions.
BaronIveagh wrote:Xenology, well, again, Xenology has been retconned by GW.
Where? When? Citation?
GW/BL has never invalidated any previous material to my knowledge (without providing new material, anyway... see Necrons/DE/GK to a lesser extent); the closest they've come is stating that things they label with the Heretic stamp are somewhat out of date and probably not applicable (and the only things that bear the stamp are Ian Watson's books, which no one should read anyway).
Also, how ridiculously off-topic is this thread now?
Melissia wrote:There's also the FFG material and the Relic material as well.
Yes, because the non-canon ending (according to Relic) matters. Somehow.
FFG, actually, if you read some of the books, has the Inquisition capture an Ethereal and find no evidence of any 'pheromones', though to be fair, the Inquisition also suspects it's some sort of trick.
alright - this is going to result in another 10 more pages of "Are the Tau good?" subset within the "Are the Space Wolves good?"...
So let's clear the air:
the FFG books present a wonderful "on-target" interpretation of the Tau as FFG is essentially towing the GW line.
Yes they do a number of questonable things in line with what has been said before.
But they also stick their necks out for their human subjects - remember that planet where a majority of the population had already been infected by the Genestealer/Tyranid virus?
The response wasn't an Exterminatus-style response (ie: Kill them all) , Abandon the Planet, or etc. etc. The Earth Caste got to work and invented a retrovirus to "recode" their DNA sequences.. Every...last...person.. on the planet. And their doing this with Hive Fleet Dagon slowly approaching - the influence of the Hive Mind becoming stronger....which result in the Tau being overrun. Cue: Heroic Deathwach Team who must join hands with the Tau and save all of them from becoming Bug Food.
Another example - there was a Death World mentioned where all the plant and animal life are extensions of some sort of Planet wide organism that is hostile. So do the Tau..
a.) Kill everything and claim the planet
b.) Interdict travel to the planet
c.) Repeatedly send expeditions (that get killed..all..the time) in order to try and communicate with the Planet wide entity.
Look i'm just going to keep bringing up my own objections to the "Are _______ good?"
Namely - No faction can be good - but persons can be.
40Ks Grimdarkness (although sometimes taken waaaaayyy too serious at times) prevents something like a Federation or an Alliance (the generic Democratic yet somewhat dysfunctional Utopian "Good guy" Scifi faction) from ever cropping up.
Cause the Future is Brutal. The Future is War.
At the same time I can't help but laugh a little - this "Are ______ good?" seems to be a problem that exclusively belongs to the Factions not classified as Xenos Horrificus.
Chaos, Tyranids, Necrons, and my Orks - well the fandom/players never get into arguments such as these.
Its probably because we are all supposed to be "1 Note" - uncomplicated in our motivations (with some small exceptions made for Chaos).
To you who play the Imperium, the Eldar, and the Tau - Complicated Motivation is your "gift." Its what creates the tension that allows you to relate with the factions you have chosen. That mix of honor, bitter struggle, hope for a positive outcome, and the realities of survival.
And yet......some folks work their hardest to get their faction to be "1 Note."
Irony or ironies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Omegus wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:Xenology, well, again, Xenology has been retconned by GW.
Where? When? Citation?
GW/BL has never invalidated any previous material to my knowledge (without providing new material, anyway... see Necrons/DE/GK to a lesser extent); the closest they've come is stating that things they label with the Heretic stamp are somewhat out of date and probably not applicable (and the only things that bear the stamp are Ian Watson's books, which no one should read anyway).
Also, how ridiculously off-topic is this thread now?
Ah - here be Truth.
An aside: Did you know Ian Watson is considering writing a 4th Heretic Tome to finish off the Inquisitor War? Part of me feels like picking it up for the sake of the retro feel to laugh at.
At the same time I can't help but laugh a little - this "Are ______ good?" seems to be a problem that exclusively belongs to the Factions not classified as Xenos Horrificus.
Chaos, Tyranids, Necrons, and my Orks - well the fandom/players never get into arguments such as these.
I object!
Orks are the only truly good race in the galaxy! They follow their moral code closer than any other race that actually has something resembling a moral code!
Okay if we want to move away from the clear cut good guy argument.
I'll say to their credit the Space Wolves are by far the most honorable chapter in the IoM. The hold onto the Imperial Truth and the original ways of the great crusade instead of putting the codex and its many flaws above their own primarch's teachings.
Also Iv'e Never seen the Space Wolves go out and condone outright slaughter "for the greater good" like so many other factions.
That assumes that you think that the "Imperial Truth" is honorable; considering that many of its facets were patently false, there's a good argument to be made that the Emperor was going to eventually let go of it anyway and embrace his godhood and that the Horus Heresy sped up his plans to get to a point where he never intended to go.
At the same time I can't help but laugh a little - this "Are ______ good?" seems to be a problem that exclusively belongs to the Factions not classified as Xenos Horrificus.
Chaos, Tyranids, Necrons, and my Orks - well the fandom/players never get into arguments such as these.
I object!
Orks are the only truly good race in the galaxy! They follow their moral code closer than any other race that actually has something resembling a moral code!
they also have a near-perfect society. There's a quote in... Some codex, but it's an IoM dude who comments on how the orks have almost literally evolved the perfect society. If anything, being an Ork presents the best options of any species in 40k. Are they good? Not really, they kill things for fun. But at the same time, they aren't xenophobic morons who slaughter entire systems to keep themselves a secret. Their simplicity is why they are so successful.
ContemplativeSphinx wrote:An aside: Did you know Ian Watson is considering writing a 4th Heretic Tome to finish off the Inquisitor War? Part of me feels like picking it up for the sake of the retro feel to laugh at.
I... I'm not sure how to feel about that.
On the one hand, he is the worst BL author ever (even counting Goto, since while Goto's stories are nonsensical and full of stupid, but at least they flow acceptably well; Watson's writing style is so ponderous and tedious to work through, reading his books is akin to hard labor... another way of putting it is that Goto is a decent writer, but horrid author, while Watson is terrible at both).
On the other hand, maybe this book would actually tie up all the more interesting story-lines (like ya know, the Illuminati and that whole Inquisition War thing the books are titled after) he completely abandoned half way through the second book to focus on his bs romance story.
Ugh, just trying to remember some of the crap from those books makes my blood pressure rise. That man's execution is long over-due. I say I should get his manuscript first. If it is acceptable, he gets to die quickly and with minimal pain. If it is not, death by 1,000,000 scrotal paper cuts.
At the same time I can't help but laugh a little - this "Are ______ good?" seems to be a problem that exclusively belongs to the Factions not classified as Xenos Horrificus.
Chaos, Tyranids, Necrons, and my Orks - well the fandom/players never get into arguments such as these.
I object!
Orks are the only truly good race in the galaxy! They follow their moral code closer than any other race that actually has something resembling a moral code!
they also have a near-perfect society. There's a quote in... Some codex, but it's an IoM dude who comments on how the orks have almost literally evolved the perfect society. If anything, being an Ork presents the best options of any species in 40k. Are they good? Not really, they kill things for fun. But at the same time, they aren't xenophobic morons who slaughter entire systems to keep themselves a secret. Their simplicity is why they are so successful.
LOL to both of your comments Melissia and McNinja.
I'll give my Orks the following - i think they are probably the most consistent faction in terms of worldview - simply because their ethical/moral standards are uncomplicated and they are not overly burden by reflective thought.
When happiness in life consists of a good fight (in a universe constantly at war) - how can one do wrong?
To quote anotehr forumite - they are the most psychologically stable of all the factions.
The Nightbringer (at least odd Necron fluffwise) was unsuccessful of planting the fear of death into the species, and Chaos has no means of relating to the Orks to tempt them.
The only God who may have an "in" with them is Khorne - but the Ork response would not be veneration of Khorne.
ie: Who cares about Khorne! WAAAAGGGH!!!
But the major point i was trying to bring up is that there is hardly any hand-wringing about the Moral/Ethical nature of Orks...or Tyranids.. or Necrons..etc.
The primary role of these factions are to act as Antagonists. We're not stuck trying to come up with a justification for our actions - we simply just do them.
Omegus wrote:
I... I'm not sure how to feel about that.
On the one hand, he is the worst BL author ever (even counting Goto, since while Goto's stories are nonsensical and full of stupid, but at least they flow acceptably well; Watson's writing style is so ponderous and tedious to work through, reading his books is akin to hard labor... another way of putting it is that Goto is a decent writer, but horrid author, while Watson is terrible at both).
On the other hand, maybe this book would actually tie up all the more interesting story-lines (like ya know, the Illuminati and that whole Inquisition War thing the books are titled after) he completely abandoned half way through the second book to focus on his bs romance story.
Ugh, just trying to remember some of the crap from those books makes my blood pressure rise. That man's execution is long over-due. I say I should get his manuscript first. If it is acceptable, he gets to die quickly and with minimal pain. If it is not, death by 1,000,000 scrotal paper cuts.
ROFL! I understand your trepidation. Watson had some interesting ideas, but his execution was very off.
The chance to get actual resolution vs.... seeing Chaos Squats again?
Secondary Aside: Since you bring up CS Goto, did you know he's actually quite aware of the "MuLtiLAzErs" joke as well. he references it on his website and offers up a justification that he's just trying to shake our worldviews - ie: What some might consider "Trolling" the whole WH40K fanbase.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:ust like your silly female Space Marines thread, try to keep your arguments in the realm you're equipped for. However, to make you even sillier looking (not sure that is possible, but I'm going to give ti an honest effort), I've actually used comparisons with the United State's policies and drawn parallels with how American policy has been heavily criticized, and also said that the United States, as much as it has been involved in plenty of charitable and humanitarian efforts, cannot be considered "good" because it has never acted with any real altruism, only a desire to further its own agenda.
Like any successful state.
However, if you can't see the difference between the current war in Afghanistan and aggressive wars of conquest, you are even less well equipped for this discussion than I thought. You really should have chosen something even remotely relevant. Maybe Manifest Destiny and the American conquest of the North American continent. Though ultimately that would have been even more fuel for my argument, so perhaps your ignorance of history and politics worked in your favor this time, lol.
I simply asked how the tau selecting their government for them (aka creating a puppet state, as opposed to ruling directly, which is typically done in a more traditional war of conquest) was different from what the US is doing in Afghanistan. Which by the way, you did not actually answer, you simply went off on a tangent about global perception of the US and generally denigrated my intelligence. While I grant that there is a general perception within the US that 'We're the good guys', we both know what a load of horsegak that is.
Since I'm 'less well equipped for this discussion' than you thought, spell it out for me. What's the difference between the tau appointing a government and the puppet state the US has set up in Afghanistan?
Russ Mandarin wrote:Okay if we want to move away from the clear cut good guy argument.
I'll say to their credit the Space Wolves are by far the most honorable chapter in the IoM. The hold onto the Imperial Truth and the original ways of the great crusade instead of putting the codex and its many flaws above their own primarch's teachings.
Also Iv'e Never seen the Space Wolves go out and condone outright slaughter "for the greater good" like so many other factions.
Whoo boy. Most honorable. I'm just waiting for the Ultramarine fan to barge in and go WUT?!
As Melissia said:
That assumes that you think that the "Imperial Truth" is honorable
Ie: Its a matter of taste.
There's no objectivity scale of what is "honorable" - everyone is going to define it differently and point to their favorite Chapter as being "most honorable."
Heck - somewhere in this thread, i believe Kaldor listed a good deal of the negative qualities associated with the Space Wolves, and although strident in tone kinda highlights the downside of being amongst the Space Wolves.
Except those negative qualities are also connected to their positive ones.
In truth - "crowning" a faction as being "good/honorable/whatever" says a lot more about what the player values rather than making an objective statement.
I'm sorry, but the Space Wolves were never real proponents of the Imperial Truth. The Imperial Truth (Lie?) was that there are no gods or demons, and that humanity is in charge of its own destiny and should rule the galaxy. Basically, a message of unity and enlightenment.
The Space Wolves carry on the superstitious, tribal beliefs with them into their new life as Astartes. And they basically snub their noses at every other member of the Imperium, lord over those mortals unfortunate enough to be born on Fenris but not be turned into Astartes, and concern themselves only with who they are going to fight next and sniffing each others' butts. No unity or enlightenment here.
@ Sarge, I really do not feel like making a million quotes for your text wall, So I'll address most of the main points, and any other you feel are important but I skipped you can PM me about, d'accord?
Firstly, I know more about Sun Tzu than a history history channel special, I do not even watch TV. I have read several versions of the Art of War and done my own research. I mentioned BL, codex and WD material because that is what is pertinent, do not mistake that for an admission of illiteracy.
Anyways,
About the power of the 'O rank, yes, they answer to the ethereals. A sergeant answers to his captain. So what? Modern day leaders have to answer to the people. Unlimited power is not a good thing. Only Aun'va holds power anywhere near that, and he is still a part of one of the councils, if memory serves.
Of course he has the chance for independant action, Ethereals only rarely take to the field of battle. Meaning he leads. And need I remind you the fire caste outdates the Ethereals? Their tendencies are their own.
The massive block of text I'll answer in my next post, so on to the last one:
No. It is not being depraved of pheromones (or whatever their theoretical, non-existant control is #throwingyouabone) that sent Farsight over the edge. He was already an aggressive individual from an aggressive world, and when his ethereal was killed, the grief and rage sent him over the edge. The only other plausible reason is if his xenotech blade altered his sanity in some way, as it already seems to have extended his life some sixfold, without him seeing any signs of frailty.
And I am deeply sorry for misspelling censure, I am a francophone and sometimes have issues with that particular pair of words.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of "theys" without specifying who "they" are, and what the actual motivations and controlling factors were. And I think, when you said "protection" at the end, you meant control. After all, those planets didn't need any protection by the Tau, until the Tau arrived to protect them, lol. You seem to have forgotten that the Tau had considered military conquest of Taros, but deemed it too costly, so they engaged in various forms of underhanded "diplomacy" in order to influence the government of Taros. In the end, the Imperium's decision was to remove the Planetary Governor, not to censure the populate (or censor, lol). So this idea that they were "protecting" the people of Taros is ludicrous at best, and an outright lie at the worst. They went to Taros with the intention of slowly but surely infiltrating and converting the planet's highest authorities, and then annexing the planet for "The Greater Good". They cared nothing for the people there. And the "they" was not "the people of Taros", it was the corrupted Planetary Governor, and he didn't need intervention until after the Tau had already convinced him to turn against his own, thus inviting the military action from the Imperium. The Tau started that war. They didn't come to the rescue, lol. I mean, perhaps they didn't intend for it to end in military action, but that really just paints them as inept and stupid. Not as good guys.
They=the tau empire.
I already mentioned the motivation. They want to expand their empire for fear of a single, unstoppable cataclysm wiping out the entire species.
Protection=/=control. They did need protection before hand, it just turns out their former guardians (The IoM) respond to threats kinda slow, as in sometimes hundreds of years later, and the tau are better protectors since they will always be close at hand to stop and hive splinter/WAAAGH! endangering their world, while providing them a fair (especially in comparison to the IoM) government, superior technology and generally better way of life?
Tau did not start the war. Combat was the idea of the IoM. The tau were there for profit, whether it be from annexation or trade routes. And the governor did not turn against his people. They wanted the tau. 8000 men of the taros PDF and tarosian mining gangs supported them in combat, against freakin' space marines. Do you understand what that means? They were all for the greater good, zealous even. And obviously pheromones weren't the cause, as otherwise ethereals would not be able to come under attack from humans, if they affected them too...they could just control them.
BaronIveagh wrote: Which by the way, you did not actually answer,
I'm sorry, at what point did I become obligated to address your inane tangential arguments?
I must not have gotten the memo.
However, addressing it is kinda pointless because I already said it was more or less the same thing, and I agreed with you, even if you were confused and though I had expressed a contrary opinion (which seems ludicrous since the comparison supports my argument).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:Tau did not start the war. Combat was the idea of the IoM.
Wait.
Are you really going to suggest that the war was started by the Imperium because they sought to protect and/or reclaim their sovereign territory which had been stolen by the Tau? Really? I mean, the Imperium is guilty of all sorts of meaningless wars of aggression due to their extreme xenophobia and/or other faults. But it's downright absurd to suggest the Imperium started the war because they responded with hostility to an obvious encroachment on one of their worlds and a very understandable perception of threat. You can pretty often paint the Imperium as the "bad guys". This is not one of these cases, unless you are just the most blindly, willfully ignorant of Tau fans, lol.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:I'm sorry, at what point did I become obligated to address your inane tangential arguments?
About the same point I was obligated to smile and tolerate your arrogant attitude.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:
However, addressing it is kinda pointless because I already said it was more or less the same thing, and I agreed with you, even if you were confused and though I had expressed a contrary opinion (which seems ludicrous since the comparison supports my argument).
And, saying 'I've previously made comparisons to US policy and how it's criticized' does not actually say anything. You make the point that both the US and Tau are simply acting in their national interest (god I hate even typing those words) and that neither have done anything out of altruism (not entirely true on either count, but I'll cede the point).
However, you do an about face in the next sentence, stating the war in Afghanistan is not a war of conquest, and cite several examples of US wars of conquest, and imply that what the Tau were practicing was a war of conquest.
So, nice flip flop, you managed to imply they were the same and different in a very few sentences and say almost nothing about the differences. Mitt Romney would be proud. You did not actually give a clear cut answer until the post I'm responding to.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Are you really going to suggest that the war was started by the Imperium because they sought to protect and/or reclaim their sovereign territory which had been stolen by the Tau? Really? I mean, the Imperium is guilty of all sorts of meaningless wars of aggression due to their extreme xenophobia and/or other faults. But it's downright absurd to suggest the Imperium started the war because they responded with hostility to an obvious encroachment on one of their worlds and a very understandable perception of threat. You can pretty often paint the Imperium as the "bad guys". This is not one of these cases, unless you are just the most blindly, willfully ignorant of Tau fans, lol.
Actually, point of fact, the Imperium effectively makes worlds Vassal states in the traditional sense, not directly ruled by them. (Though, this has never really slowed Empires down from claiming the lands of a vassal as their own territory. See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)
In the case of Taros, what we have is a vassal state which suddenly decided to change sides, and the Imperium trying to send a message to any others in the area that might be harboring the same ideas. Which, similar (in political result, not the actual battle) to the clades Variana (Quintili Vare, legiones redde!), backfires spectacularly.
Are you really going to suggest that the war was started by the Imperium because they sought to protect and/or reclaim their sovereign territory which had been stolen by the Tau? Really? I mean, the Imperium is guilty of all sorts of meaningless wars of aggression due to their extreme xenophobia and/or other faults. But it's downright absurd to suggest the Imperium started the war because they responded with hostility to an obvious encroachment on one of their worlds and a very understandable perception of threat. You can pretty often paint the Imperium as the "bad guys". This is not one of these cases, unless you are just the most blindly, willfully ignorant of Tau fans, lol.
No. The Avenging Sons attempted to assassinate the imperial governor for nothing other than establishing trade routes with the tau. The world was not annexed until the governor ASKED TO JOIN THE TAU EMPIRE, a desire he had held even previous to the failed intervention, of his own will. At that point, it officially belonged to the Tau Empire, and so they posted heavier complements of troops, in the hopes of defending the world form the imperial intervention they knew was coming. The tau are only guilty of establishing trade routes.
To provide an especially random analogy, this is like if you had been trading with a merchant, and her husband came out and started beating her to death for trading with you, and you know he wouldn't stop even if you left, so you punched him in the face, and scared him off. You then stay with her so that when he comes back with his buddies, he won't be able to hurt her.
Don't ask where that came from, I'm tired.
Also, as a side point, I would like to point out that the imperium-tau war (not this battle specifically, the WAR) was started by the Imperium of Man.
The Salamanders and to a lesser degree the Ultramarines could be considered good guys. As someone pointed out, the SW's policy of keeping Fenris an extremely unpleasant place sort of undermines any claim that they're "good guys"
Let's just say they're a lot nicer than the Inquisition
And even that is arguable at times. The Inquisition does what it can to ensure that the average person is never tortured by a dark eldar, never eaten by a tyranid, never has to be sacrificed to the dark powers-- sure the inquisition does horrible things, but it does them for the sake of preserving humanity in the midst of a galaxy full of things that think humanity is tasty when dipped in bbq sauce.
b1soul wrote:The Salamanders and to a lesser degree the Ultramarines could be considered good guys. As someone pointed out, the SW's policy of keeping Fenris an extremely unpleasant place sort of undermines any claim that they're "good guys"
Let's just say they're a lot nicer than the Inquisition
I'm sorry how are they keeping it an unpleasant place to live?
The planet is a death world its always going to be like this in fact if you ask the native fenrisians they take pride in the fact that they survive on such an uninhabitable planet that is constantly raging against them.
This is the recruiting ground for the Space Wolves the native fenrisians have always been a tribal warrior culture. Nothing is going to change this
b1soul wrote:The Salamanders and to a lesser degree the Ultramarines could be considered good guys. As someone pointed out, the SW's policy of keeping Fenris an extremely unpleasant place sort of undermines any claim that they're "good guys"
Let's just say they're a lot nicer than the Inquisition
I'm sorry how are they keeping it an unpleasant place to live?
The planet is a death world its always going to be like this in fact if you ask the native fenrisians they take pride in the fact that they survive on such an uninhabitable planet that is constantly raging against them.
This is the recruiting ground for the Space Wolves the native fenrisians have always been a tribal warrior culture. Nothing is going to change this
you mean besides advanced in their culture and society? And humans were (and in some places still are) tribal warriors who embraced that culture wholeheartedy, but over time values changed and advanced in technology were made that completely changed the paradigm of what it meant to be a warrior.
Je suis2 au hazard wrote:No. The Avenging Sons attempted to assassinate the imperial governor for nothing other than establishing trade routes with the tau. The world was not annexed until the governor ASKED TO JOIN THE TAU EMPIRE, a desire he had held even previous to the failed intervention, of his own will. At that point, it officially belonged to the Tau Empire, and so they posted heavier complements of troops, in the hopes of defending the world form the imperial intervention they knew was coming. The tau are only guilty of establishing trade routes.
LOL. The planet wasn't his to give away. That's like if somebody borrowed your car, and then sold it.
You need to go back and read The Taros Campaign, because your details are all screwed up. Though, it is my assumption you're doing that on purpose.
b1soul wrote:The Salamanders and to a lesser degree the Ultramarines could be considered good guys. As someone pointed out, the SW's policy of keeping Fenris an extremely unpleasant place sort of undermines any claim that they're "good guys"
Let's just say they're a lot nicer than the Inquisition
I'm sorry how are they keeping it an unpleasant place to live?
The planet is a death world its always going to be like this in fact if you ask the native fenrisians they take pride in the fact that they survive on such an uninhabitable planet that is constantly raging against them.
This is the recruiting ground for the Space Wolves the native fenrisians have always been a tribal warrior culture. Nothing is going to change this
you mean besides advanced in their culture and society? And humans were (and in some places still are) tribal warriors who embraced that culture wholeheartedy, but over time values changed and advanced in technology were made that completely changed the paradigm of what it meant to be a warrior.
Yeeeaaaahh..but....that does raise a question
Is it really up to the Space Marine Chapters to provide "public goods" - such as education, healthcare, etc, to the respective recruiting planets?
If were going to draw on a real life example (and i loathe to do so given that involving RL in WH40K tends to distort a lot of things) - there are a number of indigenous populations in the Brazilian rainforest who by dint of national law, you, me, and anyone else are not allowed to come into contact with (unless authorized for a specific purpose - like there's a plague going on) in order to prevent cultural contamination.
ie: Don't let Modern life intrude upon tribal society - lest it completely fragment the culture as it currently exists.
A similar argument could be made for Chapters that would just prefer to use their recruiting world as well..exclusively recruiting worlds. Introduce too much innovation and you might make the folks "go soft."
That being said - we do have Robert Guilliame's example of Ultramar as the flipside to things. If iunderstand some of the claims on Dakka and Librarium - the populace of Ultramar even have shopping malls and movie theaters (showing imperial approved movies of course)!
Life's pretty good for those folks....till the Tyranids come a 'callin.
No it is not, and I actually think that the Rain Forest tribes example works well. What I meant was that, unless the Space Wolves are intentionally stunting the growth of Fenris' society, the tribes would eventually fade away due to their own changes in tech and culture.
I play the Space Wolves because they are the Rebellious yet Loyal ones, not the good ones. I for one, actually liked the fact that Prospero was burned and the Thousand Sons were forced to become traitor.
McNinja wrote:No it is not, and I actually think that the Rain Forest tribes example works well. What I meant was that, unless the Space Wolves are intentionally stunting the growth of Fenris' society, the tribes would eventually fade away due to their own changes in tech and culture.
Oh i see!
Your logic works in real life (although i suppose someone could argue environmental factors are against them), but i think its less a matter of the Space Wolves intentionally stunting growth and more that this is "fictional fiat" by the designers of 40HK.
As in, "We want Viking Space Marines, so they obviously have to recruit from a rough and harsh world - that will always remain a roguh and harsh world"
I can't remember who made the comment (Baron perhaps?), but someone did say that the 40K universe tends to be very static at times.
Ultramar will always remain picture perfect even after Tyranid invasions. Necromunda will always be a hell-hole. etc. etc.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:I'm sorry, at what point did I become obligated to address your inane tangential arguments?
About the same point I was obligated to smile and tolerate your arrogant attitude.
You could, and probably should, at any time, lol.
However, you do an about face in the next sentence, stating the war in Afghanistan is not a war of conquest, and cite several examples of US wars of conquest, and imply that what the Tau were practicing was a war of conquest.
They Tau were. The US is not in Afgahnistan. However, that doesn't make their motives altruistic either. There's just no benefit to the United States to conquer Afghanistan, so that's not what they are doing. I mean, I understand this stuff is somewhat complex, but if you don't understand it, you shouldn't be arguing it. I mean, I know the fundamentals of bridge building, but I'm not going to argue with an architect.
So, nice flip flop, you managed to imply they were the same and different in a very few sentences and say almost nothing about the differences. Mitt Romney would be proud. You did not actually give a clear cut answer until the post I'm responding to.
No matter how you try to character assassinate me, it doesn't make anything you said there true, lol.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Actually, point of fact, the Imperium effectively makes worlds Vassal states in the traditional sense, not directly ruled by them. (Though, this has never really slowed Empires down from claiming the lands of a vassal as their own territory. See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)
In the case of Taros, what we have is a vassal state which suddenly decided to change sides, and the Imperium trying to send a message to any others in the area that might be harboring the same ideas. Which, similar (in political result, not the actual battle) to the clades Variana (Quintili Vare, legiones redde!), backfires spectacularly.
Actually, if you want to make the comparison to Rome, it is far more like the governorships granted over conquered provinces. The fact that there are inherited rulerships on certain planets, and that the Imperium doesn't (and cannot) bother itself with the particulars as long as the Tithe (or other obligation) is met, doesn't mean that the planets or systems are vassal states with an "opt out" clause in their agreements with the Imperium.
Yes, you are correct the Imperium would have attacked to send the message. But that was secondary to attacking to preserve one of its assets.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:There's just no benefit to the United States to conquer Afghanistan, so that's not what they are doing. I mean, I understand this stuff is somewhat complex, but if you don't understand it, you shouldn't be arguing it. I mean, I know the fundamentals of bridge building, but I'm not going to argue with an architect.
I probably understand it better than you. No, it benefits the US to not conquer it and make it a puppet state [I mean, come on, the highest officials have almost universally admitted to being on the CIA payroll]. After all, conquering would also bring US laws into play, which would undercut the handsome profits the CIA has been making (65 billion dollars per annum, supposedly to 'track the flow of drugs') off the 657% increase in opium production since the US invasion. (According to a UN report)
The old days of the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, and the Golden Crescent are here again.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:No matter how you try to character assassinate me, it doesn't make anything you said there true, lol.
I hate to point this out vet, but anyone with the patience to wade through your attempts to obfuscate your position can see what I said was true. Unfortunately, most people here don't give enough of a damn about what you think to work through it.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Actually, if you want to make the comparison to Rome, it is far more like the governorships granted over conquered provinces. The fact that there are inherited rulerships on certain planets, and that the Imperium doesn't (and cannot) bother itself with the particulars as long as the Tithe (or other obligation) is met, doesn't mean that the planets or systems are vassal states with an "opt out" clause in their agreements with the Imperium.
Yes, you are correct the Imperium would have attacked to send the message. But that was secondary to attacking to preserve one of its assets.
I might point out that's exactly what provinces started doing during the fall Rome. Zosimus records a very similar act in Britannia in the early 5th century, which proceeded to spread like wildfire throughout Gaul. (The difference, of course, being that they opted for independence rather then joining a new empire). The Romans made efforts to regain control, but these almost universally collapsed, due to the ongoing Germanic wars.
Is it really up to the Space Marine Chapters to provide "public goods" - such as education, healthcare, etc, to the respective recruiting planets?
They govern them.
Is any government obligated to do anything other than continue its own existence?
They don't all govern them. The Crimson Fists on Rynns World couldn't give two gaks about how they govern themselves nor who is in command of the populace. All that they needed was fresh recruits and to be left the hell alone while training them.
They were completely hands-off when it came to day-to-day governance. They only took over during the Ork invasion.
Is it really up to the Space Marine Chapters to provide "public goods" - such as education, healthcare, etc, to the respective recruiting planets?
They govern them.
Is any government obligated to do anything other than continue its own existence?
They don't all govern them.
Yes they do. Or do you say that a parent who abandons their child (while still expecting the child to pay rent) has no obligation to care for the child?
They own those planets, draw resources off of them, draw recruits off of them.
Just because they're incompetent doesn't mean that they don't govern them. Apparently it's okay for Space Marines to do whatever the hell they want with their planets, but the Imperium, which actually bothers to try to keep order and provide for its citizens, is EEVVULL because it occasionally fails at its duties, which are far wider ranging than that of the Astartes.
Is it really up to the Space Marine Chapters to provide "public goods" - such as education, healthcare, etc, to the respective recruiting planets?
They govern them.
Is any government obligated to do anything other than continue its own existence?
They don't all govern them.
Yes they do. Or do you say that a parent who abandons their child (while still expecting the child to pay rent) has no obligation to care for the child?
They own those planets, draw resources off of them, draw recruits off of them.
Just because they're incompetent doesn't mean that they don't govern them. Apparently it's okay for Space Marines to do whatever the hell they want with their planets, but the Imperium, which actually bothers to try to keep order and provide for its citizens, is EEVVULL because it occasionally fails at its duties, which are far wider ranging than that of the Astartes.
Yay marine fanboys.
yay, nonsensical marine-hate.
Anyways, the Space Wolves don't actively keep Fenris down they just don't do anything to improve the lives of Fenrisians. Although, even if they could which they can't, they wouldn't.
Because you have no answer to everything I said, you simply label it "marine hate" so that you get to ignore it. How clever.
But the point remains, if the Imperium gets to be called evil when it actually tries to provide for its citizens, Marines should be called evil whenever they outright ignore theirs.
Melissia wrote:Yes they do. Or do you say that a parent who abandons their child (while still expecting the child to pay rent) has no obligation to care for the child?
They own those planets, draw resources off of them, draw recruits off of them.
Just because they're incompetent doesn't mean that they don't govern them. Apparently it's okay for Space Marines to do whatever the hell they want with their planets, but the Imperium, which actually bothers to try to keep order and provide for its citizens, is EEVVULL because it occasionally fails at its duties, which are far wider ranging than that of the Astartes.
Yay marine fanboys.
Actually he's right. Fleet based chapters don't govern the worlds they recruit from. The Black Templars being the most notable example of this, though examples can be shown for Dark Angels and Blood Ravens. (Meridian being a recruiting world of the Blood Ravens, however, it has an Imperial governor and answers to the administratum.)
Rulership is peculiar to SM chapters granted a domain (such as, brrrr, the Ultramarines).
Because you have no answer to everything I said, you simply label it "marine hate" so that you get to ignore it. How clever.
But the point remains, if the Imperium gets to be called evil when it actually tries to provide for its citizens, Marines should be called evil whenever they outright ignore theirs.
As if just throwing out the there that the world suffers from marine fanboyism is clever too and requires a well though out response. You like to throw the term strawman around. You're using a strawman for a debate that isn't even happening.
Is it really up to the Space Marine Chapters to provide "public goods" - such as education, healthcare, etc, to the respective recruiting planets?
They govern them.
Is any government obligated to do anything other than continue its own existence?
They don't all govern them.
Yes they do. Or do you say that a parent who abandons their child (while still expecting the child to pay rent) has no obligation to care for the child?
They own those planets, draw resources off of them, draw recruits off of them.
Just because they're incompetent doesn't mean that they don't govern them. Apparently it's okay for Space Marines to do whatever the hell they want with their planets, but the Imperium, which actually bothers to try to keep order and provide for its citizens, is EEVVULL because it occasionally fails at its duties, which are far wider ranging than that of the Astartes.
Yay marine fanboys.
U mad bro?
They volunteer to join the Crimson Fists. They aren't drafted.
The Crimson Fists don't own Rynns World. They have had a fortress monestary there. They protected the citizens during the Ork invasion. Further, it has nothing to do with incompetence. They have a completely "hands off" policy there. The people govern themselves. You know, personal freedom? Why do you hate personal freedom? Are you a communist? We already know you're an elitist from your discussions about people that work at McDonalds.
BaronIveagh wrote:I hate to point this out vet, but anyone with the patience to wade through your attempts to obfuscate your position can see what I said was true. Unfortunately, most people here don't give enough of a damn about what you think to work through it.
I'm going to spell this out for you son.
You brought up Afghanistan, not me. I don't have to give an opinion on it, and honestly, this is neither the time nor place to hash out the socio-political intricacies of American foreign policy. This is idiocy of the highest (lowest?) level. I mean, I could ask you your stance on abortion, and it wouldn't have anything to do with the Tau either. Stop trying to use this as a talking point. It's absolutely moronic, and has nothing to do with the thread. And I guarantee you that I know more about you on this subject. I'm just 100% not interested in this subject at all. This is a 40K forum. If you want to debate American foreign policy, there are plenty of places for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TermiesInARaider wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Melissia wrote:Yes, that's what anarchists try to tell me it's about. Personally, I don't buy it.
Anarchy is over-rated. It's fun for a little while, but gets tedious.
Yes, tedious. With a side of looting, rape, and murder.
The tedium comes after. Most of the rape and murder is the "fun".
Melissia wrote:Russ Mandarin-- yes, that is certainly ONE perspective one can take about the situation. Not the only one.
It was the perspective taken by Russ himself in that Fenris was to remain the death world that it was despite the terraformers of Terra being able to change it.
I look at it more akin to a person that was born and raised on a farm versus a person that was born and raised in the city. A person from the city cannot grasp what is needed to live on a farm and neither can the person from the farm grasp the intricacies of the city. So the perspective selected by individuals saying the SW keep Fenris in a state of perpetual savagery does not align with what the SW believe as anything odd or extraordinary. Whereas the SW would look to the empires of say the Ultramarines and view it as a breeding ground for the weak, which would not match what the Ultras perspective of it would be.
Interestingly enough, the very noble Blood Angels recruit from Baal, a world stricken by a poisonous and radioactive atmosphere which is part of their selection process to which their geneseed changes them into the form they take as represented by the model line.
Brother Ramses wrote:It was the perspective taken by Russ himself
That doesn't necessarily do much to support your argument.
Brother Ramses wrote:I look at it more akin to a person that was born and raised on a farm versus a person that was born and raised in the city. A person from the city cannot grasp what is needed to live on a farm and neither can the person from the farm grasp the intricacies of the city.
That's not particularly true in real life.
Culture shock is always present in these situations, but most people can adapt.
Mel, if this thread were about the Ultramarines you'd argue that they are evil for being too involved in their people's lives. You don't really have an opinion on this you are just applying Melissia's Razor: When presented with two explanations choose the one that makes Space Marines marines suck more.
Brother Ramses wrote:It was the perspective taken by Russ himself
That doesn't necessarily do much to support your argument.
Brother Ramses wrote:I look at it more akin to a person that was born and raised on a farm versus a person that was born and raised in the city. A person from the city cannot grasp what is needed to live on a farm and neither can the person from the farm grasp the intricacies of the city.
That's not particularly true in real life.
Culture shock is always present in these situations, but most people can adapt.
They both support my argument quite nicely.
As Russ intended has been a mantra recited by SW forever and has been integral to their survival. It closely ties with the belief system held by the SW that you learn by doing and remembering, not writing crap down and only reciting that which you have not learned personally. From an outside perspective it appears barbaric and inhumane, yet when put into practice it has worked for the SW since Russ was discovered on Fenris and made the decision to keep it a deathworld.
So while a civilian of Ultrmar can look at the deathworld that the SW maintain as a recruiting asset and say,
"How barbarian and inhumane!"
The Fenrisian civilian is more then likely to say,
"How weak and pampered!"
Yet what works for the Ultras works for the Ultras and likewise for the SW with results backing both methods.
Brother Ramses wrote:
As Russ intended has been a mantra recited by SW forever and has been integral to their survival. It closely ties with the belief system held by the SW that you learn by doing and remembering, not writing crap down and only reciting that which you have not learned personally. From an outside perspective it appears barbaric and inhumane, yet when put into practice it has worked for the SW since Russ was discovered on Fenris and made the decision to keep it a deathworld.
So while a civilian of Ultrmar can look at the deathworld that the SW maintain as a recruiting asset and say,
"How barbarian and inhumane!"
The Fenrisian civilian is more then likely to say,
"How weak and pampered!"
Yet what works for the Ultras works for the Ultras and likewise for the SW with results backing both methods.
I think that's pretty much the best summary regarding this thread - what is "good" for the people of Fenris or if the Space Wolves are "good" or honorable or however else one wishes to characterize it is simply in the eye of the beholder.
I've got two choices here - dig deeply into the thread, find out what the heck started the digression into American foreign policy, and hand out a whole bunch of moderator sanctions, or terminate the thread.
I think we'll let it end on Brother Ramses on-topic summary.
